In defence of David Southall

Fruit-Bar

Why did Meadows regard the 1:73m figure as remotely relevant. It is manifestly incorrect, an abuse of statistics that anyone with basic exposure to epidemiology would know. It has as much relevance to the case as some kind of DaVinci Code-style numerology.

Either Meadows did not know he was misleading the court - incompetence - or he did - which would be worse.

That the judge did not direct the jury that the 1:73m figure should be ignored reflects badly on the statistical skills of our judges - that he needs to reflects on the statistical education of the average juror - but a medical expert has a clear professional requirement to handle such issues and Meadows blew.

I am not one of the campaigners - just a father who knows his math - but if the state took my child and accused me of harming her - I would probably go off the deep end too.

The appeal court decided in its wisdom that the stats did not swing the decision - but as Sally Clarks fathers website says - if not that what did?

John Fryer

Theodore Dalrymple examines very carefully the arguments against Professor Southall and Professor Meadow and comes to the conclusion that they have done no harm and they are the bastions to protect us from murdering mothers.

The fallacy in his protection of these people is compounded when he talks of the 11 year struggle to bring Southall down from his place in hospital treatment of children.

There is no smoke without fire and the very fact that many people have been released from life imprisonment on the evidence of Meadow or that dozens of babies have died at the hand of Southall when he deprived them off sufficient oxygen to sustain life, only shows the puissance of authority over the common man or in this case the wronged and imprisoned mother or the babies who just might but we can't be sure would still be alive today if they had been kept in a normal oxygenated atmosphere like the rest of us.

I have difficulty breathing on hot summery days and would not take kindly to having my oxygen supply diminished to "help" me stay alive.

I would not take kindly to being put in prison when my child had just died when some doctor gave yet another of my babies a mercury laden injection and yet again the baby died in my arms 4 hours later.

Oragnic mercury for the uninitiated is no longer in many vaccines for the very reason it is the most toxic of all stable elements, bar none. Making it more deadly in the vaccine from than the element arsenic, beryllium or antimony and even the notorious organophosphates.

TDK

My understanding is that David Southall was disciplined by the GMC after alleging to police that the husband of Sally Clark was responsible for murdering the couple's children. He didn't do this following a detailed examination of the evidence but after watching a television documentary. Now, he may well have subsequently been subjected to "vexatious" complaints but that one wasn't. Failing to acknowledge that incident seriously undermines this essay.

For the first time ever I find myself strongly disagreeing with a Theodore Dalrymple article.

In recent years we have seen several scandals concerning child protection which required the active partipation of members of the medical profession. For example: Cleveland, Bryn Estyn, Orkney, Sally Clark and the current ongoing problem with Children's Courts.

In all cases, including the ones you defend, the medical experts did not come to cautious conclusions but used their authority to voice suspicions far in excess of the available evidence.

Moreover I find it hard to support the notion that somehow these disciplinary actions will lead to a loss of independence. If anything, a state takeover of medicine has already happened. My anecdotal view is that the average person sees no distinction between members of the medical profession and the state already. David Southall jumping to conclusions is regarded as precisely the same problem as Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt with regard to the dilation test. In these cases the medics either initiated or validated the excesses of the state.

Now Daniel is perfectly aware that the prevailing ideology, particularly amongst child care professionals, is that the nuclear family is alienating at best, destructive at worst. I have no idea whether Meadows, Southall et al subscribe to this narrative but their work has undoubtedly supported those who are driven by ideology to destroy the family.

The website http://www.richardwebster.net/ contains excellent articles on child abuse scandals including some on Roy Meadows.

JL

Even if an event has a one in 73,000,000 chance of happening, it means that, at some point, that event is inevitable. Statistics such as these should not be used as evidence in a court of law.

Dr.D

I posted an answer to Fruit-Bar's question but it hasn't appeared. Supporting Meadow is almost impossible for debate is stifled. Meadow is a distinguished paediatrician who made a breakthrough he would rather not have done when he discovered mothers hurting and killing their children.Almost everything written about him is in error and it is good to see what I hope will be the beginning of a proper striving for the truth rather than the musings of those whose interests do not extend to the welfare of children.

Dr.D

John Fryer says: "There is no smoke without fire and the very fact that many people have been released from life imprisonment on the evidence of Meadow or that dozens of babies have died at the hand of Southall when he deprived them off sufficient oxygen to sustain life, only shows the puissance of authority over the common man or in this case the wronged and imprisoned mother or the babies who just might but we can't be sure would still be alive today if they had been kept in a normal oxygenated atmosphere like the rest of us."

No one has been "released from life imprisonment on the evidence of Meadow" nor anyone condemned to the same penaltly because of him.To whom are you referring when you make such defamatory statements about a man who has given his life in the service of abused children? What is is about this country that it prefers to release those convicted of killing children and hound those whose duty is to defend them? What is all this about oxygen deprivation?

Kiffa

There is only one solution to the problem of suspicion of child abuse as outlined by Dalrymple and it is this: to raise the rights of the child for protection and lower the rights to privacy of the parents who are suspected, and either to inform them that they are being monitored, by the installation of cameras in the home. Or to install them WITHOUT their knowledge and monitor them as under the Munchausen By Proxy investigation. If parents truly love their children they would understand the need for Big Brother to ally suspicions or to intervene. Dear Speccie readers, when I was a lonely, exhausted end of my tether mother, there were times I truly wanted to destroy their existence - just to get some peace. And I am a 'normal' person (just honest about the dark impulses). How did I stop stabbing, burning, smothering, drowning the endlessly demanding little b's? By imagining that there was a camera in the corner of the room and that a social worker was at the end of it. So I know it works. PS: children were never hurt, are now teenagers, well, loved, safe, balanced, happy, and future higher tax payers! So don't panic.

DR.D

Thank you Kiffa. An honest reflection on the demands placed upon mothers of small demanding children. My mother always said she nearly flung my brother from an upstairs window which might have been the best option( sorry Nigel). My mother and you held their loving fury but others are not so resolved and momentary madness will see a baby crushed and broken in an instant whereupon a journalist will break free of the stinking slurry and proclaim that no such injuries are possible and that only the doctors are to blame. A 'journalist' on the "Times" thinks that women have been sent to prison innocently on the evidence of malign paediatricians who presumably she imagines breaking off from their duties towards the innocent sick that are their charges, to dabble in the delights of sending mothers to jail.Who are these gratuitously ignorant hacks who wilfully demean those that defend children and with lies abundant make sure that others will follow to early death at the hands of those that should love them?

Alexander Walker

It is well worth reading the two appeal court judgements and asking what caused the change between the firm opinion expressed by the Court at the first appeal, viz: "For all those reasons, we consider that there was an overwhelming case against the
appellant at trial" and the quashing of the convictions at the second appeal, and then asking why CPS bottled out of trying her again?

Testing the "undisclosed" microbiological evidence that seems to have been critical to the second appeal court decision would have clearly been in the public interest...

Paediatrician

Two comments about Sir Roy Meadow.
Firstly, the statistic that the probability of two cot deaths occurring in a family like the Clarke's is 'one in 73 million' was a verbatim quote from an authoratative government sponsored report, http://www.cemach.org.uk/Publications/CESDI-SUDI-Report-(1).aspx, (page 92).
Secondly, Meadow's recognition of msbp remains well respected throughout the world of paediatrics and is discredited only by the ignorant. There is no doubt that a few apparently normal parents, wilfully, repeatedly, with forethought, and without provocation, smother their infants. Some of these infants die and others are left brain damaged. Such attempts been recorded on video and presented to the Courts on many occasions. Southall's article in the journal, Pediatrics, in 1997, describes 30 proven examples. Meadow coined the term, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, to draw attention to this. Southall proved it, with the help of the police, using covert video surveillance. One can argue about the best name for this crime, but one can not reasonably argue that some parents plan their abuse, not because of sudden loss of temper, but for much more complex and malicious reasons.

Careful reader

I wonder why the Spectator thinks it is either acceptable or responsible to publish the wholly defamatory and entirely incorrect claim "that dozens of babies have died at the hand of Southall when he deprived them off sufficient oxygen to sustain life". No wonder all comments are guaranteed anonymity. The comment is typical of the rubbish that is published about David Southall. And just in case readers are wondering, no I am not a doctor, but someone who has taken the trouble to read all the material about Southall and to realise what a travesty of justice the GMC results have been.