SIDS: Film on Doctor Southall and Munchausen by Proxy

Cutting Edge: A Very Dangerous Doctor (Channel 4) was more of a moral minefield, though that's not how any of those featured in the programme saw it. In the late 1980s and early 90s Professor David Southall, a paediatrician specialising in sudden infant death syndrome, became convinced that many cot deaths were actually cases of homicide caused by parents suffering from Munchausen syndrome by proxy. His research was widely accepted within the medical profession and as a result of his evidence more than 30 parents were prosecuted and many more had their children placed in care.

Then the backlash started. People began to question Southall's research methodology and the courts and social services started to find in favour of the parents he had accused of endangering their children. Southall remains adamant that everyone he accused was definitely guilty, despite his being suspended, struck off and reinstated over the years, while a parents' collective maintains his guilt and has continued its efforts to expose him as a fraud who destroyed their lives.

Leo Regan's latest film was unusual in giving equal airtime to both parties and it avoided reaching any definite conclusions. Mainly because there were none to be reached. My own gut feeling was that not all of the parents could possibly have done what Southall claimed, but equally it did not seem credible that Southall could have been such a danger as some thought. But neither party was prepared to contemplate this scenario and the message that shone through in the end wasn't the rights and wrongs of the medical issues but how 20 years of litigation narrows the mind and corrupts the soul
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/12/inside-human-body-first-last

SBS: Misdiagnosis of Child Abuse Related to Delay in Diagnosing a Paediatric Brain Tumour

Lynne Wrennall
20 May 2008
Journal: Clinical Medicine Insights: Pediatrics Clinical Medicine: Pediatrics 2008:1 1-12

Abstract
Conflicting opinion regarding the relative weight that should be allocated to the investigation of organic causes of child illness, compared to the pursuit of suspicions of child abuse, has generated considerable public debate. The discourse of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated and Induced Illness is at the centre of contention. In particular, concern has arisen that children’s medical needs are being neglected when their conditions are misdiagnosed as child abuse. This paper documents a case study in which the use of Child Protection procedures was linked to the belief that the child’s illness had “no organic cause.” The case study is contextualised in a review of literature relevant to the diagnostic process. The deployment of the Child Protection perspective resulted in significant delay in the diagnosis of the child’s brain tumour. The child was ultimately found to be suffering from an optic chasm mass lesion involving the hypothalamus and the medial temporal regions, resulting in Diencephalic Syndrome. The evidence in this case is that erring on the side of suspecting Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated and Induced Illness, was not “erring on the side of the child.” Several lessons need to be learned from the case. The importance of ensuring that the Child Protection perspective does not displace adequate assessment of alternative explanations for the child’s condition is emphasised, as is the need for good communication in medical relationships. Strategies involving empathy, mediation, negotiation and conflict resolution may provide a more appropriate and therapeutic alternative to the use of Child Protection procedures in cases where the diagnosis is contentious. The need to re-write relevant policy, protocols and guidance is imperative.
http://www.la-press.com/misdiagnosis-of-child-abuse-related-to-delay-in-diagnosing-a-paediatri-article-a803