PUBLISHER'S VIEW: I am pleased to have the opportunity to devote some space to a newly published book: "The Nurses Are Innocent: The Digoxin Poisoning Fallacy," by Gavin Hamilton M.D. The title refers to the investigation of the deaths of babies at the Hospital for Sick Children in 1980 and 1981 for which a nurse named Susan Nelles was charged with murder. (My first free-lance story for the Toronto Star described Ms. Nelle's discharge at her preliminary hearing). I later wrote in the Star about the public inquiry in which Justice Samuel Grange found that babies had been murdered in spite of testimony which shredded the validity of digoxin tests conducted by Ontario's Centre for Forensic Sciences and raised a significant doubt as to whether any babies had been murdered. Now Dr. Hamilton, a retired radiologist, has, at least in my mind, provided the real reason for the deaths of the unfortunate babies at the renowned hospital: A toxin found in natural rubber which is technically like digoxin, which was used in disposable plastic syringes and intravenous devices. As the late Dr. Peter Macklem, the above noted witness at the Grange Inquiry, says in his preface to this book: "What can be learned from this black stain on Canada's judicial system? One lesson certainly stands out: We cannot ever again allow a group of unqualified amateur diagnosticians to make life and death decisions about such important matters as potential serial murders." Dr. Macklem's comments have me thinking about the so-called arson experts in Texas who concluded with such compelling certainty that Cameron Todd Willingham had set the fire which killed his family - and were proven to have been so terribly, terribly wrong. (Willingham, an innocent man, was executed in Texas). Dr. Hamilton also has a tantalizing theory that a certain now-disgraced pathologist named Charles Smith may have been responsible for turning the tragic deaths into murders. He points out that "In 1980 - which was at the beginning of what was to become known as the digoxin baby poisoning epidemic period, he was hired by the Hospital for Sick Children as an anatomic pathologist - with an expressed keen interest in performing autopsies on children who had died suddenly." This book can be purchased through Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.ca/Nurses-Are-Innocent-Digoxin-Poisoning/dp/1459700570
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: While digging into old files on the Susan Nelles case I uncovered a fascinating article published in a periodical called "Studies in Political Economy," by Elaine Buckley Day called "Witch Hunt: A feminist critique of the Grange Royal Commission into deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children." The article provides a thorough description of the police investigation followed by a demonstration of how, "nurses became scapegoats for events that could not be easily explained, and their voices were considered inauthentic both because they were women and they were nurses."
GIST: "Media coverage of the Commission did not focus on the testimony of the doctors. Cable television only began broadcasting live daily when Susan Nelles began to testify. As a result the public did not see and hear the doctors' testimony. At least six of the nurses who testified during the Grange proceedings reported that they were approached by strangers who recognized them as a result of their television exposure and asked them when doctors could be expected to testify.is This left the public with many false impressions. First, it confirmed the popular view that doctors are "scientific experts" whose knowledge would be too difficult for the average person to understand. Secondly, testimony such as that of the clinical pharmacologist, Dr. Stephen Spielberg, as to the possibility of medication error received little attention, as did the disagreement among the "experts" as to causes of death, flaws in testing methods used to detect the presence of digoxin, and the fact that it was the nurses who first began to raise questions concerning the increasing number of deaths."
----------------------------------------------------------
"Why were women, especially nurses, treated differently from doctors throughout the Commission proceedings? The argument presented here is that this treatment bolsters and sustains male dominance through the suppression of women's knowledge. By not listening to nurses, the Commission did more than dismiss their evidence. It defined a particular viewof reason and expertise. Armed with these definitions and the power to make them hegemonic throughout the hearings, it proceeded to attack women not as knowledgeable participants in events but as potential purveyors of evil acts. Seen in this light, the Commission was indeed a witch hunt."
----------------------------------------------------------
TO RETRIEVE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
spe.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/spe/article/download/.../10095
Enter the above address:
Click on "by author" in search box on left;
Click on initial "D."
Click on "Day. Elaine."
---------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Is The Age of Progressive Prosecutors Over?
5 hours ago
