TAMMY MARQUARDT: CHARLES SMITH SEEN AS A MAN AT HOME IN A TIME OF SHAMELESSNESS; COLUMNIST JANICE KENNEDY; OTTAWA CITIZEN;

"The lives of countless innocent people were destroyed. (Really, when you’ve spent nearly 14 wrongful years in prison, do you just get right back to normal? Does your family?) But beyond a pro forma written apology and a brief teary display, Smith has paid no significant price. We have demanded no punishment."

COLUMNIST JANICE KENNEDY; THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dr. Charles Smith, to whom the adjective “disgraced” is now routinely appended, is a man in tune with his time and place," the column by Janice Kennedy published in the Ottawa Citizen on June 19, 2011, begins, under the heading, "A Shameless Age."

"The former pediatric forensic pathologist, who worked for nearly a quarter-century at Toronto’s Sick Kids Hospital as one of the top Canadians in the field, has been in the news in recent years for less praiseworthy reasons. Repeatedly," the column continues.

"His name came up again this week, as Tammy Marquardt, who spent nearly 14 years in prison for a crime she did not commit, saw her murder charge officially withdrawn. Based on Smith’s faulty 1995 testimony, she had been convicted of the murder of her epileptic toddler son.

Smith’s name also arose in 2007, when William Mullins-Johnson was officially exonerated. Mullins-Johnson had spent 12 years behind bars for what Smith called the sexual assault and murder of a little girl — a conclusion subsequently discredited by numerous other experts, who concluded there had been neither assault nor murder.

In fact, Smith’s name has become synonymous with spectacular miscarriages of justice. Reprimanded in 2002, Smith was finally banned in 2003 from doing further autopsies.

In time, the troubling depth of his incompetence began to be suspected.

A coroner’s inquiry examined the results of 45 autopsies in which Smith had determined that cause of death was homicide or criminally suspicious activity. In 20 of those cases, 13 of which resulted in convictions, Smith’s conclusions were found to be insupportable.

Then the Ontario government ordered a public inquiry into the way pediatric forensic pathology was conducted in the province. (Imagine. A whole inquiry, with all its appertaining legal apparatus, into essentially one man’s misconduct.) When it concluded in the fall of 2008, Justice Stephen Goudge — who also pointed to the system’s “failed oversight” and inadequate accountability — found that Smith had “actively misled” his superiors and overestimated his expertise in court, where he “made false and misleading statements.”

But by this time, Smith was no longer in Toronto, having packed up three years earlier for another job in Saskatchewan — where he’d neglected to mention his spot of bother back east. With a name like “Smith,” perhaps you can gamble on leaving bad raps behind.

All of which makes Smith the perfect man for his time, a time when the only wrong is getting caught.

We live in an age of shamelessness.

That is obvious with even a cursory glance at the headlines of the publicly disgraced. Whether it’s this week’s latest (Anthony Weiner, what were you thinking?) or stories with slightly more mileage (John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton back in the day — heck, any number of United States congressmen, senators, governors, even presidents), there is a shared bond of shamelessness.

Denial or a shrugged “so what?” have become public figures’ public responses to being caught, metaphorically, with their pants down.

Of course, shamelessness is not limited to sexual indiscretions.

Consider former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who seems to define “corruption” differently from everyone else. Consider the former military idol of the Bosnian Serbs, Ratko Mladic, who, given the horrifying evidence of atrocities like Srebrenica, seems to have a unique take on “heroism.” (And while we’re at it, consider those frightening Serbs in the streets who still call Mladic their hero.)

Despite the difference in wrongdoing degrees, what binds them all, from Weiner to the Butcher of Bosnia, is their pathological unwillingness to take moral responsibility for their actions.

Like Charles Smith.

In medicine, the principle “First, do no harm” has been at the heart of professional ethics for ages. And no, that is not the same as “make no mistakes.” Even the most skilled professionals are human, and a capacity for mistakes is an organic part of human nature.

But mistakes are generally unintentional. If they do get made, they usually spark in the conscientious professional an anguished, almost apologetic determination to ensure they don’t happen again.

Smith seemed to feel no such spark. Goudge cited the doctor’s excuse that none of his wrongdoing was intentional — then added, “I simply cannot accept such a sweeping attempt to escape moral responsibility.”

This spring, when the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons stripped Smith of his licence, the chairman called his wrongdoing “egregious,” “repulsive” and the cause of “irreparable harm.” “Your failure … is abominable,” he said to Smith, who didn’t hear. The good doctor had decided not to show up.

The lives of countless innocent people were destroyed. (Really, when you’ve spent nearly 14 wrongful years in prison, do you just get right back to normal? Does your family?) But beyond a pro forma written apology and a brief teary display, Smith has paid no significant price.

We have demanded no punishment.

Instead, a man at home in a time of shamelessness, he wears his “disgraced” label with an indifferent shrug. And with our tacit permission."

The column can be found at:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/shameless/4928391/story.html