Doctors in shaken baby syndrome case are accused of “scientific prejudice”
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1989 (Published 13 April 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1989
All rapid responses
Editor,
The meeting to which Professor Furness alludes was an "invitation
only" meeting with much discussion on the "triad" of postmortem findings
of the so-called Shaken Baby Syndrome. No mention was made of the
coagulopathy which these infants suffer [1-4].
Until the various Royal Colleges are prepared to instruct their
members that each and every element of the "triad " can be found in a
child with a nutritional deficiency of Vitamin C or K they are in danger
of falsely accusing innocent caregivers of child abuse.
Michael Innis
Reference
1. Scheibner V. Shaken Baby Syndrome on Shaky Ground. [Journal Article]
Journal of Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
Vol. 20 No. 2; 2001 August
2. Clemetson CAB Vaccinations, Inoculations and Ascorbic Acid. J
Ortho Mol Med (1999) vol 14No 3 137 - 142
3. Kalokerinos A. Every Second Child. pp 27 –32 1981 Thomas Nelson
(Australia ) Ltd
4. Innis MD. Vitamin K Deficiency Disease Jour Ortho Mol Med
2008;23: 15-20
Competing interests:
As previously declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Royal College of Pathologists is aware of major differences of
opinion between different pathologists in the interpretation of post-
mortem findings in cases of suspected non-accidental injury in children
(so-called ‘shaken baby syndrome). It is for this reason that the College
organised a meeting on this subject in December 2009 – a meeting at which
the pathologists mentioned in Claire Dyer’s article attended. The report
of that meeting, setting out areas of agreement and disagreement, is
available on the College’s website - www.rcpath.org. The text of that
report was agreed by all who attended the meeting.
One of the main conclusions of the report is to highlight the need
for more research in this area. However, since 2006 any research that
involves the post-mortem tissues of a child has been unlawful unless a
parent gives consent for that research (Human Tissue Act 2004). In the
present context, this often means obtaining the consent of an individual
who has been charged with (or convicted of) killing the child in question.
The Department of Health has been informed of the obvious difficulty that
this causes but has declined to take any action.
Professor Peter Furness, President
The Royal College of Pathologists
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Unshakeable minds
“It frightens me because it’s not just making the wrong diagnosis;
it’s actually wrecking people’s lives.” [1]
As Wayney Squier was saying those words, she was thinking of Lorraine
Harris, whose son Patrick, she’d diagnosed as dying from shaken baby
syndrome.
Lorraine Harris had been 3 years in prison - for shaking her son to
death - when Waney Squier was interviewed by John Sweeney for a programme
on BBC television. Dr Squier was worried at the part she’d played in the
conviction of Lorraine Harris. She went on to say,
”In fact, as a result of that interview, I was asked to appear in the
court of appeal in 2005 when her case was heard. Her conviction was
quashed, and the situation really went home to me when her solicitor, a
delightful man called Campbell Malone, had to ring her and say, ‘Well
Lorraine, your conviction was wrong.’ Firstly, when the baby died she was
taken to prison and she wasn’t allowed to go to his funeral. Her five-year
-old child was taken away and adopted while she was in prison, and when
she came out she was only allowed access twice a year. Her husband had
left her and her parents had died. Her baby died of a natural disease, and
yet the system has wrecked her life about as comprehensively as it’s
possible to do.”
Lorraine Harris is not alone: rigid, unshakeable belief in the
“triad” has led to a string of misjudgements and wrecked lives. In her
interview with Sue Armstrong, Waney Squier goes on to say,
“… we’ve all made mistakes and we’ve all moved on . But it still
worries me, because the amount of information we have is often
insufficient to be absolutely certain of a diagnosis of non-accidental
injury. Often the best you can say is: ‘I really don’t know.’ And that
isn’t helpful to lawyers. The police hate it. But if it’s honest, then
it’s what we have to say.”
The idea that it is better that ten guilty offenders are acquitted
than one innocent person be wrongly convicted is a principle of British
justice that today’s judiciary appear to have forgotten – too often with
tragic consequences.
[1] Waney Squier. Shaken babies and unshakeable minds. A matter of
life and death: conversations with pathologists. Sue Armstrong. Dundee
University Press 2008.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests