The connection between SIDs and MSBP is being made because of the role
of Sir Roy Meadow in testifying to both.  His position begins from the
proposition that some children may be abused by their parents.  This
position is now so well established as to be beyond doubt, but it was
denied for decades: the existence of child abuse was only accepted
medically in the 1950s, when it was proved by radiologists who were able
to demonstrate fractures.  We still have the residue of old attitudes,
and it is evident in most of this debate.  

The test in criminal cases is that a case must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.  This is the rule which has led to the dismissal of
charges against people where there have been cot deaths.  Roy Meadow has
been quoted as saying that "one death is a tragedy, two is suspicious,
and three is murder".  That is a long way from saying that all cases are
murder, but it is still not good enough for proof in criminal law.

Proof beyond doubt is not however the test for child care law.  The
interests of the child are paramount, and the test is whether the child
is at risk.  A child who is failing to thrive or develop is
unquestionably at risk, and that is what prompts investigation.  The
idea that children should only be removed from parents on proof of guilt
implies a return to the rules of the 1940s and 50s, rules which we moved
away from because they signally failed to protect children.
Unfortunately, many inquiries have been handed to criminal lawyers, who
persist in seeing the issue as one of proof beyond doubt - an example is
the Clyde inquiry on Orkney.  The decision to take a child into care is
supposed to be based on the balance of risk.  Unexplained deaths and
MSBP are some of many circumstances in which children may be considered
to be at risk.  Both invariably require other, collaborative
information.  

Paul Spicker
Professor of Public Policy
Centre for Public Policy and Management
Aberdeen Business School
The Robert Gordon University
Garthdee Road
Aberdeen AB10 7QE

Tel:  (0) + 44 1224 26 3120
Fax: (0) + 44 1224 26 3434

Website:  http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy

The mission of The Robert Gordon University is "to inspire and enable
the transformation of individuals, economies and societies".


-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ted Harding
Sent: 26 January 2004 10:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SIDs


A follow-up:

I have "Woman's Hour" on BBC R4 at the moment, and they have just
finished an interesting item on the SIDS/MSBP issue.

Not much on SIDS, though some interesting comments about the judiciary's
capacity to cope with probabilistic calculations.

More disturbing is the suggestion (not categorically confirmed by Govt
statements, but very far from categorically denied) that, as well as the
urgent review of criminal cases of SIDS which it seems will definitely
be carried out, the associated review of civil (Family Court) decisions
(in which children are removed from parents on the balance of
probabilities that they are at risk from "MSBP mothers") will not take
place -- it is alleged that Margaret Hodge is backtracking; indeed the
Govt position is stated to be that this undertaking was never part of
the Solicitor General's announcement in the first place. Yet there is a
clear assertion, by an MP (Dominic Grieve, Shadow Attorney General) who
was sitting listening to it at the time, that it did indeed form part of
the SG's (Harriet Harman's) statement.

Also (which I had not fully appreciated before ) it is stated that while
the Family Court may freely use "expert opinion" in order to come to the
view that a child is at risk, the "defendant" does not have a free right
to bring their own expert testimony but has to ask the permission of the
Court to do so, which may well be refused.

The outline of this item is available at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/26_01_04/monday/info1.shtml

and the full broadcast will presumably be available in due course on
"Listen Again".

However, it is not there yet (still only last week's programs, so maybe
not till next Monday).

As John Logsdon wrote privately to me about yesterday's "Observer"
article: "I see it as more Kafka than witchcraft". (Indeed, "The Trial"
comes to mind.)

Best wishes to all,
Ted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 26-Jan-04                                       Time: 10:51:51
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************