__________________
__________________
No teaser titles of this blog... I am sickened, and seeing red on an interview I only moments ago heard with the producer of a news documentary for “The Fifth Estate”.. airing tonight, the one hour documentary entitled “Diagnosis Murder” is covering the topic of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).
Although I am unsure of the motivation that CBC found to produce this documentary, it appears that its roots are in a recent court case in British Columbia of a couple falsely accused of abusing their child as a result of SBS:
What made me physically feel ill as I listened to this interview with Gillian Findlay (CBC) is that the Documentary appears less to follow the tribunals of a false accused couple, but the recent scientific research stating in simple terms SBS is a myth.
ARE YOU KIDDING!!?? These scientists suggest that brain haemorrhages, retinal bleeds in these infants is a result of per-existing conditions, or viruses, or even more ridiculous, inexplicably spontaneous. In partnership with these publicly funded basement dwellers, a team of bio-mechanical engineers invite college football players in to shake the life out of crash test dummy infants, and seem unable to cause damage to the dummy. They claim that if truly a baby is shaken to death, ribs would be broken, and contusions would litter the body. So an adult victim of a life ending head injury in a vehicle crash actually died of a pre-existing condition. Because no ribs were broken as their head went through a windshield.. Cause of death was a result of a virus.
I try, as I blog to remain objective, and believe I give a certain degree of respect to those opinions I may not agree with... But I am sorry, in this case I cannot. We have lost complete grasp on common sense in this case. As a result that they are unable to reproduce the signs and symptoms and fatalities in a lab, courts are giving validity to child abusers, and precedents are being set that as our scientists fight to prove that shaking an infant ferociously for minutes on end does not cause them harm.
Typically I would not cast such an outcry of disgust until I do research (in this case watch tonight’s airing of the documentary). BUT, regardless of any defence that the researchers make on their efforts to prove this is a myth, any lab results will be forever impossible for me to believe that this violence against defenceless infants is harmless.
I cannot see anything, that will ultimately be used as a defence and freeing child abusers from prosecution, that is so counter to common sense. I deeply saddened by this.
Although I am unsure of the motivation that CBC found to produce this documentary, it appears that its roots are in a recent court case in British Columbia of a couple falsely accused of abusing their child as a result of SBS:
"Diagnosis Murder" tells the story of several Canadian parents who say they were wrongfully accused--and the leading-edge medical researchers who believe they're telling the truth. The stakes are high: Some have gone to jail. All have had their other children taken away from them.
One couple recently had their children returned after a four-year battle. Even though the courts in B.C. cleared Zabeth and Paul Baynes of charges they had shaken their baby, the couple feel they will carry the stigma for life. Another man in Ontario has now had his case put up for judicial review, giving him hope that his name may too be cleared.”
What made me physically feel ill as I listened to this interview with Gillian Findlay (CBC) is that the Documentary appears less to follow the tribunals of a false accused couple, but the recent scientific research stating in simple terms SBS is a myth.
ARE YOU KIDDING!!?? These scientists suggest that brain haemorrhages, retinal bleeds in these infants is a result of per-existing conditions, or viruses, or even more ridiculous, inexplicably spontaneous. In partnership with these publicly funded basement dwellers, a team of bio-mechanical engineers invite college football players in to shake the life out of crash test dummy infants, and seem unable to cause damage to the dummy. They claim that if truly a baby is shaken to death, ribs would be broken, and contusions would litter the body. So an adult victim of a life ending head injury in a vehicle crash actually died of a pre-existing condition. Because no ribs were broken as their head went through a windshield.. Cause of death was a result of a virus.
I try, as I blog to remain objective, and believe I give a certain degree of respect to those opinions I may not agree with... But I am sorry, in this case I cannot. We have lost complete grasp on common sense in this case. As a result that they are unable to reproduce the signs and symptoms and fatalities in a lab, courts are giving validity to child abusers, and precedents are being set that as our scientists fight to prove that shaking an infant ferociously for minutes on end does not cause them harm.
"Dr Squier’s main concern is the challenges to the science that have come from biomechanics and pathology. In 1987 a Pennsylvania study that was undertaken to validate the SBS theory suggested that in fact it was virtually impossible for a person to exert the level of force needed to sustain the triad of injuries."
Typically I would not cast such an outcry of disgust until I do research (in this case watch tonight’s airing of the documentary). BUT, regardless of any defence that the researchers make on their efforts to prove this is a myth, any lab results will be forever impossible for me to believe that this violence against defenceless infants is harmless.
I cannot see anything, that will ultimately be used as a defence and freeing child abusers from prosecution, that is so counter to common sense. I deeply saddened by this.
I'm studying to be a biomechanical engineer, and I think that the idea that SBS is a nonexistent problem is absolutely unbelievable. Crash test dummies are made of extremely tough plastic and metal. They are covered in sensors to collect acceleration data that can then mathematically be converted into forces. They are good for predicting bone damage, but terrible at predicting soft tissue damage, like that in SBS. I don't know who is doing this study, but they have seriously jeopardized their reputation as a scientist.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that child abusers are being allowed to have their children back is absolutely monstrous, and the courts should know better than to accept the opinions of what is obviously a very secluded and controversial group of scientists. Lawmakers and enforcers must remain objective. Lab results can be tailored; still technically correct, but catering to a point or predetermined conclusion. They need to use their common sense; a baby with brain damage that was acquired after birth was the responsibility of the parent to prevent anyways.
I was remiss (in my anger) to provide WHY the science community is trying to prove SBS a myth.. it is to protect against innocent parents being accused of abuse.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose a lesser of two evils, certainly a falsely accused family is my choice, versus many more abusers and murders getting off because of a technicality. We are throwing out the baby in the bathwater - but if we do that, there is not enough trauma with throwing out the baby in the bathwater to cause any injury - according to these scientists!
One question, Darryl:
ReplyDeleteIf your child had, let's say, Menkes disease, hydrocephaly, Vitamin K deficiency, or one of a host of other problems that mimic the symptoms of shaking, would you willing go to prison for 20 years to life to protect children who ARE abused? If not, then perhaps you see the problem.
Jeremy M. Praay
Jeremy, great point, and I hold on to this part of the situation as the only hope that this is not a completely insane exercise. Most certainly the risk of an innocent parent(s) exists when they are completely innocent, and a child has legitimate, natural health issues. BUT, I expect, and have enough faith in the legal system that convictions for murder, or abuse, TYPICALLY extend way beyond injuries to a child, investigations into history, character of parents, interviewing of others that have been in contact with the family etc. I will not deny that there are wrongful convictions that exist.. but this is an issue with the law and the investigations. To even consider not allowing physical evidence of a baby that has had the life shaken out of him is terrifying to me. Your question (my point) should not have to be asked. Sacrificing myself for a handful of misguided scientists, that may not have any idea to the legal significance really need to answer the real question.
ReplyDelete"as you shake the hell out of a crash test dummy, and cannot replicate brain injury on a baby.. are you assured to the point that hundreds of abusers are free to abuse, and teach abuse based on the results of this"
However, I respect your comment.. and again, empathise with the handful of parents that are forced to defend their legitimate innocence.. but in the grand scheme of things.. I prefer this small percentage, and will put faith in our legal system.
I am a mother of shaken babies and i am very upset that this show is airing. I think that it is insane to say that shaking a baby can not cause this much damage. Can you tell me how a health baby gets these injuries than. I do think that there may be some people that may have been wrongfully convicted. I also believe that there are others that did not serve enough time for doing what they have do. I serve a life sentence everyday of my life for your actions.......
ReplyDeleteAt what point did anyone say "violence against defenceless infants is harmless. . ."? Is this subject matter too complicated for you to understand? The idea is very simple and straightforward. Many signs and symptoms once thought to suggest that a child was violently shaken are, in fact, signs and symptoms of other things all together. This is irrefutable Lots of innocent people have been falsely accused of violently shaking their children based on science that was invalid. No one is trying to prove that violently shaking a child isn't dangerous or potentially fatal. They're simply demonstrating that violently shaking a child doesn't result in the specific pattern of injury we once thought it did. It can still kill them.
ReplyDeleteIt's not even worth me commenting back no.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments of John above. The point of the show was that it is not as easy to simply make a diagnosis of murder with the symptoms stated in the show. It is amazing to see how people love to cling to the legitimacy of "science." You have to be able to test these so called experts and scientists. You give someone a white coat and all of a sudden they are credible? Have you ever met anyone who has been wrongly convicted? If you see these people's lives the results are devastating. Look at all the families whose lives were torn apart because of Charles Smith because he was such an "expert" and no one in the courts dared to challenge him. I am not saying there are not cases where babies are shaken and suffer these symptoms. Of course there are, and it is tragic. But the point of the show was to bring to light that there are some real possibilities that these symptoms can manifest for different reasons. Why are you "ill" that the fifth estate challenged this so called sure science? We need to be able to scrutinize every piece of evidence that comes into our courtrooms to properly distinguish those who have committed an offence, and those who instead just have children who happen to have been ill. When you say this is counter to common sense... well "common sense" is what wrongly convicted the list of exonerated persons now in Canada. It would be wonderful if it was as easy as common sense. But it is not, and that is why we have an adversarial justice system and the reason why we need to have responsible crown attorneys and persistent defence counsel. And maybe this is idealistic, but experts should stop getting paid to be bias witnesses for one side or the other in court rooms. They should simply focus on science and have neutral court appointed experts who have no interest in the outcome of the case.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you and I are that far apart in our opinions... I am perfectly willing to say that this is an incredibly complicated issue, and my outrage is a simplistic analyse of a 30,000 foot view.. In every complicated issue there are exceptions to the rule. My "general" view is that is it incredibly dangerous to let the exceptions (wrongfully accused), steer the majority of cases. If DNA evidence for a convicted felon was contaminated and he was found innocent after conviction, then should all cases based on DNA evidence be dismissed in the courts. That would be tragic, as would dismissing abusive parents because white coats in the security of a lab, counter common sense claiming it is impossible to damage an infants brain by violent shaking. I have a child, who was an infant (of course) and so much care was taken when they are completely dependant and vulnerable.. The image of a violent shaking, and claims that it would cause no injury - is well, ridiculous. As I engage in responses here and on CBC blog... I fear that common sense has flown out the window, and we may be falling victim of Confirmation Bias (refer to my article http://darryls-soapbox.blogspot.com/2012/01/information-highway-single-lane-country.html)... as I am willing and anxious to further research all sides of this debate, I hope that others with a firm counter to my belief, spend some time researching the impact and experts that believe that SBS kills.
DeleteDarryl, you are correct in assuming that an investigation scrutinizes many aspects of a case, not just injuries. A New York Times article published in February of last year also reported on possible wrongful convictions of shaken baby syndrome.
ReplyDeleteThis prompted a number of responses from the legal and medical community who thought that the report over-simplified cases including this response from Dr. Melissa Currie, Director, Division of Forensic Medicine and Board-certified Child Abuse Pediatrician at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Other responses from the medical and legal community can be found at the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome website.
Dontshake - thanks for this information.. it was a very good read.. as I have mentioned in previous responses, and am committed to it personally.. I have my opinions (of course) - but also seriously considering all comments on this blog, both in support and against. I thank all that are providing the opportunity for me to avoid Confirmation Bias.. and hope that others adopt this idea and take time to read your articles you have included.
DeleteI have always hated the term Shaken Baby Syndrome, and here is why; when you call something a syndrome, it is associated with disease or diagnosed condition that cannot be prevented. We need to start calling SBS what it is. Abusive Head Trauma. When you shake a baby it is abuse, and it causes trauma to the head and brain, it is not a condition or disease or disorder that cannot be prevented, it is abuse....
ReplyDeleteI AGREE... and regardless of what side of the fence you are on this discussion, I expect that we can all agree with your desire and we continue the efforts to rename the accepted terminology for abuse. Thanks Kim
DeleteThe medical and legal communities are using the term Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) as was recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in their policy statement released in May 2009. The AAP recognizes Shaken Baby Syndrome as a subset of AHT and does recommend still using the term Shaken Baby Syndrome in prevention efforts.
ReplyDelete