GMC finds paediatrician guilty of abusing his position

The "lay campaigners", the parents falsely accused and other
interested parties involved in the MSbP debate have consistently been
accused of harassing doctors involved in child protection by making death
threats, sending hate mail etc. I have, over the last 6 months, had to
vigorously defend "our" position too a disbelieving media, telling them
that as far as I am aware, not one member of MAMA (www.msbp.com) who is a
genuine member of that web site's discussion forum, has done any of the
things alleged by the RCPCH.

We have, just as the BMJ has, had an impostor on our board for well
over 6 months now, that person intimidated and threatened parents and made
direct threats against me. When that didn't silence parents, that same
impostor then started posting death threats against paediatricians in
order to make it look as if MAMA members were responsible. All of this is
in the hands of the police at present.

I don't know what it is about allegations of MSbP that provoke such
intense feelings in people that then drives them to take such action.
Perhaps the answer lies in David Southall's allegation that Stephen Clark
murdered his sons, a typical example of some of the current dogmatic
beliefs held in child protection work. Such an extreme and
unsubstantiated allegation probably invokes an equally extreme reaction.
What do you do when you are met with such idealism? My experience is that
you either side with that extreme view with fervour or rigidly oppose it.
That's how entrenched positions are created. Not helpful to child
protection at all.

Perhaps when the BMJ has taken it's legal advice, they will be able
to explain to other readers what has actually gone on here and perhaps the
BMJ, the media at large and the RCPCH will begin to believe that they
never had anything to fear from "us" the "lay campaigners", concerned
individuals and falsely accused parents, all we ever wanted was the truth.

Any member of the medical profession who has received any form of
threat should take it to the police. In particular if it was sent via
email as it can be traced back to a single computer no matter how many
email accounts it has come through.

I wonder will the RCPCH take me up on my offer now, will you meet the
falsely accused parents to work towards a better child protection system?

Competing interests:
Campaigner against false allegations of MSbP.

Not impersonating anyone.

To whom it may concern?

Re " The self appointed campaigners "

Agenda for lobby February 14th 1995

In 1991/92 it became apparent via the media (in those days there was
no internet) that there were a very small number of parents spread
throughout the UK who were claiming that they had been falsely accused of
MSBP, at the beginning it was protestations of our innocence and then
later when we had ALL had our children returned we attempted to create an
awareness of the wrongful accusation of MSBP and the removal of children
on the back of that allegation. This was incredibly difficult however
because unlike Rochdale, Cleveland, and Orkney these cases were very
cleverly (some might say) spread out across the UK so there was no cluster
or pattern. The thing that some of these cases had in common were two
names, Dr Roy Meadow, & Dr David Southall. The common denominator in
all of them was Dr David Southall!

We made every attempt to raise awareness NO ONE in authority would
take any notice, they were just being told by Meadow Southall et all that
these parents were all MSBP cases and so proven liars - therefore to be
ignored. This attitude was adopted by all the so-called child protection
agencies also.

On the 14th February 1995 a very small number of innocent families
lobbied the General Medical Council, the BMA, the DoH and the House of
Commons. We handed in a petition to the General Medical Council.

I have recently found the basis of that Lobby and I will give you a
few extracts
.
“We mothers want a Cleveland style inquiry into the way that suspected
Muncheuson Syndrome by Proxy abusers and their babies are being treated.”

“In May 1994 we offered to let the BPA study our cases, the offer was
ignored, and the Lancet supported us.”

“Our concerns are not restricted to Professor Southall and his child
abuse team…….. Specialists everywhere do not understand MSBP. They cannot
even agree on what it is. We suffer from their ignorance and confusion.”

“Dozens of mothers have been falsely accused, their babies mistakenly
being taken into care and some may even have been wrongly put up for
adoption.”

The secrecy of the children’s courts prevents the public knowing
about this, but we know because we are the proof of false accusations
which the secrecy enables the doctors to deny are happening. We are
willing to let our cases be investigated.”

“Experts say that the work of the doctors in Staffordshire is
unethical and that research on mothers and babies has been undertaken
there without the approval of the local ethics committee or the consent of
parents. (See Journal of Medical Ethics February 1995)”

“Last month the DoH slipped out a new guidance which officially told
social workers they should deceive mothers and conceal from them suspicion
of abuse during official investigation, when they most need legal help and
a second expert medical opinion.
This is unfair, unjust; a breach of human rights and will be misused by
overzealous doctors and social workers. It ignores Cleveland
recommendations. We believe it will result in an explosion of false MSBP
child abuse allegations, a false allegation is child abuse too.”

“This guidance must be withdrawn before any more damage is done and
there must be an official inquiry into Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. We
want the GMC to examine what doctors are doing to mothers and babies. We
want the BMA to discuss our concerns tomorrow Wednesday in its Ethics
Committee Meeting. We want MP’s to take notice.”

This was just a few families, no organised campaign, and certainly
not a group of parents saying that child abuse did not exist, not even
claiming that MSBP did not exist, just trying to raise concerns about the
way these accusations, diagnosis’ were being made, and the horrific
terrifying effect that wrongful allegation had on innocent families.

This was long before Sally Clark, Trupti Pattell or Angela Cannings
and before concerns were raised in relation to CNEP
I have no contact with those original families now, time has moved on but
I am certain that none of us will glean any pleasure that we are in the
position of being able to say “ We told you so!” All we feel is great
sadness and a deep regret that we did not achieve our aim soon enough!!

Competing interests:
None declared

Penny Mellor has a misconception of the role of the GMC, summed up in
her phrase, for multiple complainants, "their day in court". The
Professional Conduct Committee is not a court for the righting of wrongs.
The GMC's relevant role is as a body granting a professional licence to
practise. When the competence, probity, etc, of a practitioner is called
into question, e.g. by a complaint, then this committee considers the
continuing registration of the practitioner and whether cautions,
suspension or erasure should be applied. That is its only role.

As a court for the righting of wrongs - "tort" in civil law - the
committee is signally ill-equipped and badly constituted. There are other
courts, with the power of awarding damages, where alleged torts can be
addressed. The GMC has recently appeared to those complainants who feel
wronged as an alternative to the civil courts of law. However, this trend
needs to be checked. It has the potential to confuse the process of
doctors' regulation to the detriment of both the medical safety of the
people and, ultimately, their right to justice.

Competing interests:
None declared

Ed Cooper has raised the double edged sword which only a public
inquiry can resolve - when can we expect this to begin?

Competing interests:
Specialist and Expert Witness in ASD and ADHD spectrum disorders