[log in to unmask],Net wrote at 12:51 on 25/11/98
about "Re: Child Abuse - A complaint":
-----------------------------
>The baby had very obvious Blue/Grey sclera and they wondered if this
was
>Osteogenesis Imperfecta. The local paediatricians had failed to
>establish a relationship of trust with the family and were unwilling to
>get involved in reassessing the child. The family finally took the
>child to Scotland to see Dr Patterson who confirmed this as a typical
>case of Osteogenesis Imperfecta Type 1A. At the case conference the
>paediatricians advised conference that Dr Patterson's opinion should
not
>be accepted. (It is difficult to explain the reasons for this without
>risking a libel action).
Not really. Dr Patterson has often given the opinion that
children's injuries are due to osteogenesis imperfecta or a brief
episode of weakening of bones...it has often not been accepted as at
all probable.
However those cases have not been notable AFAIK for definite signs
of osteogenesis imperfecta, such as scleral colouration.
>It was decided that a Paediatric assessment
>was needed to decide on the diagnosis and that until that had been done
>then the child's name should be added to the Register under the
category
>of "Actual Physical Abuse". The reason they gave was "As there is an
>unresolved issue, further injury is likely".
>Two weeks later after a Paediatrician from another unit had confirmed
>the diagnosis of Osteogenesis Imperfecta the child's name was erased
>from the Register.
>
>I complained to Social services that the decision to register was
>inappropriate and had caused the family tremendous emotional pain. My
>complaint was dismissed on the grounds that "Further injury was likely"
Appeals process.
--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|