DOCSLIB.ORG

Bad Medicine: Parents, the State, and the Charge of “Medical Child Abuse”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bad Medicine: Parents, the State, and the Charge of “Medical Child Abuse” Bad Medicine: Parents, the State, and the Charge of “Medical Child Abuse” ∗ Maxine Eichner † Doctors and hospitals have begun to level a new charge — “medical child abuse” (MCA) — against parents who, they say, get unnecessary medical treatment for their kids. The fact that this treatment has been ordered by other doctors does not protect parents from these accusations. Child protection officials have generally supported the accusing doctors in these charges, threatening parents with loss of custody, removing children from their homes, and even sometimes charging parents criminally for this asserted overtreatment. Judges, too, have largely treated such charges as credible claims of child abuse. ∗ Copyright © 2016 Maxine Eichner. Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; J.D., Ph.D. I am grateful for comments from and conversations with an interdisciplinary group of readers: Alexa Chew, J.D.; Christine Cox, J.D.; Hannah Eichner; Keith Findley, J.D.; Victor Flatt, J.D.; Michael Freeman, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.; Steven Gabaeff, M.D.; Mark Graber, M.D.; Heidi Harkins, Ph.D.; Clare Huntington, J.D.; Diana Rugh Johnson, J.D.; Joan Krause, J.D.; Michael Laposata, M.D., Ph.D.; Holning Lau, J.D.; Sue Luttner; Beth Maloney, J.D.; Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.; Maya Manian, J.D.; Rachel Rebouche, J.D.; Diane Redleaf, J.D.; Maria Savasta-Kennedy, J.D.; Richard Saver, J.D.; Jessica Shriver, M.A., M.S.; Adam Stein, J.D.; Eric Stein, J.D.; Beat Steiner, M.D., M.P.H.; Judy Stone, M.D.; Deborah Tuerkheimer, J.D.; Catherine Volponi, J.D; and Deborah Weissman, J.D. Special thanks are due to Sa’Metria Jones, Rebecca Mitchell, Margaret Petersen, and Elizabeth Robinson for their excellent research assistance, and to Dave Hansen, as well, for clutch librarian research assistance. † Dr. Mark L. Graber, M.D., FACP; President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine; Senior Fellow, RTI International; Professor Emeritus, Stony Brook University, contributed to Part IV.C of this Article, as well as to footnote 395 and accompanying text. Dr. Graber’s recent peer-reviewed publications include: Brian Hess et al., Blink or Think: Can Further Reflection Improve Initial Diagnostic Impressions?, 90 ACAD. MED. 112 (2015); Ashley Meyer, Hardeep Singh & Mark Graber, Evaluation of Outcomes From a National Patient-Initiated Second-Opinion Program, 128 AM. J. MED. 1138.25– 1138.e33 (2015); Hardeep Singh & Mark Graber, Improving Diagnosis In Health Care — The Next Imperative For Patient Safety, 373 NEW ENG. J. MED. 2493 (2015). 205 206 University of California, Davis [Vol. 50:205 Despite the rising number of parents faced with these charges, this phenomenon has received no critical attention whatsoever in legal literature. This law review article is the first to explain why, as a legal matter, medical child abuse charges are deeply and fundamentally flawed. It is certainly true that the (likely few) twisted parents who intentionally use the medical system to hurt their children have committed child abuse. Yet the broad definition of MCA developed by doctors captures within its diagnostic net many loving parents making the best decisions they can for their genuinely sick children. This article demonstrates that the broad definition of MCA developed by physicians and adopted within the child protection system violates the constitutional rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Meanwhile, the framing of MCA as a medical “diagnosis” turns what should be a legal decision regarding child abuse into a medical determination, in the process omitting important legal requirements. Finally, the loose diagnostic standards constructed to “diagnose” MCA rest on both flawed science and flawed medical standards. In short, the MCA theory developed by physicians and enforced by child protection officials is bad constitutional doctrine, bad law, bad science, and bad medicine. Any of these flaws in itself should be sufficient to bar the presentation of the theory of MCA in the courtroom. The presence of all these flaws leaves this conclusion beyond doubt. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 209 I. THE GENESIS OF MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE CLAIMS ...................... 214 A. The Rise and Fall of the Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy Diagnosis ................................................................ 214 B. The Rise of the Medical Child Abuse Diagnosis .................. 218 C. Medical Child Abuse Charges Today ................................. 228 II. BAD CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE: MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE CHARGES AND PARENTS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS .................. 239 A. Parents’ Constitutional Right to Make Health Care Decisions for Their Children .............................................. 240 B. The Broad Definition of Medical Child Abuse and Parents’ Constitutional Rights ......................................................... 245 III. BAD LAW: THE MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE “DIAGNOSIS” AND PARENTS’ RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ............................................. 247 A. Child Abuse as a Legal Decision Rather than a Diagnostic Determination ................................................................... 249 1. Differential Diagnosis Versus Differential Etiology ... 249 2. “Diagnosing” the Parent as Abusive ........................... 252 2016] Bad Medicine 207 B. Child Abuse as the Ultimate Issue ...................................... 255 1. Medical Child Abuse and the Trier of Fact ................ 255 2. Medical Child Abuse and the Legal Standard for Child Abuse ................................................................ 257 a. Blameworthiness of the parent ............................... 257 b. Unreasonable risk to the child ............................... 259 c. Standard of proof ................................................... 260 C. Diagnosis as Profile Evidence ............................................ 261 IV. BAD SCIENCE AND BAD MEDICINE: THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL CHALLENGES TO THE MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE DIAGNOSIS ................................................................................ 265 A. The Scientific Validity of the General Medical Child Abuse Theory ..................................................................... 266 B. The Reliability of the Process of Diagnosing Medical Child Abuse in Particular Cases ........................................ 279 1. The Diagnostic Protocol for Medical Child Abuse .... 281 2. The Absence of Testing to Establish the Reliability of the Medical Child Abuse Diagnostic Protocol ....... 285 3. The Reliability of Individual Diagnostic Criteria ....... 287 a. Discrepancies between the parent’s account and the child’s medical records ..................................... 288 b. Absence of objective medical evidence of child’s symptoms .............................................................. 290 c. Use of multiple medical facilities/ discharge against medical advice ........................................... 291 d. Pediatrician determines child’s genuine medical diagnoses ............................................................... 292 e. Pediatrician’s judgment on overtreatment .............. 297 f. Use of profile evidence ........................................... 297 4. The Vagueness of the Diagnostic Criteria .................. 301 5. The Low Base Rate of Medical Child Abuse .............. 303 C. The Medical Child Abuse Diagnostic Process and Good Medical Practice ................................................................ 306 1. The absence of methodically chosen indicators ........ 306 2. The threshold of certainty for action on the diagnosis ..................................................................... 308 3. Due diligence in pursuing alternative diagnoses ....... 311 D. Case Study of the Unreliability of the Medical Child Abuse Diagnostic Process ................................................... 312 V. THE PROPER LEGAL TREATMENT OF CHILD ABUSE CASES INVOLVING MEDICAL CARE ...................................................... 314 208 University of California, Davis [Vol. 50:205 A. Parents’ Constitutional Right to Make Health Care Decisions for Their Child Absent Legally-Defined Abuse or Neglect .......................................................................... 315 B. Exclusion of Medical Child Abuse Diagnoses from Legal Proceedings for Child Abuse .............................................. 319 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 320 2016] Bad Medicine 209 INTRODUCTION1 In February 2013, fourteen-year old Justina Pelletier was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) for gastrointestinal issues.2 At that time, Justina was being treated by a well-respected Tufts University medical team for mitochondrial disease, a genetic disease that affects energy production.3 The Tufts team had recommended to her parents that she be admitted to BCH because her long-time gastroenterologist had recently transferred there.4 That gastroenterologist never got the chance to treat her, however. Without consulting the Tufts doctors, BCH doctors, led by a neurologist just months out of medical training, swiftly decided that Justina did not have mitochondrial disease, an illness with complex, sometimes disputed, diagnostic criteria.5 Instead, BCH declared her issues psychiatric in nature, and prescribed in-patient psychiatric care.6 When her parents disagreed and sought to transfer her care back to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parental Alienation and Family Violence
    Parental Alienating Behaviors are Family Violence What is family Family violence refers to all types of abuse that occur in families, including physical, violence? sexual, psychological, and financial abuse, as well as neglect. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006 What are parental Parental alienating behaviors are a parent’s persistent use of patterns of behaviors over alienating behaviors? time to harm the child’s relationship with their other parent. Alienating parents use many different behaviors, such as badmouthing the alienated parent to the child and others, interfering with their contact, and enlisting the child as an “ally” against them. Baker, 2020; Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018; Harman & Matthewson, 2020 Parental alienating Making a child believe a parent abandoned and does not love them, or that the parent is behaviors are child dangerous or bad, is psychological abuse. Alienated children’s developmental needs are abuse also often neglected by alienating parents. In severe cases, children need protection from these psychologically abusive behaviors. Baker, 2020; Warshak, 2015 Parental alienating Parental alienating behaviors are direct and indirect attacks made by an alienating parent behaviors are intimate toward the alienated parent to harm and control them. The children are used as weapons partner violence in these attacks, and they become collateral damage in the process. Domestic violence researchers label these same behaviors as a form of coercive control. Harman, Kruk & Hines, 2018; Harman & Matthewson, 2020 Parental alienating The alienating parent’s intent is to manipulate and control the alienated parent’s actions behaviors are and outcomes. The alienated parent experiences negative outcomes if they do not coercively controlling comply with the alienating parent’s demands or threats, such as not being able to see their children.
    [Show full text]
  • An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Foundations
    An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Foundations C.A. Childress, Psy.D. Oaksong Press An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Foundations Oaksong Press. Claremont, California Copyright © 2015 Craig Childress Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-9961145-0-9 All Rights Reserved. Contents Introduction: Paradigm Shift 1 Part I: Family Systems Level Chapter 1 Family Transitions 24 Chapter 2 Barriers to Family Transitions 39 Part II: Personality Disorder Level Chapter 3 Personality and Attachment 58 Chapter 4 The Driving Engine of Alienation 70 Chapter 5 The Role-Reversal Core 88 Chapter 6 Inducing Symptoms 119 Part III: Attachment System Level Chapter 7 The Trauma Reenactment Narrative 200 Chapter 8 The Child’s Experience 259 Part IV: Professional Issues Chapter 9 Diagnosis 292 Chapter 10 Treatment 315 Chapter 11 Professional Competence 337 Chapter 12 Conclusion 354 Introduction PARADIGM SHIFT The Current Paradigm The term “parental alienation” is used in discussions by mental health and legal professionals to characterize a set of family dynamics in which a child is influenced by one parent into rejecting a relationship with the other parent, who is otherwise a normal-range and affectionally available parent. This type of negative parental influence on the child typically occurs following a divorce, although the processes of the child’s “alienation” can begin while the family is still intact and before the actual divorce occurs. “Parental alienation” is often alleged in high-conflict custody disputes in which the parents can battle for years over custody issues surrounding the children, co-parenting, and visitation. However, despite the term “parental alienation” being used in professional contexts, the actual construct lacks a defined meaning within clinical psychology.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit
    Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit 14th Annual Report 1999/2000 The British Paediatric Surveillance Unit always welcomes invitations to give talks describing the work of the Unit and makes every effort to respond to these positively. Enquiries should be directed to our office. The Unit positively encourages recipients to copy and circulate this report to colleagues, junior staff and medical students. Additional copies are available from our office, to which any enquiries should be addressed. Published September 2000 by the: British Paediatric Surveillance Unit A unit within the Research Division of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 50 Hallam Street London W1W 6DE Telephone: 44 (0) 20 7307 5680 Facsimile: 44 (0) 20 7307 5690 E-mail: [email protected] Registered Charity No. 1057744 ISBN 1 900954 48 6 © British Paediatric Surveillance Unit British Paediatric Surveillance Unit - 14 Annual Report 1999-2000 Compiled and edited by Richard Lynn, Angus Nicoll, Jugnoo Rahi and Chris Verity Membership of Executive Committee 1999/2000 Dr Christopher Verity Chairman Dr Angus Clarke Co-opted Professor Richard Cooke Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Research Division Dr Patricia Hamilton Co-opted Professor Peter Kearney Faculty of Paediatrics, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland Dr Jugnoo Rahi Medical Adviser Dr Ian Jones Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health Dr Christopher Kelnar Co-opted Dr Gabrielle Laing Co-opted Mr Richard Lynn Scientific Co-ordinator
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Analysis of Medical Opinion Evidence in Child Homicide Cases
    A critical analysis of medical opinion evidence in child homicide cases Sharmila Betts B.A. (Hons.), University of Sydney, 1985 M. Psychol., University of Sydney, 1987 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Law, The University of New South Wales (Sydney). i ii iii Acknowledgements No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. Henry David Thoreau I am a Clinical Psychologist practicing since 1987. My time at a tertiary level Child Protection Team at The Sydney Children’s Hospital, Randwick, Australia brought to my attention the pivotal role of medical opinion evidence in establishing how children sustained injuries, which were sometimes fatal. This thesis began in a Department of Psychology, but I transferred to a Law Faculty. Though I am not a lawyer, the thesis endeavours to examine medico-legal and psychological aspects of sudden unexplained infant deaths. It sets itself the task of addressing important questions requiring rigorous and critical analysis to ensure accuracy and justice is achieved. I hope my thesis sheds light on this complex issue. Gary Edmond has been a mentor, guide and staunch critic. I am deeply grateful that he trusted a novice to navigate this perplexing field of inquiry. Emma Cunliffe has provided clarity in an area shrouded in uncertainty. Their patience, support and faith have enabled me to crystalise and formulate my fledgling insights into a dissertation. I am indebted to Natalie Tzovaras, Monique Ross, Katie Poidomani, and Janet Willinge for their administrative support. My husband, Grant, posed the question that started my journey - ‘how do doctors know the injuries were deliberately inflicted?’ Through my many doubts and fears, he iv maintained a trust in my ability to address this question and helped me return time and again to the seemingly overwhelming task before me.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Before the Committee on Government Reform
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 466 915 EC 309 063 TITLE Autism: Present Challenges, Future Needs--Why the Increased Rates? Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform. House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session (April 6,2000). INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on Government Reform. REPORT NO House-Hrg-106-180 PUB DATE 2001-00-00 NOTE 483p. AVAILABLE FROM Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Tel: 202-512-1800. For full text: http://www.house.gov/reform. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF02/PC20 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Autism; *Child Health; Children; *Disease Control; *Etiology; Family Problems; Hearings; *Immunization Programs; Incidence; Influences; Parent Attitudes; *Preventive Medicine; Research Needs; Symptoms (Individual Disorders) IDENTIFIERS Congress 106th; Vaccination ABSTRACT This document contains the proceedings of a hearing on April 6, 2000, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform. The hearing addressed the increasing rate of children diagnosed with autism, possible links between autism and childhood vaccinations, and future needs of these children. After opening statements by congressmen on the Committee, the statements and testimony of Kenneth Curtis, James Smythe, Shelley Reynolds, Jeana Smith, Scott Bono, and Dr. Wayne M. Danker, all parents of children with autism, are included. Their statements discuss symptoms of autism, vaccination concerns, family problems, financial concerns, and how parents can be helped. The statements and testimony of the second panel are then provided, including that of Andrew Wakefield, John O'Leary, Vijendra K. Singh, Coleen A. Boyle, Ben Schwartz, Paul A.
    [Show full text]
  • Parental Alienation
    PARENTAL ALIENTATION A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE Ackerman, M. J. (1995). Clinician’s guide to child custody evaluations. New York: John Wiley. Ackerman, M. J., & Kane, A. W. (1998). Psychological experts in divorce actions (3rd ed.). New York: Aspen Law and Business. Ackerman, N. A. (1956). Interlocking pathology in family relationships. In S. Redo & G. Daniels (Eds.), Changing concepts of psychoanalytic medicine (pp. 135–150). New York: Grune & Stratton. Ackerman, N. A. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York: Basic Books. Acocella, J. (1998, April 6). The politics of hysteria. The New Yorker, pp. 64–79. Adams, K. (2009). The parentectomy: An individual perspective on rising above parental alienation. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Publishing. Aguilar, J. M. (2004). S.A.P.: Síndrome de aliénation parental [PAS: Parental aliénation syndrome] [Spanish]. Cordova, Spain: Almuzara. Aguilar, J. M. (2005, October-December). El uso de los hijos en los procesos de sep- aración: El síndrome de alienación parental [The use of children in separation processes: The parental alienation syndrome] [Spanish]. Revista de Derecho de Familia (29), 71–82. Aguilar, J. M. (2007). Interferencias de las relaciones paterno filiales. El síndrome de alienación parental y las nuevas formas de violencia contra la infancia [Interference of the parent-child relationships. Parental alienation syndrome and new forms of violence against children] [Spanish]. Revista Psicología Educativa, 13(2), 101–116. Aguilar, J. M. (2008). Tenemos que hablar [We need to talk] [Spanish]. Madrid, Spain: Santillana Ediciones Generales. Aguilar, J. M. (2008). Síndrome de alienaçào parental [Parental alienation syndrome] [Portuguese]. Lisbon, Portugal: Caleidoscopio. Ahrons, C. R., & Rodgers, R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome by Kimberley J
    Vol. 32, 2019 Parental Alienation Syndrome 53 Under the Microscope: The Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome by Kimberley J. Joyce* I. Introduction Call it the Theory of A-B-C: a controversial model of paren- tal alienation which has at its center a very specific causal rela- tionship between systematic programming by a “favored” parent (the “A”) and manifestations of that programming in a child’s behaviors (the “B”), with a judicially-imposed remedy (the “C”)1 of transferring custody from the “targeted” parent and isolating the child from the “favored” parent.2 The argument that paren- * Kimberley Joyce is a family law trial attorney in Wellesley, Massachu- setts, and is admitted to practice in Massachusetts state courts and before the U.S. District Court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. Joyce is a member of the Family Law sections of both the Massachu- setts and Boston Bar Associations and is Chair of the MBA’s Family Law Sec- tion Council. 1 The conceptual use of a Theory of A-B-C is drawn from psychologist Albert Ellis who developed a cognitive-behavioral theory that explains emo- tional disturbance (hence the metaphor) structured in an ABC format: “Typi- cally, the emotional and behavioral Consequence (C) is what an individual seeks assistance for and they often assume that the Activating event (A) which had preceded the (C) actually caused it.” Mark D. Terjesen, et al. Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) with Children and Adolescents: Theory, Ap- plications, and Research, 20 NYS PSYCHOL. 13, 13 (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Alienation Has Generated a Great Deal of Heat but A
    Alienation and Attachment 1 Running head: PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ATTACHMENT THEORY Parental Alienation in Light of Attachment Theory: Consideration of the Broader Implications for Child Development, Clinical Practice, and Forensic Process Benjamin D. Garber HealthyParent.com Submitted: July 7, 2004 Revised: July 21, 2004 Revised: July 25, 2004 Accepted: July 25, 2004 This article is © 2004 Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D. and has been accepted for publication in the December, 2004, issue of the Journal of Child Custody. As such, this manuscript may not be quoted, duplicated or otherwise communicated without the author’s written permission. For more information contact Dr. Garber at [email protected] or the Journal of Child Custody at http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J190. Alienation and Attachment 2 Abstract Few ideas have captured the attention and charged the emotions of the public, of mental health and legal professionals as thoroughly as the concept of parental alienation and Gardner’s (1987) Parental Alienation Syndrome. For all of this controversy, the alienation concept stands outside developmental theory and without firm empirical support. The present paper explores alienation and its conceptual counterpart, alignment, as the necessary and natural tools of child-caregiver attachment (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969; Bowlby, 1969) and of family system cohesion. This conceptual foundation offers developmentalists, clinicians, and family law professionals alike a common language and valuable instruments with which to understand those relatively infrequent but highly charged circumstances in which these tools are used as weapons, particularly in the context of contested custody litigation. The need to establish baseline measures, child-centered interventions, and legal remedies anchored in the attachment model is discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Parental Alienation in Divorce Judgments
    InDret REVISTA PARA EL WWW. INDRET.COM ANÁLISIS DEL DERECHO Parental Alienation in Divorce Judgments Margit Gaffal Universidad Pontificia de Comillas Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences BARCELONA, OCTUBRE 2012 InDret 4/2012 Margit Gaffal Abstract1 This paper deals with divorce judgments that were brought to Spanish Courts of Appeal between 2008 and 2011. In all the judgments parental alienation is mentioned as the grounds for appeal. Parental alienation is a pathologic family interaction that is often related to non-consensual divorce. In a systematic examination we will firstly, describe typical socio-economic characteristics under which parental separation takes place. According to these characteristics the decisions can be grouped into three types of conflict. Secondly, parent-child alienation will be explained as a problem that has minor and major consequences. Although parents do not normally opt for joint custody in non-consensual divorces, the law foresees it as a remedy to impede the aggravation of the alienation process. En este trabajo se analizan las sentencias de divorcio que fueron resueltas en los tribunales españoles de apelación entre los años 2008 a 2011. En todas las sentencias se menciona como el motivo de la apelación la alienación parental. La alienación parental es una interacción patológica familiar que a menudo se relaciona con el divorcio no consensuado. En un estudio sistemático queremos describir, en primer lugar, las características socio-económicas típicas con que se lleva a cabo la separación entre los padres. De acuerdo a estas características las sentencias se pueden agrupar en tres tipos de conflictos. En segundo lugar, la alienación entre padres e hijos se explica como un problema que tiene una extensión y una estructura profunda.
    [Show full text]
  • Medicine, Medea and the Media
    Medicine, Medea and the Media: The Rise and Fall of Roy Meadow Medicine, Medea and the Media: The Rise and Fall of Roy Meadow Nicola Elizabeth Goc BA Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Tasmania March 2007 Declaration: This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of the candidate's knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringers copyright. c..--4EK-- Statement of Access: This thesis may not be made available for loan or copying until two years after the date below. After this date this thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 and with due acknowledgement to the author. ___,cA""'-----!f'-f-----c:.......-=----­ March 2007. Abstract For more than three decades eminent British paediatrician, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, was courted by the media for his startling pronouncements on maternal child murder and abuse, including his now infamous Meadow's Law and his creation ofMunchausen Syndrome by Proxy. His compelling evidence made headline news in the trials of several women, including Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel. Journalists, however, persistently failed to investigate Meadow's potent claims, using the eminent paediatrician as a primary source to create highly newsworthy news narratives.
    [Show full text]
  • Management for Child Health Services
    Management for Child Health Services JOIN US ON THE INTERNET VIA WWW, GOPHER, FTP OR EMAIL: WWW: http://www.thomson.com GOPHER: gopher.thomson.com !T\® A service of 1\.!JP FTP: ftp.thomson.com EMAIL: [email protected] Management for Child Health Services Edited by Michael Rigby Centre for Health Planning and Management Keele University Staffordshire UK Euan M. Ross King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry, London Mary Sheridan Centre for Child Health London UK and Norman T. Begg PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre London UK ~~nl Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V. Published by Chapman & Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SEI SHN, UK First edition 1998 ©Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998 Originally published by Chapman & Hall in 1998. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1998 Typeset in 10/12 Palatino by Keyset Composition, Colchester ISBN 978-0-412-59660-5 ISBN 978-1-4899-3144-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-3144-3 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may not be reproduced, stored, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK, or in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate Reproduction Rights Organization outside the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publishers at the London address printed on this page.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit
    Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit 15th Annual14th14Annual Report Report 2000-2001 1998/99 The British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) welcomes invitations to give talks on the work of the Unit and takes every effort to respond positively. Enquiries should be made direct to the BPSU office. The BPSU positively encourages recipients to copy and circulate this report to colleagues, junior staff and medical students. Additional copies are available from the BPSU office, alternatively the report can be viewed via the BPSU website. Published September 2001 by the: British Paediatric Surveillance Unit A unit within the Research Division of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 50 Hallam Street London W1W 6DE Telephone: 44 (0) 020 7307 5680 Facsimile: 44 (0) 020 7307 5690 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://bpsu.rcpch.ac.uk Registered Charity no 1057744 ISBN 1-900954-54-0 © British Paediatric Surveillance Unit British Paediatric Surveillance Unit – Annual Report 2000-2001 Compiled and edited by Richard Lynn, Hilary Kirkbride, Jugnoo Rahi and Chris Verity, September 2001 Membership of Executive Committee 2000/2001 Dr Christopher Verity Chair Dr Angus Clarke Professor Richard Cooke Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Research Division Mrs Linda Haines Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Research Division Dr Patricia Hamilton Dr Ian Jones Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health Professor Peter Kearney Faculty of Paediatrics, Royal College of Physicians
    [Show full text]