PAGES

12 – 25

DOI

123456987
©
Han Solo.

Contact The Author


All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Issues

Also in this issue:

Shaken baby syndrome: causes and consequences of conformity

Han Solo.

By Waney Squier

About ten years ago, a colleague of mine, a prominent prosecution expert, told me there was a move afoot to have me reported to the General Medical Council (GMC)[1] for my evidence in shaken baby syndrome cases. I shrugged this off, telling him that I prepared my reports to the standard of my published research papers, based on my professional experience and supported by critically-reviewed and valid scientific evidence. In fact, I would be confident defending them at an international conference of my peers, something with which I was very familiar as an academic paediatric neuropathologist.

The following year, I was subject to harsh criticism in a raft of family court judgments, one of which was [1] In accordance with the rules of the family court, I was not able to respond to the specifics of these criticisms.[2]Judges are regularly invited to reach adverse findings about the nature and quality of evidence given by expert witnesses; this is part and parcel of the adversarial process. My nonchalance may have sprung from complacency, or arrogance or sheer naivety, but it came as something of a shock to be informed, in the course of an ongoing criminal case in June 2010, that I and the other defence expert in that case (Marta Cohen) had been reported to the GMC on the basis of these critical judgments. I had failed to realise that casual comments in a hospital corridor were the first rumblings of a storm that was to engulf the next decade of my life and to alter profoundly the potential for families to defend themselves against allegations of abuse.

This paper describes how a campaign was forged to suppress legitimate scientific evidence presented in courts and to silence dissent. This campaign has had a profound impact on the delivery of justice.

[1] The doctors’ regulatory body in the UK:“We are an independent organisation that helps to protect patients and improve medical education and practice across the UK” (http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/role.asp).

page: 22 – 66
Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation Volume 35, Issue 5
SKU: 350501

No PDF file available for display.