"On
Friday, I witnessed something akin to a reenactment of the trial of
Galileo, precisely four centuries after the original. Dr Waney Squier
faces being struck off by the General Medical Council (GMC) for having the temerity to challenge the mainstream theory on
shaken baby syndrome (SBS). For years, the medical profession has boldly asserted that a
particular “triad” of neurological observations is essentially
diagnostic of SBS. Since the
Nuremberg Code properly prevents human experimentation, this is an unproved hypothesis, and there has been rising doubt as to its validity. I am convinced that Squier is correct, but one does not have to agree
with me to see the ugly side to the GMC prosecution: the moment that we
are denied the right to question a scientific theory that is held by
the majority, we are not far away from Galileo’s predicament in 1615, as
he appeared before the papal inquisition. He dared to suggest that the
Bible was an authority on faith and morals, rather than on science, and
that
1 Chronicles 16:30
– “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved” – did not mean
that the Earth was rigidly lodged at the epicentre of the universe. It
was not until
1982 that Pope John Paul II issued a formal admission that the church had got it wrong. Shaken baby syndrome is almost unique among medical diagnoses in that
it is not focused on treating the child. If an infant has bleeding on
the brain (a subdural hematoma), the doctor wants to relieve the
pressure – it is of little relevance how the infant came about the
injury. SBS is, then, a “diagnosis” of a crime rather than an illness,
and when a brain surgeon comes into the courtroom and “diagnoses” guilt,
the defendant, mostly a parent, is likely to go to prison – or worse. I have defended a number of emotionally charged capital cases where
doctors have opined that a child had to have been shaken by an angry
parent because it was “impossible” for the triad of neurological
sequelae to result from an accident – it “had” to be caused by shaking.
Many American doctors adhere to a bizarre notion that an infant cannot
suffer a fatal head injury from a fall of less than three storeys. While
we cannot drop a series of infants on their heads to test this, it
would appear to be plain folly. The velocity of a five-foot fall means a
child’s head can hit the ground at roughly 15mph, which is faster than
most people – short of Usain Bolt - can sprint. I invited a series of
neurosurgeons to run headlong into a hardwood wall in one courtroom, so
we could see what happened to them. They politely declined, and stuck to
their silly theory. Squier has now been branded a “liar” by the panel, and found “guilty”
of paying insufficient respect to her peers. Dr Michael Powers, perhaps
the eminent QC in the area of medico-legal practice in the UK, believes
that the GMC tribunal – made up of a retired wing commander, a retired
policeman and a retired geriatric psychiatrist – was not qualified to
understand the complex pathology of the developing brain. “It is
therefore sad, but not surprising, that they have reached the wrong
conclusion,” he said. “The proper forum for debating these issues is the
international neuroscience community.” Powers has a point......... Those deemed to be blasphemers often suffer a gruesome fate. Although
Squier may be struck off, at least she will not be burned at the stake.
But the impact on medical science will be immense, because what other
doctor will be prepared to question the prosecution theory if it means
the end of a career? This is a very dark day for science, as it is for
justice."