Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:53:41.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Maintaining the Orthodoxy and Silencing Dissent

from Section 1 - Prologue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2023

By
Chris Brook
Edited by
Keith A. Findley ,
Cyrille Rossant ,
Kana Sasakura ,
Leila Schneps ,
Waney Squier  and
Knut Wester
Keith A. Findley
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Cyrille Rossant
Affiliation:
University College London
Kana Sasakura
Affiliation:
Konan University, Japan
Leila Schneps
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Paris
Waney Squier
Affiliation:
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford
Knut Wester
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
Get access

Summary

Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a controversial medical ‘diagnosis’ that is challenged by an increasing number of reputable medical professionals, scientists, and lawyers. This chapter outlines various attacks made on those who challenge the mainstream view of the scientific and forensic reliability of these medical determinations, with the goal of delegitimising their perspective and maintaining the authority of the orthodoxy. The scientific and medical debate in the field has become toxic, described as ‘tribal warfare’. The chapter identifies and explains the fault lines at the interfaces between science, law, and medicine that have led to such an unhealthy environment, and how this has impeded the progress of science in the field.

Keywords

silencing dissentevidence-based medicinescientific controversydelegitimising dissentmaintaining orthodoxyGMCiInterface of sciencelawand medicine
Type
Chapter
Information
Shaken Baby Syndrome
Investigating the Abusive Head Trauma Controversy
 , pp. 1 - 10
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bilo, RAC. The Swedish Agency for Health Technology report about traumatic shaking: Much ado about nothing? Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2018;14:541–4.Google Scholar
Vedelago, C, Mannix, L. Legal threats and police searches. The Age. 19 May 2021. bit.ly/3sZZjur.Google Scholar
Debelle, GD, Maguire, S, Watts, P et al. Abusive head trauma and the triad: A critique on behalf of rCPCH of traumatic shaking. The role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2018;103(6):606–10.Google Scholar
Binenbaum, G, Forbes, BJ, Topjian, AA, Twelves, C, Christian, CW. Patterns of retinal hemorrhage associated with cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2021;25(6):324.e1–324.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.06.005.Google Scholar
Tully, J. Abusive head trauma: Mechanisms, myths and mysteries. Seminar at the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medicine Service, 19 March 2017. Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Dyer, C. Child death expert provided ‘misleading and biased’ evidence, panel hears. BMJ. 2015;351:h5400. www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hymel, KP. Denying the abusive head trauma denialists their day in court, one step at a time. Pediatric Radiology. 2019;49:1710–11.Google Scholar
Strouse, PJ. Child abuse: We have problems. Pediatric Radiology. 2016;46:587–90.Google Scholar
Fitzsimmons, J. Abusive head trauma evidence: Admissibility at Trial 2 presentation for the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse. 2010.Google Scholar
Benet-Martínez, V, Waller, NG. From adorable to worthless: Implicit and self-report structure of highly evaluative personality descriptors. European Journal of Personality. 2002;16:1–41.Google Scholar
Tyler, TR. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006;57(1):375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brook, C, Lynøe, N, Eriksson, A, Balding, D. Retraction of a peer reviewed article suggests ongoing problems with Australian forensic science, Forensic Science International. Synergy. 2021;3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100208.Google Scholar
McDonald, S. The shaken baby debate. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation. 35(5):1–191.Google Scholar
Hanson, M. Battle of the expert. ABA Journal. 2005;91:52.Google Scholar
Guthkelch, AN. Infantile subdural haematoma and its relationship to whiplash injuries. BMJ. 1971;430(2):430–1.Google Scholar
Guthkelch, AN. Problems of infant retino-dural hemorrhage with minimal external injury. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2012;201(12):201–8.Google Scholar
Chadwick, DL, Kirschner, RH, Reece, RM et al. Shaken baby syndrome: A forensic pediatric response. Pediatrics. 1998;101:321–3.Google Scholar
Plunkett, J. Fatal pediatric head injuries caused by short-distance falls. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2001;22(1):1–12.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF, Hackshaw, AK Vowles, GH, Nickols, CD, Whitwell, HL. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children. I. Patterns of brain damage. Brain. 2001;124:1290–4.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF, Vowles, GH, Hackshaw, AK et al. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children. II. Microscopic brain injury in infants. Brain. 2001;124:1299–1306.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF, Tasker, RC, Hackshaw, AK et al. Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic infant deaths: Does it explain the bleeding in ‘shaken baby syndrome’? Neuropathology Applied Neurobiology. 2003;29:14–22.Google Scholar
Jennian Geddes in statement given in Squier v GMC, 2016, EWHC 2739.Google Scholar
Storr, W. ‘We believe you harmed your child’: The war over shaken baby convictions. The Guardian. 8 December 2017.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF. Nonaccidental trauma: Clinical aspects and epidemiology of child abuse. Pediatric Radiology. 2009;39(759):457–60.Google Scholar
Rumbelow, H. Why I denied shaken baby syndrome. The Times. 16 November 2016.Google Scholar
Aspelin, P. Keynote address: Can a sign or occult finding predict a causal relationship? How to reason about possible child abuse. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2017;50:749–62.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T. How to read a paper: Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ. 1997;315:243–6.Google Scholar
Squier v GMC [2016] EWHC 2739 @53.Google Scholar
Vinchon, M, Defoort-Dhellemmes, S, Desurmont, M, Dhellemmes, P. Accidental and nonaccidental head injuries in infants: A prospective study. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2005;102(4 Suppl):380–4.Google Scholar
Vinchon, M. Response to Lynøe: Questions about isolated trauma shaking and confessions. Child’s Nervous System. 2017;33(9):1423–4.Google Scholar
Baker, J (2013) Judgment, Re L and M (Children) EWHC 1569 (Fam).Google Scholar
Sur, RL, Dahm, P. History of evidence-based medicine. Indian Journal of Urology. 2011;27(4):487–9.Google Scholar
LeFevre, M. From authority- to evidence-based medicine: Are clinical practice guidelines moving us forward or backward? Annals of Family Medicine. 2017;15(5):410–12. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2141.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. Should Waney Squier have been struck off over shaken baby syndrome? BBC Newsnight. 17 October 2016.Google Scholar
For example, Cohen, JF, Korevaar, DA, Altman, DG et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799.2016.Google Scholar
For example, Thiblin, I, Andersson, J, Wester, K et al. Medical findings and symptoms in infants exposed to witnessed or admitted abusive shaking: A nationwide registry study. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0240182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recce, RM, Sege, R. Childhood head injuries. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2000;154:11–15.Google Scholar
For example, Eva Lai Wah, F, Tz Sung, RY, Nelson, EAS et al. Unexplained subdural hematoma in young children: Is it always child abuse? Pediatrics International. 2002;44(1):37–42.Google Scholar
For example, Adamsbaum, C, Grabar, S, Mejean, N, Rey-Salmon, C. Abusive head trauma: Judicial admissions highlight violent and repetitive shaking. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3):546–55.Google Scholar
For example, Reitsma, JB, Rutjes, AWS, Khan, KS, Coomarasamy, A, Bossuyt, PM. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62:797–806.Google Scholar
For example, Handels, RLH, Wolfs, CAG, Aalten, P et al. Optimizing the use of expert panel reference diagnoses in diagnostic studies of multidimensional syndromes. BMC Neurology. 2014;14(190). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-014-0190-3.Google Scholar
For example, Sidpra, J, Jeelani, NUO, Ong, J et al. Skull fractures in abusive head trauma: A single centre experience and review of the literature. Child’s Nervous System. 2021;37:919–29.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. Systematicity: The nature of science. Philosophia. 2008;36:167–80.Google Scholar
Elinder, G, Eriksson, A, Hallberg, B et al. Traumatic shaking: The role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking. Acta Paediatrica. 2018;107:3–23.Google Scholar
Donohoe, M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome. Part 1: Literature review, 1996–1998. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2003;24(3):239–42.Google Scholar
For example, Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ.2008;336:924–6.Google Scholar
Choudhary, AK, Servaes, S, Slovis, TL et al. Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children. Pediatric Radiology. 2018;48(8):1048–65.Google Scholar
Belton, I, MacDonald, A, Wright, G, Hamlin, I. Improving the practical application of the Delphi method in group-based judgment: A six-step prescription for a well-founded and defensible process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019;147:72–82.Google Scholar
Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feynman, R. The relation of science and religion. Engineering and Science. 1956;19(5):21.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×