I have been reflecting on the news article written by Clare Dyer (8th
February 2003, P304) about the appeal court quashing Sally Clark’s
conviction and I am deeply troubled about it.
As a doctor registered with the General Medical Council I am rightly
advised to make the care of my patients my first concern. This injunction
appears as first among the list of duties of a doctor. As a public health
doctor my patients are the community among whom children merit a high
degree of attention. Babies and children too young to talk or defend
themselves merit an even higher degree of professional attention. I have
chosen to make the control of communicable disease the focus of my
practice. It is with some surprise to me that the trail judge appears to
have accepted sudden death with reported findings of retinal haemorrhages,
fractured rib and bruised legs as being possibly due to staphlococcus
aureus. Staphylococcus aureus is a potentially nasty pathogen and has
killed thousands, but I have not seen this set of findings associated with
it previously.
Pathologists and paediatricians involved in the case have been
referred to the GMC and their professional reputations besmirched by the
media. The willingness of other doctors to get involved in such cases must
be deteriorating fast.
What ever about the rights and wrongs of the Sally Clark case, for
the sake of the next generation of children put at risk by those who
should be caring for them I urge the British Medical Association to move
promptly to speak up as an advocate for the doctors involved now. I also
call on the General Medical Council to move speedily to deal in a fair and
open way with the complaints made about the doctors involved. If doctors
with the skills and experience to work on child abuse cases are
discouraged we are all guilty of ignoring the plea from the next battered
child who cries “who will speak for me?”
Yours sincerely
Martin Schweiger
CCDC / MOEH (Leeds)
BMA Number 6558688
Competing interests:
Public health medicine consultant
Rapid Response:
Who will speak for the next battered child?
Dear Editor
I have been reflecting on the news article written by Clare Dyer (8th
February 2003, P304) about the appeal court quashing Sally Clark’s
conviction and I am deeply troubled about it.
As a doctor registered with the General Medical Council I am rightly
advised to make the care of my patients my first concern. This injunction
appears as first among the list of duties of a doctor. As a public health
doctor my patients are the community among whom children merit a high
degree of attention. Babies and children too young to talk or defend
themselves merit an even higher degree of professional attention. I have
chosen to make the control of communicable disease the focus of my
practice. It is with some surprise to me that the trail judge appears to
have accepted sudden death with reported findings of retinal haemorrhages,
fractured rib and bruised legs as being possibly due to staphlococcus
aureus. Staphylococcus aureus is a potentially nasty pathogen and has
killed thousands, but I have not seen this set of findings associated with
it previously.
Pathologists and paediatricians involved in the case have been
referred to the GMC and their professional reputations besmirched by the
media. The willingness of other doctors to get involved in such cases must
be deteriorating fast.
What ever about the rights and wrongs of the Sally Clark case, for
the sake of the next generation of children put at risk by those who
should be caring for them I urge the British Medical Association to move
promptly to speak up as an advocate for the doctors involved now. I also
call on the General Medical Council to move speedily to deal in a fair and
open way with the complaints made about the doctors involved. If doctors
with the skills and experience to work on child abuse cases are
discouraged we are all guilty of ignoring the plea from the next battered
child who cries “who will speak for me?”
Yours sincerely
Martin Schweiger
CCDC / MOEH (Leeds)
BMA Number 6558688
Competing interests:
Public health medicine consultant
Competing interests: No competing interests