Shaken baby syndrome

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3564605.stm

So just who are we to trust.Parents or Medical Opinion?

How many times are pronouncements made by Medical Experts which are then found not to be the case?

So now how many parents have been prosecuted over this issue who should not have been?

It is so worrying to think how many children have been removed from loving families on what now be rather flimsy evidence.

Incog.

[Ramrod]

I know, the whole thing stinks. A theory gets accepted as fact and used unquestioningly by the medics.

[Jon M]

From my biased viewpoint, I think our government and possibly society as a whole has been gradually phasing out any financial and moral support for both familiy as an institution and parents individually.

The law is vastly weighted against those in sensitive, responsible positions with children in their care.. parents and teachers being my prime examples.

Media coverage of paedophilia and violent abuse.. has in my mind been partly responsible for the often highly reactionary and over the top policies, that are popping up all the time.
Yes, horrible things happen, and evil people need to be prevented from injuring and scarring children, but the answer isn't to condemn all families to this sort of suspicion.. it's to make parenting and families a more socially valuable and vital role in the media.

I am more worried every day about my possible future parenthood and the pitfalls that seem to be opening up infront of me.
Not that I would let these things stop me from having kids.. but I'm certainly not taking the issue lightly.

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

From my biased viewpoint, I think our government and possibly society as a whole has been gradually phasing out any financial and moral support for both familiy as an institution and parents individually.

You do not *have* to have children, people do not have children for the good of society and the future survival of mankind. They want to have children, it is a lifestyle choice. For that reason, I do not see why the parents warrant any special treatment. They have X amount of income available, if they want to use it to have children that is fine, but don`t expect me to subsidise them out of taxes.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

You do not *have* to have children, people do not have children for the good of society and the future survival of mankind. They want to have children, it is a lifestyle choice. For that reason, I do not see why the parents warrant any special treatment. They have X amount of income available, if they want to use it to have children that is fine, but don`t expect me to subsidise them out of taxes.

Please if you want to discuss THAT issue start your own thread please.

Incog.

[punky]

I think it is partly due to the jurors not paying attention. Jurors often assume that because someone is up there with a PhD, decades of experience, that everything is said is fact. Whereas actually some of it is fact, and some is opinion. If they aren't paying attention you wouldn't realise the difference. Fact is fact, but with an opinion, and equally qualified doctor could quite easily testify to the opposite. Facts are pretty damning, ubt opinions, should just be offereed as another piece of evidence to be analysed next to all the others to see if it fits a pattern.

I totally agree with what coggy is saying, its so so sad that we take science and use is unquestioned to decide peoples lives. Ok im a believer in scientific proof but im not a believer of scientists because they often gloss over evidence and make bad assumptions and people use their finding without taking this into consideration.

Slightly off topic ive always felt the same about historians, no one can argue against a lot of what they say because there are no reocrds to prove things one way or another so they bascially get paid for having a vivid imagination.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3564605.stm

So just who are we to trust.Parents or Medical Opinion?

How many times are pronouncements made by Medical Experts which are then found not to be the case?

So now how many parents have been prosecuted over this issue who should not have been?

It is so worrying to think how many children have been removed from loving families on what now be rather flimsy evidence.

Incog.

the trouble is, an abusive parent would be as likely to deny shaking the baby as a non-abusive one.

Equally a Medical 'expert' asked to provide an opinion would be inclined to 'err on the side of caution', as the consequences of failing to diagnose actual abuse could be worse than discounting the possibility.

So yes, it is likely that mis-diagnosis has occurred, but, harshly, the system as it stands 'fails safe' in favour of the child - personally I find that balance tipped the right way?

Originally Posted by homealone

the trouble is, an abusive parent would be as likely to deny shaking the baby as a non-abusive one.

Equally a Medical 'expert' asked to provide an opinion would be inclined to 'err on the side of caution', as the consequences of failing to diagnose actual abuse could be worse than discounting the possibility.

So yes, it is likely that mis-diagnosis has occurred, but, harshly, the system as it stands 'fails safe' in favour of the child - personally I find that balance tipped the right way?

However some parents have been accused,charged and jailed on some very flimsy evidence.I think that it couldn't hurt to be really certain that more than this can be used to take a parent to court when there is absolutely no OTHER evidence to support that a child is being abused.If there is no record or evidence of previous abuse then perhaps a cooling off period for assessment should be applied.

Also the suspicion that Shaken Baby Syndrome may not be due to severe shaking but possibly to other factors has been about for some little while so this newest discovery in the US may not be as surprising to some.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2Fnbaby113.xml

http://www.trunkerton.fsnet.co.uk/sh...y_syndrome.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999874

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/pregnancya...178639,00.html

Originally Posted by Incognitas

However some parents have been accused,charged and jailed on some very flimsy evidence.I think that it couldn't hurt to be really certain that more than this can be used to take a parent to court when there is absolutely no OTHER evidence to support that a child is being abused.If there is no record or evidence of previous abuse then perhaps a cooling off period for assessment should be applied.

Also the suspicion that Shaken Baby Syndrome may not be due to severe shaking but possibly to other factors has been about for some little while so this newest discovery in the US may not be as surprising to some.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2Fnbaby113.xml

http://www.trunkerton.fsnet.co.uk/sh...y_syndrome.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999874

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/pregnancya...178639,00.html

Thanks for that, Incog, very interesting articles

I hadn't realised these cases were heard in a 'family court', with a 'lower standard of proof required'.

I still believe any benefit of the doubt, should be in favour of the childs welfare, but I am appalled at the implication that the parents need to prove their innocence, especially when whomever presides over the court is likely to give more credence to an 'informed' medical opinion.

One can only hope that the increased awareness of how this syndrome can occur through other means than shaking the baby, referred to in your references, will allow a fairer assessment of each case. Especially, as you say, where no other evidence can be brought to bear.