GIST: "Just before Christmas, the findings of an independent review of the Motherisk Hair Testing Laboratory were released. The report, prepared by Justice Susan Lang of the Ontario Court of Appeal, makes for bone-chilling reading. After
a meticulous dissection of the evidence, Justice Lang concluded that
the hair testing – which was used to determine alcohol and drug use in
child protection investigations and criminal prosecutions – was
“inadequate and unreliable,” and so, too, was much expert testimony. While Motherisk founder Gideon Koren
rarely testified himself, the judge said he was ultimately responsible
for ensuring interpretations were done properly. The
findings will have sweeping repercussions because the hair testing was
used in 16,000 child-protection cases and six criminal cases that
resulted in convictions. The key case
was that of Tamara Broomfield, who was convicted of administering a
noxious substance (cocaine) to her child and various other charges in
2009. Her conviction was overturned in 2014 when the Ontario Court of
Appeal expressed serious doubts about the validity of Motherisk’s hair
testing. In response, the Toronto Star published a series of investigative articles,
which, in turn, forced the province to commission an independent
review, and led to the suspension and permanent closing of the
drug-testing lab. The technical details
of how the hair testing was inadequate are important, but the short
version is that while the lab promised “gold standard” results, it
barely delivered a tin standard. That
this could happen for a decade beggars belief, but, according to Justice
Lang, the fundamental problem was lack of oversight, a culture that
allowed shoddy science to flourish and be rewarded. ........But what’s most troubling of all is that the Motherisk story is oddly familiar. In 2008, an inquiry
revealed that Charles Smith, a forensic pathologist at Sick Kids who
was responsible for investigating suspicious child deaths, had grossly
misinterpreted autopsy results and overstated his expertise. The tragic
result there was that at least 13 people were wrongly convicted because
Dr. Smith testified there was foul play (often shaken baby syndrome). Stephen
Goudge, who led that inquiry, made some recommendations to Sick Kids
Hospital (and to the health and research community more generally) that
apparently need to be reiterated: Oversight is essential, and so, too,
is training and the verification of credentials. Dr.
Smith and Dr. Koren were passionate about their work and beliefs –
often to the point of religious-like fervour. They built little empires
and reputations as unassailable experts. This
kind of hero worship ended up being costly, especially for parents who
found themselves in their crosshairs. Parents have gone to jail and been
deprived of their children. That this
has happened, at least in part, because of managerial and administrative
failures of the Hospital for Sick Children, which also has a
world-class reputation, is deeply troubling. In the Motherisk case, there has been a summary apology, but some serious self-reflection is still in order. Children, their parents and the public deserve better from Sick Kids."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/after-motherisk-report-sick-kids-needs-some-serious-self-reflection/article28117696/
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
