Doctor accused of misrepresenting evidence in child abuse cases
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7433.187-a (Published 22 January 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:187
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Will the GMC please explain to the general public how striking
pathologist Dr Colin Paterson off the UK medical register has helped to
protect patients in this country?
If Dr Paterson has, as alleged by the GMC, misrepresented medical
evidence, then many of the scores of injured children who were returned to
their families following his 'woeful' testimony and 'unproven theories' in
child abuse cases will have gone on to be harmed by their abusive parents.
The public need to know how many of these children have, in fact,
gone on to be harmed. No doubt the relevant welfare bodies, and the GMC,
who claim to be so concerned about children, will have closely followed
this and can provide the vital information.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the Family Division of the
High Courts also needs to explain to the British public why the
scientifically unproven theories of Munchausen by Proxy (how regrettable
that the research has all been shredded) have been given such overwhelming
prominence by paediatricians, and others, in the field of so-called child
protection.
The public may also wonder how on earth it can be acceptable for a
psychological assessment of the parent, or carer, to be made by a
paediatrician who, in some cases, has never even met the parent? Perhaps
Alan Craft, of the Royal College, could justify this to us all? I think we
need to know, in the interest of the nation's children and family life
generally.
Furthermore, given that the Munchausen by Proxy theory is, in fact,
just that - a theory - parents needs to be told how much proper, rigorous,
scientific research is currently being carried out into the vitally
important area of unexplained infant injuries, illnesses and death.
Grieving parents should expect nothing less.
We also need to know what attempts the medical profession, health
workers - and other organisations who are paid by the British taxpayer to
work in the lucrative child prosecution industry - are making to protect,
rather than destroy, fragile families some of whom are experiencing very
difficult situations such as child illness (sometimes iatrogenic) poverty
and divorce.
I wonder if, in fact, the final nail in Dr Paterson's coffin were
grateful testimonies from families whom Dr Paterson had not only travelled
hundreds of miles to help, but whom he hadn't even charged a fee!
Is there really so little room in our medico-legal system for
practitioners with compassion and integrity?
When are we going to stop allowing our children to be used as pawns
in a game of ego, power and greed, played out by so-called professionals
who have lost sight of the true picture?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is a sad reflection of both the medical and legal professions that
controversial experts are allowed to make repeated testimony in courts of
law. It would appear that Dr Paterson, by his own claims, has been
responsible for over 60 children being returned to their parents following
charges of abuse. Who is, or has, taken the responsibility to follow up
every single one of those children and report on their outcome? If even
one child has suffered again then it will be a tragedy but, and this is a
very important but..what if none of the children have suffered again? What
then do we think about the dodgy expert?
Child abuse is emotive and emotional and will remain so whilst it is dealt
with by performing barristers in Courts of Law with Jury trial. The
spectrum of non-accidental injury is wide indeed and sadistic abuse,
negligence and moments of madness in exhausted parents need far more
analytical dissection by dispassionate professionals concerned with the
future of the child than the punishment of the parent/carer. Sadistic and
evil abuse of a child is a heinous crime and needs the full force of the
white wigs but poor parenting, thoughtlessness, ignorance, exhaustion can
all put a child at serious risk of harm and if a child thereby be so
harmed, no court of law should judge the case but rather it should be
referred to representatives of the concept of Social Justice. Of course
the Law has some place in this but not a central role, or perhaps we
should say not a role of punishment but a role of prevention.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr Paterson's theory of "temporary brittle bone disease" may be
extreme but why is his evidence "woeful" ? Surely it is for the court to
decide whether or not to accept his expert evidence. For the GMC to charge
him with "misrepresenting medical evidence" smacks of thought
control. Remember the theory of H.Pylori and gastric ulcers was initially
dismissed as rubbish.
Iain Stewart
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Dr Paterson and the GMC
Editor,
“There are only two things that are Infinite – the Universe and Human
Stupidity. And I am not too sure about the former” Albert Einstein.
The striking off the Register of Dr Colin Paterson by the GMC is a
classical example of the latter.
Dr Paterson should be rewarded for drawing the attention of
profession to the fact that in some infants (usually premature) there is a
disparity between the formation of osteoid and the mineralization of that
osteoid. As a result of this disparity fractures may occur but as the
child grows older mineralization and osteoid formation are synchronised
and the tendency to fractures ceases.
Dr Paterson, as the discoverer of the condition, was perfectly
entitled to name it Temporary Brittle Bone Disease (TBBD). That was his
prerogative.
Others may wish to call the condition Osteopenia of Prematurity or
Rickets of Prematurity but the pathophysiology remains unchanged.
Judging from the treatment meted out to Dr Paterson it would seem the
Profession is still in the dark ages when it comes to the diagnosis of
TBBD.
“ ..human nature is such that men do not look with favour upon
discoveries made …in their own field when made by others than themselves.”
Galileo Galilei.[1]
In the area of Radiological and Paediatric diagnosis Galileo could
have included both men and women as looking with disfavour upon Dr
Paterson’s discovery.
Michael Innis
Reference:
1. Galileo Galilei Concerning Two New Sciences Great Books of the
Western World Mortimer J Adler Editor in Chief ENCYLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA,
INC vol 26 p 166
Competing interests:
I agree with Dr Paterson's exlanation of TBBD and can produce one of my own. If the GMC wish me to demonstrate it just give me the email address and I'll send a Power Point demonstration.
Competing interests: No competing interests