This article has a correction
Please see: Indirect comparison meta-analysis of aspirin therapy after coronary surgery
- A W Craft, professor of child health1,
- D M B Hall, professor of community paediatrics (d.hall@sheffield.ac.uk)2
- 1Sir James Spence Department of Child Health, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP
- 2Institute of General Practice, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, S6 6GY
- Correspondence to: D M B Hall
- Accepted 7 May 2004
Media vilification of paediatricians acting in cases of alleged child abuse has resulted in widespread confusion about research data and threatens the systems to protect vulnerable children. How should we move forward?
Everyone can empathise with the grief of parents who have lost a baby and even more so with the nightmare scenario of being wrongly held responsible for the child's death. It is therefore not surprising that the media showed intense interest in three recent cases in which mothers were accused of murdering their babies.1 Nothing in this article should be construed as personal opinion on any individual case, but we are concerned that everything we have learnt over the past 40 years about sudden infant death syndrome and the spectrum of child abuse seems to have been forgotten.
Attacks on paediatricians who give evidence in child protection casesw1 and journalists' use of phrases like “Meadow's discredited theory of Munchausen syndrome by proxy” have left the public and the health professions anxious and bewildered. In this paper we outline the evolving understanding of the relation between unexplained death in infancy and child abuse, draw lessons from recent events, and offer proposals for the future.
History
Caffey described what was undoubtedly child abuse in 1946w2 but was reluctant to draw the obvious conclusions. Another 16 years passed before Kempe and colleagues published their seminal paper on the battered child syndrome in 1962.w3 At about the same time, the problem of “cot death” began to attract interest. The phenomenon of unexplained death in previously well babies had been known for centuries and was blamed on overlying, “status thymolymphaticus,” witchcraft, and many other causes, including infanticide.
The first major conference on cot death was held in Seattle in 1963, and the possibility that some such deaths might be due …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27