PUBLISHER'S VIEW: It is most unusual for a scientist to discover that something developed as a hypothesis has been transformed by others into an incontrovertible scientific fact which has dire social consequences - and for that scientist to public in a bid to undo the damage. For that reason I recommend the following article about Dr. Norman Guthkelch, by Dr. Lynne Wrennall, to our readers.
ARTICLE: "'Originator' of shaken baby syndrome warns of miscarriages of justice," by Dr. Lynne Wrennall, Executive Director of the International Public Health Research Group and the Managing Editor of Argument & Critique.
SUB-HEADING: "“I am frankly quite disturbed that what I intended as a
friendly suggestion for avoiding injury to children has become an excuse for
imprisoning innocent parents.” Dr. Norman Guthkelch."
GIST: "Britain’s first Paediatric Neurosurgeon, Dr Norman Guthkelch
wrote the seminal paper, ‘Infantile Subdural Haematoma and Its Relationship to
Whiplash Injury’ published in the British
Medical Journal in 1971, from which the
concept of Shaken Baby Syndrome [SBS] originated. He
worked for many decades in the British National Health Service and then moved
to the Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital in the US in the 1970’s. Now in his 90’s, he
has become deeply concerned over how the concept is being used. The science behind SBS he says is “greatly premature
and sufficiently invalid.” SBS he says, is merely an hypothesis. “There is nothing wrong in advancing
such hypotheses; this is how medicine and science progress. It is wrong,
however, to fail to advise parents and courts when these are simply
hypotheses, not proven medical or scientific facts, or to attack those who
point out problems with these hypotheses or who advance alternatives.” Of the original
article he says, if he had known, that it would be used as “the
whip with which innocent mothers would be beaten”, he would not have written it. However he does not believe that his thinking has changed.
Rather, it is others who have misused his ideas in developing the concept of SBS.
He objects to the concept of Shaken Baby Syndrome because a cause for the symptoms
is inbuilt into the name, pre-empting the enquiry that ought to determine the
cause of the symptoms. He states that it is highly unlikely that there is any
symptom that would have only one single cause. He became aware of the uses to which his work was being put when
he was approached by Law Professor Carrie Sperling from the Arizona Justice
Project and asked to review the case of a young father who had been convicted
of murdering his baby son, based on allegations of shaking. Examining the medical records of baby Steven Witt, he concluded
that the diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome was inappropriate. The child had a
pre-existing medical condition that could fully explain why he died. Dr
Guthkelch went on to proclaim, ‘I wouldn’t hang a cat on the evidence of
shaking'. Dr Guthkelch is concerned that aspects of the Shaken Baby Syndrome
concept are “open to serious doubt.” Dr Guthkelch’s concerns together with the
evidence of six other experts, led to Drayton Witt’s exoneration in 2012. He also reported to Professor Sperling that he had never
intended that the presence of subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhages, with
or without encephalopathy, should prove that a child had been shaken, only that
shaking was one possible cause of the bleeding. After the Drayton
Witt case, Professor Sperling went on to make Dr Guthkelch aware
of the extent to which parents were being wrongly accused of killing their
babies through shaking. Other
cases were reviewed in which it was similarly found that the child had a
pre-existing medical condition that provided the cause of death.
Expert Neuropathologist Waney Squier has estimated that of the approximately
250 SBS cases that go to court each year in the UK, half or even more have been
wrongly convicted. In the US, at least 19 cases relying solely on SBS have been
overturned in recent years. “I realized that what I had described was being made
into a completely different disease,” Dr Guthkelch, said. “We’ve assumed the
cause of shaken-baby syndrome on the basis of a few cases.” The sample size of
his original observations was too small to support the generalised conclusions
that are being made in SBS allegations. The stakes are particularly high as Dr Guthkelch has pointed
out, “In a case of measles, if you get the diagnosis wrong, in seven days' time
it really doesn't matter because it's cleared up anyhow. If you get the
diagnosis of fatal shaken baby syndrome wrong, potentially someone's life will
be terminated” About his original
paper Dr Guthkelch has said, “But I truly regretted ever having written it,
because people are in jail on the basis of what they claim is my paper, when in
fact it is nothing like it.” Together with 34 other international experts, Dr Guthkelch
has now signed an open letter expressing deep concern over the links between Shaken
Baby claims and Miscarriages of Justice. The experts from a wide range of
fields including medicine, child protection, psychology, epidemiology,
biomechanics, physics, engineering, research, medical journalism, law, social
work and criminology have signed the open letter to draw attention to the
problem. They state that the construct of what is commonly known as Shaken
Baby Syndrome [SBS] is not backed by solid science. It has variously morphed into Shaken Impact
Injury, and other similar variants, but it has never been scientifically
validated. SBS and its variants have been conceptualised in several
ways. Generally speaking SBS involves the ‘Triad’ of symptoms of retinal
haemorrhages, subdural haemorrhages and ischaemic encephalopathy being
interpreted as signs of child abuse. Parents and carers in many countries have been falsely
accused of injuring or killing a child and face allegations of child abuse,
manslaughter or murder when the claims of SBS have been made. Many such accused
parents and carers are given long prison sentences and their children are
permanently removed from their families. In some jurisdictions, they can even
be sentenced to death. The letter states that it can be shown in many such
instances that the evidence of the prosecution experts alleging death or
serious injury from SBS is demonstrably flawed. The scientific basis for the
assertion that these injuries are the consequence of deliberately inflicted violent
shaking is highly contentious. Biomechanical
evidence has shown that shaking a baby without contacting a surface would only
produce the triad of injuries in association with other injuries to the neck
and spinal column that are typically not found in alleged SBS cases. Over the
past decade it has been found that many of the accused parents/caregivers do
not fit the conventional profile of those who commit child abuse and the
pattern of injuries has been found to result from alternative histories than
shaking. The scientific and academic literature shows
that the construct of SBS is open to significant critique. SBS is lacking in
scientifically-conducted validation and forensic rigour. To date, the
scientific research which has been conducted, casts considerable doubt on the
SBS construct. Moreover, while this diagnosis continues to be used, babies are
denied the investigations they need to establish the correct cause, treatment
and prevention of recurrence, of their symptoms and signs. The experts who signed the letter also point out
that the SBS hypothesis does not have the undivided support of the relevant
professional community, an essential consideration in the assessment of expert
testimony. Despite the lack of substance, claims that the baby has been shaken
can result in draconian consequences in the Criminal and Family courts. Those
found in either type of court to have abused children will be unlikely ever again
to be allowed to care for their own or anyone else’s children. The letter states that “Many courts are making
insufficiently informed and consequentially, frequently wrong decisions with
dire and chronic consequences for parties who may well have done nothing wrong.” The signatories to the letter call for sensible
debate about SBS in the courts, which they claim in many cases is currently
being suppressed. “I
want to do what I can to straighten this out before I die,” Dr Guthkelch says, “even
though I don’t suppose I’ll live to see the end of it.” The letter, together
with the list of signatures, is here: Wrennall, L. Bache, B.
Pragnell, C. et al 2015 Open Letter
on Shaken Baby Syndrome and Courts: A False and Flawed Premise, Argument & Critique, Received Jan.
Published Feb."
The entire letter can be found at:
The entire letter can be found at:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following these issues.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog
