Roy Meadows has won his appeal

[Caligula]

story here

Does this mean that the women who wanted their cases against him to be heard by the GMC can now do so?

I think that it does. I hope so anyway.

I hope it does, but find it a little concerning that the Court seems to have overturned the original finding that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Very alarming that he seems to be clear - unless I have misunderstood? He seems like a dreadful know-it-all creep to me!

They have said that expert witnesses should be careful not to step outside their area of expertise.

What really puzzles me and I've never seen answered, is how was he qualified to diagnose MSbP? Presumably, MSbP is classed as a mental illness and Meadows is not a psychiatrist, but a paediatrician. So how come his word was accepted on this? It's a bit like getting a bowel specialist to diagnose heart diseases, isn't it? Or did they get psychiatrists in, in all of the cases he was involved in, to do the MSbP diagnosis for him? It's always really confused me.

The creep should be beaten to death in a public place.
The crap he spouted would have shamed a teenager doing the dumbed down A level maths. Doctors are required to study stats, and a big part of medical research is based upon this sort of maths. He cannot possibly have been ignorant of the thruth.

He said that the probability of the two events was >70 million to one. For a start that means there's around 50/50 odds that we find one in Britain.
(around 0.48 ish if you care)

However his "logic" was that the two events could only be linked by malice given the huge odds he cited.
Anyone with any training whatsoever in stats will say instead that this is good evidence of a common
factor.
There are piles of possible such factors.
First they were siblings, and it's hardly unlikely that there is at least some genetic link.

We know of several good correlations with environmental conditions; temperature, and of course allowing nicotine addicts into your home.

The fault is also with the defence. Being arts graduates this analysis will almost certainly would not have occurred to them, so they didn't bother to hire their own expert witness to shoot holes in this arrogant shit.

The GMC being mostly doctors would have known that he had lost a large % of his medical training, or colossal arrogance had caused him to get someone locked up and her family ruined.

Of course she may be guilty, I don't know.
Thus his neligence has either caused an innocent woman to be locked up, or a double child murderer to be freed.

I always thought about that one in 70 million statistic, that even if it were correct and he'd done the maths properly, there's less of a chance of winning the lottery than that, but someone still wins nearly every week.

I think all the cases have been reviewed by Lord Goldsmith and only afew will go to retrial. I can't understand why the defence didn't question his 'expert testimony'. The whole system needs a rethink. These womens lives have been destroyed and yet Meadows is untouched. Makes me very angry.

That fact that a monster like him has been unleashed on the public to continue to practice has made me lose what little faith I had in doctors.

"It is in the public interest that doctors should be able to provide expert opinion in cases where there are allegations of child abuse without fear that they will be the subject of a finding of serious professional misconduct for expressing a genuinely held belief."

I think that Sally Clark and the others have suffered terribly but I tend to agree with the above.

me too scummy

Hope he gets his. Sooner rather than later.

I actually agree with that as well Scummy.

But in a situation where an expert witness either strays outside his or her competence without making that clear to the jury, or deliberately distorts information - one of which Meadows must have done in order to produce that statistic - then I think they should fear being found guilty of professional misconduct. And I jolly well hope they would be.

I feel very divided on this case TBH. But must say, having met Roy Meadows, he is, without doubt, a very ignorant man and full of his own importance.

Reminds me of a quote I read recently, think it's called the Peter Principle (relating to management but seems to fit here)
"Eventually everybody rises to their own level of incompetence"
Basically saying that just because you're great at one thing, doesn't mean the next step up won't be your downfall (in other words, stick with what you're good at and don't stray beyond your professional boundaries!!)

Domini - DH says studying stats was never part of hs training.

IMHO, I do think Meadows was a scapegoat - I still think he's an arse though, and his "I am God" character is very typical of docs of his generation.

The problem as I see it, is that expert witnesses can come into court and give evidence without peer review. For Meadows, no-one (eg a statistician) was required to review his hypothesis. He had published in journals, was a past president of the Royla College so no-one questioned him. I feel very strongly that this has got to stop. Meadows clearly had a theory that no-one challenged, so he (being human) thought he was right.

What happened to these women was just awful - I believe Mrs Patel's surviving daughter is still in care? I cannot imagine how they feel.

But I think the court system is deeply flawed, that the expert testimony of one man was never reviewed and the jury were guided to believe him in the face of other evidence that would have cleared these poor women.

I think it's a clear example of those in power and authority protecting their own. Particularly men in power reacting against powerless women - the victims here - who dare to question them.

Meadows either knew, or should have known that what he was saying was so wrong it was a lie. If he didn't know, then he's negligent and incompetent. And the courts were equally negligent in failing to subject the evidence of expert witnesses to proper critical analysis - that's what courts are supposed to be about FFS weighing up the evidence.

The former president of the GMC once told me that, privately, he had real problems with the MSbP lobby. One of his patients was accused and a case conference called. The president tried to tell the social workers that the allegations were absurd, he knew this patient well and their evidence just didn't stack up - they'd taken one tiny bit of information and leapt to completely unjustified conclusions without considering more likely explanations. As a doctor used to diagnosis he knew that was rubbish - you don't leap to the conclusion that a patient with a sore toe has a very exotic disease without looking at all the more likely explanations first.

But the MSbP lot were so carried away with themselves that they not only refused to listen, they threatened him. He came up against a bunch of professionals, who held considerable power, who were so far gone in the grip of collective hysteria that they were prepared to threaten the president of the GMC. He admitted that it made him reluctant to intervene in any more MSbP cases. Fortunately the case against his patient unravelled.

But it's the Salem witch trials all over again - collective hysteria where anyone who points out that there are huge holes in the evidence becomes a target.

I also think that (based on anecdotal evidence) that child protection in the UK is completely over the top and hysterical. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to the actual data, but I'm under the impression that child abuse is no more prolific in the UK than it is in, say, Canada. I lived there when DS was born and there was none of the frequent 'checks' and home visits from HVs that I've been subject to since returning to the UK. It seems over here, that the establishment (for want of a better word) is suspicious of all mothers - I find it all very bizarre. In Vancouver, the HVs were definitely there if you needed them, they felt very supportive rather than nosey and interfering.

I think I need to parp myself!

Coming from N. America, I agree, Highlander - don't faint!

Our new HV immediately put me off w/her noseyness.

I agree too - the whole child protection system seems to be predicated on suspicion of parents, especially mothers. Look at Marietta Higgs in Cleveland who was allowed to 'prove' child abuse with her pet diagnostic technique f sticking her finger up children's bottoms.

Look at the absurd satanic abuse cases ? key social workers involved in that madness are still working.

Look at MSbP, look at that couple convicted recently of killing their adopted son because the salt levels in his blood were raised so they 'must' have force-fed him salt based on no evidence at all and an apparent lack of consideration of any more likely explanations for raised blood sodium levels (or the unlikelihood of force feeding a child salt without inducing vomiting).

Look at the way parents have been accused of child abuse when the child's 'injuries' have actually been caused by medical treatments such as poor prescribing.

It's bizarre once you've lived overseas, the UK seems a very strange place sometimes.

I'd forgotton about this. My frined had a summer BBQ at her house and her cousin dropped her baby, who's leg was subsequently broken In A&E, the first thing that was done was a check on some abuse register and mum wasn't left alone until it all came back clear.

How bizarre is that

I wouldn't hesitate to jump on a plane if any of these annoying busibodies ever tried to cross me, mark my words.

Both girls have US passports.

I'm honestly stunned by the number of kids I've read of being taken into care or even adopted out based on little to no solid evidence.

Yet we have cases like Caleb Ness in which these parents with long histories of active drug abuse are allowed to carry on.

Whilst I was waiting for DH to get the car to collect me and DD2 from hospital, I stood next to two new mums - complete w/saggy ex-bumps - smoking cigarettes with obvious track marks all over their arms.

But can you have it both ways? That the child protection system not only should not be employing annoying busybodies who suspect parents but also should always get it right and save the child who is in need of protection? I know there are lots of cases where things have gone very wrong and it's an appalling tragedy for every one of those people. But some of the "busybodiness" is built into the English and Scottish systems precisely because of tragedies like the deaths of Victoria Climbie and Caleb Ness. The evidence shows that professionals working together is likely to be the best way to protect kids. Very much doubt that the theory is markedly different in the states or Canada, though I'm perfectly prepared to believe that workers may be better trained. And ultimately, it is about protecting kids, not parents though working with parents is often the best way to do that. Frankly I'm just glad I don't have to make the kinds of decisions that child protection professionals have to do every day. And are often vilified for whichever way they jump.

But you can have a system of child protection that doesn't automatically assume one of the major causes of child injury is parental abuse, Scummy. For example, my DD had an accident on a see-saw last summer and I took her to hospital. Automatically the HV rang me up two days later, presumably to find out the truth of my story, though how she would do that over the phone is anyone's guess.

The doctor hadn't even listened to me (well let's face it, why should she, I'm a mother) - she'd written in her book that DD had fallen off a swing. So it sounded as if I'd changed my story - because the idea that doctors don't listen to patients or mothers, is of course, hysterical nonsense.

But what was the point of the HV phoning me, apart from to intimidate me? She didn't follow up the fact that there was a discrepancy in what I'd told the doctor and what the doctor had written, she could for example, have checked the accident book at the place where we'd been - but she didn't, she simply ticked the box that said "arse covered" and didn't protect my child (who could have been abused) and merely succeeded in irritating me. I really don't see how these procedures protect children, but I do see how they alienate mothers from the medical profession and ensure that whenever I walk into a medical establishment, I feel I'm walking into a place which is hostile to me. And how that protects my children, I have no idea.

'but I do see how they alienate mothers from the medical profession and ensure that whenever I walk into a medical establishment, I feel I'm walking into a place which is hostile to me. And how that protects my children, I have no idea.'

Spot on, Caligula. That's pretty much how I feel about the 'system' here.