Hang the paediatricians

Occasionally, I think the daft Welsh mob who set fire to a paediatrician’s house may have been – admittedly by sheer fluke – closer to the mark than you might expect.

Paediatricians Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall, one of whom misled the courts and got innocent women sent to jail as a result, and one of whom attempted to get a woman’s children taken into care on the basis of having watched a single TV interview with her husband, were found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council. Good – well done the GMC.

The Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health don’t agree. At their AGM, delegates voted for a motion suggesting that they had ‘grave concerns’ over the GMC striking off members of their profession who lie to get innocent people sent to jail. Apparently, that’s seen as perfectly reasonable behaviour.

Dr John Bridson, who in an ideal world would have nails fired through his skull, says about Meadow and Southall:

They did not present a danger to their patients, they were simply doing their job in the way they thought best

Do you not think, just possibly, that sending a child’s parents to jail for something that they didn’t do might represent, y’know, perhaps not exactly danger, but certainly not good things for said child…?

2 thoughts on “Hang the paediatricians

  1. pdfcker says:

    They didn’t “lie”, they gave expert opinion as to the facts of the case. If the defence lawyers had been doing their jobs, rather than keeping their eye on money making potential of the next bill, then they could probably have put up another expert witness to contradict the testimony of Meadow/Southall/whoever is next served up as a sacrificial lamb on the alter of public ignorance regarding “expert testimony”. And a lot of trouble would have been avoided.

  2. PDF says:

    Not impressed by people using variants of my pseudonym to post on my site; stop that.

    The English legal system is adversarial, and the score is known and understood w.r.t. that and lawyers. But expert witnesses go in there and present themselves as people who Understand The Truth; if you use your medical qualification as a badge to do that whilst actually just presenting your personal conjecture as fact then you’re bringing your profession into disrepute whether you happen to be right or happen to be wrong.

    Had Meadow or Southall stated that their views were contentious and there would likely be equally qualified people out there who disagreed with their testimony, that would have been worthy of the respect in which society holds their profession.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>