|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > August 2006 > Greegor ... Re: Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Greegor ... Re: Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection
|
|
|
| Where the mention of MSbP being a faulty diagnosis, Greg.
Noting but exactly what I claimed and pointed out to you repeatedly.
0:->
Jan Drew wrote:
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/med...d=47834&nfid=nl
>
> Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection Cases
>
> Doctors are increasingly unlikely to testify in child abuse cases because of
> high-profile cases in recent years, according to an editorial in this week's
> BMJ.
>
> The reluctance of doctors to speak up in such cases has been caused by
> adverse publicity and the consequences of the cases involving Professors Roy
> Meadow and David Southall, according to an editorial in the journal.
And here's the proof.
> Roy Meadow was struck off by the GMC in July 2005 for giving flawed
> statistical evidence in a trial, but was reinstated in February by the High
> Court. David Southall was found guilty of serious professional misconduct
> and banned from child protection work for three years after reporting his
> suspicions of abuse in the same case.
Gee, looks like Roy Meadows is NOT guilty enough for banning. Your logic
would have him innocent. I don't even try that one, Greg.
I think he screwed the pooch and gave inaccurate assessments. You want
to make that that he lied in his reporting of the MSpB. Damn you are
stupid.
> The editorial is written by David Chadwick, a retired child abuse
> paediatrician from the USA, who has provided expert testimony in many cases.
>
> Dr Chadwick says in his editorial: "In the United Kingdom, the risks of
> testifying that a child has been abused have become formidable and many
> doctors are reluctant to testify.
>
> "Yet each case of suspected abuse is unique and the applicability of the
> evidence base will always differ from case to case. This makes the testimony
> of doctors who specialise in the study of child abuse particularly valuable
> and important. Without such testimony from expert witnesses children may be
> unprotected from abuse."
In other words, Greg, more children will suffer and die because Doctors
have been suppressed in giving evidence.
You, of course probably love that, because YOU'LL try to blame CPS for
those deaths....where they could NOT get sufficient evidence to
intervene energetically enough to protect the child..
Don't you just love child deaths when they work in your favor, Greg?
I know I don't.
> Dr Chadwick was writing an editorial to accompany an analysis piece in the
> journal by freelance journalist Jonathan Gornall.
>
> Mr Gornall's report raises concerns that a recent handbook called Child
> Protection Companion produced by the Royal college of Paediatrics and Child
> Health omits any direct references to original research done by Professors
> Meadow and Southall, although the college denies references were
> deliberately omitted.
In other words, the report is concerned that parental abuse methods will
be suppressed. No wonder he's worried.
And you? What are YOU worried about?
> "Paediatricians, already feeling beleaguered thanks to a concerted public
> and media campaign against individual doctors, will be dismayed that Roy
> Meadow and David Southall seem to have been written out of the medical
> history book by their own college," writes Mr Gornall.
Considering that no one has authoritatively proven MSbP is either
extremely rare, or a mistaken diagnosis, it's not wonder.
And hundreds of health professionals have witnessed parentally caused
injury and death to children. I can imagine their shock over this.
0:->
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
|
| Jan Drew wrote:
> "0:->"
>
> Delusional?
I am in awe of both your eloquence and your moral superiority.
0:->
>
>
>
>
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|
| |
|
|