Skip to main content

LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray [2012] EWHC 865 (Fam)

I have now read the Judgment in the case LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray [2012] EWHC 865 (Fam) This is a significant case in that it is not just about Vitamin D, but also about SBS. In essence we have a case where a child develops the symptoms of SBS in hospital. The problem with the science here has always been the ethical problems of proving that the triad can be caused by shaking. There are those that think that this is not possible. I have always been more concerned about looking at the issue of certainty. What is clear is that the certainty that there has been was mistaken.

Comments

Bent Coppers UK said…
John please can you try find out why the police opposed the post mortem and then criticised the testing of the mother and baby for Vit D? Why would they do this? the only reason I can see is to minimise any other reasons of death other than their and the hospital quacks awful accusation that they killed their baby.

The Post Mortem: Dr Scheimberg was instructed by the Coroner to perform the post mortem ( against the express wishes of the police). She observed radiological signs of rickets on the GOSH X rays confirmed by her physical examination of the ribs and skull. She initiated requests for Vit D testing of Jayden and his mother and faced subsequent police criticisms in the criminal trial for so doing.
7:54 pm
Post a Comment