Roy Meadows in disgrace...
Discussion
Anybody can make a mistake, it's only human.
But, and I say this to all, to make the SAME mistake, and to keep making it, is not forgivable, you should learn.
If you cock it up, admit it, then get on with it.
Try to blame somebody else, deflect blame, then I get annoyed.
I would imagine most other PH'ers would too.
maggit
But, and I say this to all, to make the SAME mistake, and to keep making it, is not forgivable, you should learn.
If you cock it up, admit it, then get on with it.
Try to blame somebody else, deflect blame, then I get annoyed.
I would imagine most other PH'ers would too.
maggit
Don't just read the headlines Alex. These kids had clear signs of trauma (see below). The 'cot death' questions were irrelevant as none of the medical expert thought cot death was likely. Meadows mistake was to answer aquwestion that shouldn't have been asked. The judge in the original trial directed the jury to ignore his evidence.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal 11.4.2003
R v Sally Clark
Evidence suggesting injuries to Harry
71 Dr Williams at the post mortem examination carried out on Harry's body
recorded the following findings that suggested the possibility that Harry
had been subjected to violence:
72 (i) haemorrhages to the eyes and eye-lids;
73 (ii)contusional tears in the brain with haemosiderin* in the arachnoid space;
74 (iii)haemorrhage of the spinal cord with haemosiderin discolouration;
75 (iv) a small area of callus formation on the second right rib**; and
76 (v) the dislocation of the costal cartilage of the right first rib from the end of the bony section of the rib.
*haemosiderin = evidence of bleeding
** an old fracture
So far the score is
Dead children 11
Doctors found guilty of professional misconduct 3
Perpetrators convicted 0
Vulnerable children are now less safe because doctors are sh*t scared of giving an opinion.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal 11.4.2003
R v Sally Clark
Evidence suggesting injuries to Harry
71 Dr Williams at the post mortem examination carried out on Harry's body
recorded the following findings that suggested the possibility that Harry
had been subjected to violence:
72 (i) haemorrhages to the eyes and eye-lids;
73 (ii)contusional tears in the brain with haemosiderin* in the arachnoid space;
74 (iii)haemorrhage of the spinal cord with haemosiderin discolouration;
75 (iv) a small area of callus formation on the second right rib**; and
76 (v) the dislocation of the costal cartilage of the right first rib from the end of the bony section of the rib.
*haemosiderin = evidence of bleeding
** an old fracture
So far the score is
Dead children 11
Doctors found guilty of professional misconduct 3
Perpetrators convicted 0
Vulnerable children are now less safe because doctors are sh*t scared of giving an opinion.
simpo two said:
Seems to be that when he gave the advice, that's what the state of medical knowledge was. Then medical knowledge took a step forwards and what made sense then, doesn't now.
So he was wrong, but didn't know he was wrong, IYKWIM.
Not really, the man is an idiot. He made statements about probability that a competant schoolboy would not.
It beggars belief tthat the defense brief didnt take him apart in court.
oddman said:
Don't just read the headlines Alex. These kids had clear signs of trauma (see below). The 'cot death' questions were irrelevant as none of the medical expert thought cot death was likely. Meadows mistake was to answer aquwestion that shouldn't have been asked. The judge in the original trial directed the jury to ignore his evidence.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal 11.4.2003
R v Sally Clark
Evidence suggesting injuries to Harry
71 Dr Williams at the post mortem examination carried out on Harry's body
recorded the following findings that suggested the possibility that Harry
had been subjected to violence:
72 (i) haemorrhages to the eyes and eye-lids;
73 (ii)contusional tears in the brain with haemosiderin* in the arachnoid space;
74 (iii)haemorrhage of the spinal cord with haemosiderin discolouration;
75 (iv) a small area of callus formation on the second right rib**; and
76 (v) the dislocation of the costal cartilage of the right first rib from the end of the bony section of the rib.
*haemosiderin = evidence of bleeding
** an old fracture
So far the score is
Dead children 11
Doctors found guilty of professional misconduct 3
Perpetrators convicted 0
Vulnerable children are now less safe because doctors are sh*t scared of giving an opinion.
#
The evidence againest was This moron was that at least two others disagreed with Meadows findings. Meadows evidence was "weighted" and given preferential treatment. His evidence was then found to be at least flawed. The guy like some "medical experts" let his ego rule above the real evidence. One of his "proteges" even interfered in a legal process after he had been warned not to. I believe that "Munchhausens" is not considered a Medical diagnosis in recognised medical dictionaries despite his so called "proof". The man is another case of ego over fact or "junk Science". What do you want? Son's especially will acquire knocks and bruises. That is their nature. My Own has plenty but at 13 is now able to account HIMSELF for each one. He is a healthy active lad, Swimming, playg tennis, football, running, field, and on his trials bicycle and motorcycle as many days as he can fit in. Yes he is expensive to run but I'd rather have a slightly battered(by himself), happy kid than a over protected Playstation player(and he is on his PS2 as well!).
>> Edited by telecat on Saturday 16th July 00:28
Remember that the courts are also morons for allowing this.
If you get caught speeding, and dare challenge the validity of the LTI 20/20 speedscope, you get an "expert witness" from LaserTech who comes into court and says "It works accurately because it just does" - and the court accepts it.
Same thing here - even experts need to be collaborated. Its wrong to let one person give an expert opinion without backing from at least a team of experts in a case this severe.
Its like convicting with only 1 man on the jury ffs!
If you get caught speeding, and dare challenge the validity of the LTI 20/20 speedscope, you get an "expert witness" from LaserTech who comes into court and says "It works accurately because it just does" - and the court accepts it.
Same thing here - even experts need to be collaborated. Its wrong to let one person give an expert opinion without backing from at least a team of experts in a case this severe.
Its like convicting with only 1 man on the jury ffs!
It is apparent that Meadows used and quoted information from certain studies selectively and out of context to support his theories
The producers of these studies / reports were astounded to find that Meadows was quoting their work and horrified because the reports findings were the exact opposite to the opinion Meadows was attempting to promote.
He was struck off because he was a repsected pediatrician who's views were listened to and as such he had a duty to ensure that what he said was factual, accurate and balanced.
I feel sorry for the many other families who's lives have been turned upside down via confidential family courts based on this characters evidence.
The producers of these studies / reports were astounded to find that Meadows was quoting their work and horrified because the reports findings were the exact opposite to the opinion Meadows was attempting to promote.
He was struck off because he was a repsected pediatrician who's views were listened to and as such he had a duty to ensure that what he said was factual, accurate and balanced.
I feel sorry for the many other families who's lives have been turned upside down via confidential family courts based on this characters evidence.
Egbert Nobacon said:
It is apparent that Meadows used and quoted information from certain studies selectively and out of context to support his theories
The producers of these studies / reports were astounded to find that Meadows was quoting their work and horrified because the reports findings were the exact opposite to the opinion Meadows was attempting to promote.
He was struck off because he was a repsected pediatrician who's views were listened to and as such he had a duty to ensure that what he said was factual, accurate and balanced.
I feel sorry for the many other families who's lives have been turned upside down via confidential family courts based on this characters evidence.
Surely he's decieved and mislead the courts?,along with serious professional misconduct the guy should be tasting some porridge himself.
It seems that there was a Catch22 inevitability about this situation arising. (See articles referenced, especially the second one in the Catch22 context.)
To my way of seeing things exactly the same problems (self fulfilling and self-referencing 'research') exist in most of the other big issues of the day and some of the lesser ones - like the effects of speed cameras.
If society at large and the courts in particular want to be seen to be taking action what is there left to ensure that the 'evidence' presented is indeed fair and accurate? There seem to be so many cases these days where convistions are being overturned years after the event. Why is that?
It seems to be an abuse of good scientific practice on the one hand and the dumbing of scientific teaching ( and therefore general appreciation and well as research standards) on the other. Back to belief systems rather than considered thought but all dressed up as science.
Alchemy and witchcraft has never gone away.
www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC22.htm
www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC20.htm
To my way of seeing things exactly the same problems (self fulfilling and self-referencing 'research') exist in most of the other big issues of the day and some of the lesser ones - like the effects of speed cameras.
If society at large and the courts in particular want to be seen to be taking action what is there left to ensure that the 'evidence' presented is indeed fair and accurate? There seem to be so many cases these days where convistions are being overturned years after the event. Why is that?
It seems to be an abuse of good scientific practice on the one hand and the dumbing of scientific teaching ( and therefore general appreciation and well as research standards) on the other. Back to belief systems rather than considered thought but all dressed up as science.
Alchemy and witchcraft has never gone away.
www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC22.htm
www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC20.htm
oddman said:
Don't just read the headlines Alex. These kids had clear signs of trauma (see below). The 'cot death' questions were irrelevant as none of the medical expert thought cot death was likely. Meadows mistake was to answer aquwestion that shouldn't have been asked. The judge in the original trial directed the jury to ignore his evidence.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal 11.4.2003
R v Sally Clark
Evidence suggesting injuries to Harry
71 Dr Williams at the post mortem examination carried out on Harry's body
recorded the following findings that suggested the possibility that Harry
had been subjected to violence:
72 (i) haemorrhages to the eyes and eye-lids;
73 (ii)contusional tears in the brain with haemosiderin* in the arachnoid space;
74 (iii)haemorrhage of the spinal cord with haemosiderin discolouration;
75 (iv) a small area of callus formation on the second right rib**; and
76 (v) the dislocation of the costal cartilage of the right first rib from the end of the bony section of the rib.
*haemosiderin = evidence of bleeding
** an old fracture
So far the score is
Dead children 11
Doctors found guilty of professional misconduct 3
Perpetrators convicted 0
Vulnerable children are now less safe because doctors are sh*t scared of giving an opinion.
Absolutely.
Whilst I wouldn't defend Prof Meadows, the details of the injuries suffered by the children, in these cases are often pretty horrific.
As an Ophthalmologist, I am often called to examine children when there is a suspicion of NAI (Non-accidental Injury) but fortunately, I don't have to make the decision, but merely report my findings, which may or may not be consistent with NAI and shaken baby syndrome. It's pretty heartbreaking stuff, and often the parents are present whilst I examine the baby.
I think that in the case of Sally Clarke, the injuries that the baby suffered are certainly consistent with shaken baby synd. I think that she has escaped from a deserved prison sentence.
968 said:
As an Ophthalmologist, I am often called to examine children when there is a suspicion of NAI (Non-accidental Injury) but fortunately, I don't have to make the decision, but merely report my findings, which may or may not be consistent with NAI and shaken baby syndrome. It's pretty heartbreaking stuff, and often the parents are present whilst I examine the baby.
Sheesh, something that I genuinely couldnt do. If it were me in that position I am sure emotions would get the better of me.... Glad that I am not a doc and people like yourself are.... hats off....
off_again said:
Sheesh, something that I genuinely couldnt do. If it were me in that position I am sure emotions would get the better of me.... Glad that I am not a doc and people like yourself are.... hats off....
Thing is you HAVE to be objective and not treat them as if they are guilty. I am merely there as an instrument to extract evidence. It's funny because the parents are often the opposite of what you imagine. You often think they are going to be horrible chavvy Wayne and Waynettas but more often, they are nice middle/upper middle class couples, who look like they wouldnt harm anyone.
This is why I think the press have actually done people a big disservice in their reporting of this whole case, the evidence of injuries on the children is pretty compelling, in most of these cases, yet this is ignored in favour of quoting Meadows misquoted statistics.
968 said:
As an Ophthalmologist, I am often called to examine children when there is a suspicion of NAI (Non-accidental Injury) but fortunately, I don't have to make the decision, but merely report my findings, which may or may not be consistent with NAI and shaken baby syndrome. It's pretty heartbreaking stuff, and often the parents are present whilst I examine the baby.
I think that in the case of Sally Clarke, the injuries that the baby suffered are certainly consistent with shaken baby synd. I think that she has escaped from a deserved prison sentence.
Taken from one of the articles I referenced earlier:
"Meadow's 'rule', for example, precluded the possibility that there might be some unknown genetic explanation for multiple unexpected childhood deaths in the same family, while the 'characteristic' pattern of shaken baby syndrome precluded the possibility of some alternative explanation for the retinal and subdural haemorrhages - such as an acute increase in retinal venous pressure from intracranial bleeding caused by accidental head injury (25). The legal assumption presupposed that these presentations were so specific for abuse that they were by themselves sufficient to secure a conviction - even in the absence of the sort of circumstantial evidence of violence or neglect that would normally be required to return a guilty verdict in a court of law.
Put another way, the 'characteristic' presentations of the syndromes could not sustain the interpretation placed upon them: they might be 'consistent with' but could not, by themselves, be 'diagnostic of' child abuse. Thus some at least of the parents contributing to the statistics of the fourfold rise in child abuse were likely to be innocent.
So a 'consistent with' label is part of some evidence that, presumably, will remain scientifically unproven since the only absolute proof would seem to require a number of babies to be 'shaken' in such a way that they consistently suffer the same injuries and symptoms. Somehow I can't see such an experiment happening. Thus the requirement for other evidence of intentional abuse whether we individually find such a need morally acceptable or not. Similar 'consistent with' based observation would also NOT be conclusive by themselves. It is just possible that enough observations of the type, if consistent with each other, might be enough to convict but it is a tricky path which offers the opportunity for greater harm than it does for better protection. In part that is because the case will only usually come to court after the death of the child or children thought to be at risk. So the opportunity for protection will, in many cases, be long gone. Which makes the purpose of the entire prosecution rather questionable in some ways.
Unfortunate though that may be.
LongQ said:
So a 'consistent with' label is part of some evidence that, presumably, will remain scientifically unproven since the only absolute proof would seem to require a number of babies to be 'shaken' in such a way that they consistently suffer the same injuries and symptoms. Somehow I can't see such an experiment happening. Thus the requirement for other evidence of intentional abuse whether we individually find such a need morally acceptable or not. Similar 'consistent with' based observation would also NOT be conclusive by themselves. It is just possible that enough observations of the type, if consistent with each other, might be enough to convict but it is a tricky path which offers the opportunity for greater harm than it does for better protection. In part that is because the case will only usually come to court after the death of the child or children thought to be at risk. So the opportunity for protection will, in many cases, be long gone. Which makes the purpose of the entire prosecution rather questionable in some ways.
Unfortunate though that may be.
I did post a reply which gave my opinion, professional and a bit personal, about this case, but have been advised by a fellow medical colleague and PHer, that I might be in danger of being libellous.
Therefore this is the climate in which we live. We are not allowed to give an opinion, based on the facts of the case, as this might be construed to be libellous.
>> Edited by 968 on Saturday 16th July 14:15
simpo two said:
Seems to be that when he gave the advice, that's what the state of medical knowledge was. Then medical knowledge took a step forwards and what made sense then, doesn't now.
So he was wrong, but didn't know he was wrong, IYKWIM.
His evidence was not only medical, but Statistical, an area where he had little knowledge. Hence his assertion that the odds of their being 2 cot deaths in a middle class family were 77 Million to one. The actual odds are in fact 77 to one.
This was all a giant witchhunt, orchastrated by our criminal justice system. As full of hysteria and as unscientific as the tests for witchcraft of an earlier century.
As regards shaken baby sydrome, I have read that new medical evidence suggests that to shake a baby with enough force to produce the type of injuries detailed on this thread, whould break their neck first.
My conclusion many innoncent mothers have been sent to jail, or seperated from their children for no cause.
Moreover it discredits all professional witnesses in such trials and I believe they should examine the possibility of outside experts being paid directly by the court themselves as needed, rather than being hired by one side or the other.
telecat said:
I believe that "Munchhausens" is not considered a Medical diagnosis
What do you think Prof Southall's video evidence shows?
Munchausens has changed its name to factitious disorder (there is a trend in medicine away from eponymous syndromes and towards describing thing as they are.
telecat said:
Son's especially will acquire knocks and bruises. That is their nature. My Own has plenty but at 13 is now able to account HIMSELF for each one. He is a healthy active lad, Swimming, playg tennis, football, running, field, and on his trials bicycle and motorcycle as many days as he can fit in.
erm.... Do you know how old these infants were? They were unlikely to sustain the injuries in the way you suggest.
Why do you think the familes are trying to distract attention from the issues of trauma and persist with the non issue of SIDS when none of the medical experts thought that was the cause of death.
No medics like expert witnesses who prostitute themselves to the legal system. There are plenty of them who like to pontificate and collect large wads of cash for dispensing black and white opinion where most honest medics see grey. Meadow is one of the most highly respected figure in modern paediatrics and medicine in general. Part of this esteem comes from the fasct that he has been courageous enough to research an area which all doctors know is a problem but public does not seem able to stomach
This case has more to do with vindictive families putting up a smokescreen and the GMC delivering some high profile heads on plate to ensure its survival post Shipman
T
The issue of child abuse and cot death is so suffused with hype, emotion and irrationality, that it is difficult to be cool about such issues (as evidenced by several posts here).
Prof. Meadows is as much a victim of this situation as the unfortunate accused parents. The criminal justice system and it's adversarial nature should be on trial here, not some scapegoat for it's failings. It wasn't Meadows who brought the court cases, it wasn't his opinion alone that convicted, it wasn't him who presented a completely shit legal defence which failed spectacularly to question his statistics. That was all done by the Police and lawyers. It's a monumental conspiracy of stupidity, plus Prof. Meados is being used as a political pawn by the GMC, who are scared to death that the government will take away their powers of governance over the medical profession, so the first chance they get in a high profile case, they throw the baby out with the bath water. Pathetic, timid and biased. Shouldn't the Bar Council have a look at the standard of defence team presenatations in this case? No chance of that though. Lawyers remain utterly unaccountable for their actions, and our legal system remains one where truth is secondary to ego and a fat fee whatever the outcome of the case. (Apologies to any PH lawyers who are undoubtedly of the highest moral standing and utterly beyond reproach!
)
Prof. Meadows is as much a victim of this situation as the unfortunate accused parents. The criminal justice system and it's adversarial nature should be on trial here, not some scapegoat for it's failings. It wasn't Meadows who brought the court cases, it wasn't his opinion alone that convicted, it wasn't him who presented a completely shit legal defence which failed spectacularly to question his statistics. That was all done by the Police and lawyers. It's a monumental conspiracy of stupidity, plus Prof. Meados is being used as a political pawn by the GMC, who are scared to death that the government will take away their powers of governance over the medical profession, so the first chance they get in a high profile case, they throw the baby out with the bath water. Pathetic, timid and biased. Shouldn't the Bar Council have a look at the standard of defence team presenatations in this case? No chance of that though. Lawyers remain utterly unaccountable for their actions, and our legal system remains one where truth is secondary to ego and a fat fee whatever the outcome of the case. (Apologies to any PH lawyers who are undoubtedly of the highest moral standing and utterly beyond reproach!
)nubbin said:
Lawyers remain utterly unaccountable for their actions, and our legal system remains one where truth is secondary to ego and a fat fee whatever the outcome of the case. (Apologies to any PH lawyers who are undoubtedly of the highest moral standing and utterly beyond reproach!
How RIGHT you are....
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff