Skip to main content

Paediatricians and Child Protection

There has been much debate recently about Export Witnesses, Paediatricians, the GMC and Child Protection. A lot of the difficulties arise from the mismatch between medical decision-making and legal decision-making. However, there are other factors that need looking at. Given a bit of spare time today I will make a start at consolidating information about this.

It is worth looking at a few facts first. People who act as Expert Witnesses in the Family Court get paid substantial sums for their reports. The government is proposing to change the system. However, it is important to recognise that there is a financial interest in the system for expert witnesses.

Secondly, often Family Court judges will refuse second opinions. Even the Court of Appeal will refuse a second opinion. What this means is that if an expert states that a parent is guilty of child abuse frequently there is little that the parent can do.

A number of the theories which are used for expert opinion in the courts are simply theories. There has been no proper peer reviewed research to justify the claims. The theories that cause most difficulty here are the issue of fractures, Shaken Baby Syndrome, MSbP (FII by Proxy) and also salt poisoning.

There is, of course, a difficulty here that we must not simply go around shaking children in the interests of finding out what happens when they are shaken. The fact that the research is difficult does not mean that we should accept unproven assertions.

About a year ago Victoria Ward was lucky enough to win against expert allegations of fractures. That meant that she was not banned from being a mother. She was lucky that an additional expert opinion was allowed. Sadly there are many other cases that went the other way. The Eaton Foundation are aware of this.

However, we are not allowed to know who the experts were in that case. The argument that paediatricians use is that unless they can be immune from any consequences they will not raise concerns about child abuse.

The problem is that there is a substantial difference between having a suspicion, a reasonable suspicion or providing evidence to justify an allegation of child abuse. If someone is being paid thousands of pounds to provide evidence that they claim justifies legal action then they need to be accountable for what they are saying.

If someone was merely saying to a colleague that the situation looks iffy and needs a bit more medical investigation then that is one issue. However, if someone writes a detailed report for which they receive a large fee then it is a completely different situation.

We also face the situation where treating dcotors have been allowed to point the finger of suspicion for a child's death away from the hospital where the child was treated (negligence) towards a parent (manslaughter).

Happily the police are becoming more sensitive to this potential and procedures within the police forces and CPS are changing. We should not be surprised, however, if some doctors act in their own self-interest from time to time.

The case of David Southall had its own unique conflict of interest. David Southall enrolled the children taken into care into his research projects. He, therefore, provided the evidence to take them into care (later disproven) and used them as his lab subjects.

The special pleading by the RCPCH really does need to be properly challenged. Are they RCPCH really saying that there is no need for a doctor to be able to justify the allegations that they make merely because they are doctors. In theory the GMC requires that professionals only give evidence within their own area of speciality. We know, however, that this rule is not adhered to.

It will be interesting to see where the government's proposals go. When it comes to medical opinion being accepted as fact within court then there needs to be far more certainty. This is not yet proposed by government although they have been sympathetic to the points I have raised.

Doctors cannot be immune from being held to account for their professional opinion. If they want to be taken seriously (and to be paid for their opinion) then when they spout nonsense there needs to be an appropriate sanction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: