Professor Sir Roy Meadow struck off
By Sam Knight, Times Online
Professor Sir Roy Meadow, once Britain's most eminent paediatrician,
was today found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck
off the medical register for giving misleading evidence at a murder
trial.
The General Medical Council said that Professor Meadow, 72, had "abused
his position as a doctor" and "seriously undermined" the position of
all doctors evidence in trials by using misleading statistics in the
murder trial of Sally Clark in 1999.
Mary Clark-Glass, the chairwoman of the fitness to practise panel of
the GMC said Professor Meadow's errors were compounded by his
importance in the field of children's health.
Addressing Professor Meadow, Mrs Clark-Glass said today: "Your
misguided belief in the truth of your arguments, maintained throughout
the period in question, and indeed, throughout this inquiry, is both
disturbing and serious.
"It is because of your eminence and authority that this misleading
evidence carried such great weight." Professor Meadow was the head of
the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and was knighted for
"services to child health" in 1998.
The three-week hearing that delivered its judgment today turned on
statistics used by Professor Meadow at the trial of Mrs Clark, a
solicitor from Cheshire, who was accused of murdering her two baby
sons, Christopher and Harry.
Mrs Clark was found guilty after Professor Meadow said that there was
only a 1 in 73 million chance that both her children died of natural
causes - a statistic that was later disputed by the original author of
the research, and by the Royal Statistical Society.
In his evidence, Professor Meadow also described his much disputed
"Meadow's Law" on cot deaths that "One in a family is a tragedy, two is
suspicious and three is murder".
He also compared the chances of Mrs Clark's babies dying of natural
causes to "winning the jackpot" and unlikely odds in horse racing.
Mrs Clark spent two years in prison, and was eventually acquitted.
Although her conviction was quashed because of mistakes made in the
pathologists' examination of her children, at her appeal, judges cited
the highly persuasive evidence of Professor Meadow as a factor in her
conviction.
Professor Meadow also gave evidence in the trials of Angela Cannings
and Donna Anthony, two other mothers who were convicted, and later
acquitted, of murdering their children.
On Wednesday, the GMC panel ruled that Professor Meadow had misled the
jury at Mrs Clark's trial, but not intentionally. Today, the panel said
the consequences of his mistakes "cannot be underestimated".
During the hearing Professor Meadow admitted that his use of statistics
and racing analogies was "insensitive".
Today the family of those whom Professor Meadow helped convict said
justice had been done. "I certainly think that he deserved to be struck
off the medical register because of what he did to my daughter," said
Frank Lockyer, the father of Mrs Clark, who brought the complaint
against Professor Meadow that culminated in today's verdict.
Can you imagine losing a child, as in the above case, then go to jail because a doctor wrongly said you caused the death?
Fantastic!
Time for a pig-roast!
The guy is a dirt-bag!
Practicing medicine is a privelege that this coacroache egregiously abused.
His conduct was reprehensible in the extreme!
MR. ROGUE BANNED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD!
A MIS-LEADER!
A FATHER-TERROR!
[This message has been edited by pq (edited 18 July 2005).]
Sherr VT.
Chronic, tertiary Lyme disease, a vector-borne infection most accurately designated neuroborreliosis, is often misdiagnosed. Infectors of the human brain, Lyme borrelial spirochetes are neurotropic, similar to the spirochetes of syphilis. Symptoms of either disease may be stable and persistent, transient and inconsistent or severe yet fleeting.
Characteristics may be incompatible with established knowledge of neurological dermatomes, appearing to conventional medical eyes as anatomically impossible, thus creating confusion for doctors, parents and child patients. Physicians unfamiliar with Lyme patients' shifting, seemingly vague, emotional, and/or bizarre-sounding complaints, frequently know little about late-stage spirochetal disease. Consequently, they may accuse mothers of fabricating their children's symptoms - the so-called Munchausen's by proxy (MBP) "diagnoses." Women, following ancient losses of feminine authority in provinces of religion, ethics, and healing - disciplines comprising known fields of early medicine, have been scapegoated throughout history. In the Middle Ages, women considered potentially weak-minded devil's apprentices became victims of witch-hunts throughout Europe and America. Millions of women were burned alive at the stake.
Modern medicine's tendency to trivialize women's "offbeat" concerns and the fact that today's hurried physicians of both genders tend to seek easy panaceas, frequently result in the misogyny of mother-devaluation, especially by doctors who are spirochetally naive. These factors, when involving cases of cryptic neuroborreliosis, may lead to accusations of MBP.
Thousands of children, sick from complex diseases, have been forcibly removed from mothers who insist, contrary to customary evaluations, that their children are ill. The charges against these mothers relate to the idea they believe their children sick to satisfy warped internal agendas of their own. "MBP mothers" are then vilified, frequently jailed and publicly shamed for the "sins" of advocating for their children. In actuality, many such cases involve an unrecognized Lyme borreliosis causation that mothers may insist is valid despite negative tests.
Doctors who have utilized MBP tactics against mothers are likely to be unaware that in advanced borreliosis, seronegativity is often the rule, a principle disagreed upon by its two extant, published, peer-reviewed, Standards of Care. These are guidelines for Lyme disease management - the older system questioning the existence of persistent Lyme and the newer system relying on established clinical criteria.
Mothers must be free to obtain the family's preferred medical care by choosing between physicians practicing within either system without fear of reprisal. Doctors and mothers together may then explore medical options with renewed mutual respect toward the best interest of children's health.
Inventing the Munchausen's-by-proxy label and applying it to women even in cases where they are simply seeking help for seriously ill children is an abomination. Smirking health-professionals dismiss persistent appeals for help with this excuse. Children are taken from their parent without finding what the real problem is.
Sadly, it is applied mostly to women and has been in lots of cases to mothers of kids with Lyme disease. Nobody benefits and lives are ruined.
Every case should be treated very carefully and not all thrown in the same basket.
Ann - OH
A person who interprets eminem literally lacks insight and intelligence. some less intelligent people think he's for real!
He's an entertainer using shock value. period.
He's also the artist who calls women all kinds of horrible things just for shock.
[This message has been edited by pippy (edited 18 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Charles05:
I am against Child abuse in all forms from driving there kids into a lake to trying to make a child sick.IT IS ABUSE
How true!
So lets go after the IDSA, who prefers to tell us there is nothing wrong with the children....and that our 4 yr old children are psychosomatically ill with high fevers, congestive heart failure, etc.. THATS ABUSE
it is terribly sad and as parents and adults, some of us have had to go through the same.
Yes, I believe that a mentally unhealthy person MIGHT use his own child to get attention for himself. I have seen plenty do that with child athletes.
However, Charles05, your own checklist of symptoms for MSP doesn't make it look like a syndrome at all. ("Usually"..."may, may not"...) In fact, the only commonality seems to be a woman getting attention by making her child ill. Sheesh, under that criterium, we should have a Sport Parent Syndrome, an Overfeeding the Kid Syndrome, and a Hippest-Parent-on-the-Block Syndrome, all of which I find to be much more common than MSP.
Having worked with over 10,000 children in the course of over 20 years, I would say there was only one parent who perhaps fit the loose definition of MSP. She had decided that her son had developmental delays, and brought in state workers for early intervention. They worked with him in a nursery school where I worked. They said he was normal. I said he was normal.
Mother continued to report bizarre events at home, that we never saw the slightest inkling of at school. She claimed her second child, a daughter, was gifted. Nope, she was simply normal, too. But the mom certainly seemed to enjoy telling stories about her children's needs.
That is the only case I ever saw that even came close. I think we don't need a Syndrome to identify a parent who may be a bit odd, and possibly abusive, in this way.
But contrast that with the number of parents who are suspected, accused, or even separated from their children for simply trying to take on the challenging task of getting their child well from a puzzling disease.
Instead of being lauded as heros, these parents (usually women, btw) are threatened with removal of their children. They have to decide whether or not to discontinue treatment and let their children become sicker, in order to keep them.
I'm with Lish's Mom on this. There are two standards of care for Lyme disease. If the child has a diagnosis from a Board-certified doctor, then the parent has the right to choose which treatment protocol to go with. In the absense of hard evidence of child abuse, the parent's rights should be supported, not threatened.
Regards,
Shaz
Instead of being lauded as heros, these parents (usually women, btw) are threatened with removal of their children. They have to decide whether or not to discontinue treatment and let their children become sicker, in order to keep them.
(end quote)
When I guy who invents a syndrome, gives it a cutsey, memorable name, causes mayhem in medicine and courts, finally gets his come-uppance and is canned from the practice of medicine,I think it is time to cheer, not defend him and his crackpot ideas.
Thanks,
Ann
And some mentally ill people post on lymenet for attention and self gratification.
Ok ok, maybe just, a little bit.....once in awhile....sometimes....when the voices...
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Biting Back:And some mentally ill people post on lymenet for attention and self gratification.
How true!
I posted:
"When I guy who invents a syndrome, gives it a cutsey, memorable name, causes mayhem in medicine and courts, finally gets his come-uppance and is canned from the practice of medicine,I think it is time to cheer, not defend him and his crackpot ideas."
And when the guy is completely disgraced, his crackpot "disease" no longer exists. He made it up. It never was real. It is a deceased disease. It no longer has credence. It is so rare, it has evaporated. It is gone.....except in American medical books and practice.
Anyone who uses it as an excuse for anything should be sued and convicted.
Ann - OH