Southall struck off

[ElenyaTuesday]

See here

Southall

Many years ago I worked for an expert witness in a completely different field. He was convinced that it was his job to give an independent assessment of the circumstances and relevant factors to the best of his professional ability. He was very clear about the limits of his expertise and would say so in court.

That's what one should expect from any expert witness. Seems it is too much to ask from some paediatricians, though.

MM Did you read further down on that article some interesting replies!

Exactly Edam!

The writer of that Observer piece gave away his bias when he described David Southall watching a TV programme then calling the police and accusing Sally Clarke's husband of murder in these terms:

"David Southall was suspended from child protection work three years ago after raising concerns about an incident involving nasal bleeding and difficulty in breathing in the first baby in the Clark family 10 days before he died."

If he can't even get that particular fact straight it doesn't offer much hope that the rest of the article will be unbiased. These paediatricians supporting Southall are bringing their profession into disrepute. I wonder if they realise that.

I know nothing about Southall so cannot comment on that, but in the recent case that collapsed against Fallon the jokey (which probably should never have been brought) it collapsed because the expert was not an expert and whoever instructed him at the police should have been much more careful whom they chose - someone who knows about UK racing.

Another family who nearly lost their children described in today's Sunday Times - women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3021139.ece

this is chilling.

yes, i read the article in the times.

apparently, southall is considering appealing the GMC's decision.

and people think there is such a thing as karma in the world!

I don't know enough about Southall to know if he was rightly struck off or not but we certainly need appeals. That's the whole point - we need appeals against social worker decisions and open ness in family courts and no walls of silence.

the trouble i have with the massively anti-southall sentiment that I've seen on here is that i mistrust anyone that paints someone as the devil and really that is the kind of level of character assasination that i've witnessed.

do you all think he is mad? do you really think that he is out to 'get' mothers?

or is he ordinarily arrogant (all consultants that i've met are) but intent on protecting children?

i don't know enough to make an informed judgement as to whether he has been struck off. but i hate witchhunts. whether or not the 'witch' is a man or not.

my question is this: is it better that some people's lives are ruined when they are innocent then that ONE child dies from abuse?

it is a difficult one. and I know it isn't an either or, but equally it is an issue that is at stake isn't it?

quite prepared to get flamed for this but would really quite like some reasoned argument, and also a reasonable look at what the motivations of someone like southall would be to ruin people's lives.

it also seems clear to me that just as in the recent fran case, here on mn we make our judgements based on HALF the evidence.

Sophable, I think you've got this the wrong way round. Southall is an extremist who has been conducting a witch-hunt against mothers for years. Now he's been exposed. He has been wielding massive power indiscriminately. To try to pain him as the victim is just a reversal of the real situation.

This is the man who ran a very controversial experiment on a new incubator for prem babies that denied them oxygen. And ignored all criticism from within his profession about that. He also ignored all objections to covert video surveillance, chiefly that if the parents involved were actually abusers his methodology was putting children in danger - using them as bait, if you like.

It has further been established that he was, at best, lacksidaisical about gaining proper informed consent from parents whose children were the subjects of his experiments. There is evidence that he used child protection proceedings against parents who refused consent - and once the children were under the control of social services, they were enrolled in his experiments. Highly dubious - if the child protection proceedings were valid, he should not have gone on to use the children in his experiments.

He probably did identify some cases of child abuse. Sadly he's ruined his own reputation by a massive, sustained lack of judgement. The GMC does not strike doctors off lightly - in fact there has been a series of attempts to reform the GMC over the past decade precisely because it is so disinclined to do this.

I know a former president of the GMC professionally. And he was convinced the MSbP/FII thing was taken to ludicrous extremes, having come across examples in his day job as a practising doctor.

Sophable, I think you need to read the thread again. People have made criticisms of Southall's specific actions we haven't been calling him the devil - that's a gross distortion.

Also there has already been an explanation as to why Southall made these accusations against parents - to get infant subjects for his research.

You may have not read much background on this case but some of us have, edam has even interviewed Southall for goodness sake. I think if you want lead the call for reasoned debate, you should start with yourself and not accuse people of conducting a witchunt when there is clearly substantial evidence against this man.

i'm not talking about this thread in particular, i'm talking about the glee with which his misfortunes are greeted and the absolutely moral authority taken in terms of the tone. we don't know do we?

and it's interesting edam that you've interviewed him and the worst you seem to be ascribing to his motives is a sustained lack of judgement. do you think that he developed the new incubator to put babies in danger? if not, why are you using that fact against him as if that makes the case that he is evil (and please don't make me trawl the archives, you do acknowledge that that is the tone taken at lot of the time don't you?). you'd never know from the majority of the threads on mn that 'lack of judgement' was what he was in the dock for.

and elizabethh i didn't have to scroll up this thread very far at all to find this:

'The man is evil'

give me strength.

and in the same post:

'he is no better than Mengele in WW2'

righty ho.

i don't think you should have told me to read the thread elizabetth....

and actually the more i read the more disgusted i feel.

it reminds me of the mcann threads in terms of a whipped up froth of howling pitchfork holders.

i shouldn't have posted, and think i'll leave you all to it.

I've found your posts here extremely rude sophable. I'm glad you've decided to leave the thread.

Sophable, I was being very restrained and polite in describing Southall as suffering from a sustained lack of judgement. If you read the thread, you'll see I've described him in less flattering terms.

Re. the incubator - if you are enrolling premature babies (or anyone) on a trial, as a baseline you have to be very, very careful that the care you are offering them is at least as good as and no more dangerous than standard care. He flouted this basic requirement. Whether through arrogance or a determination to pursue his own aims at all costs, or what, I don't know. But it certainly makes his professional judgement badly flawed.

Sophable

All the views on here we have tried to back up with evidence or at least reputable quotes. The case against Southall is not just the CP angle- but the fact that he was unprofessional,acted in a CP capacity when he was under warning from the GMC already, contacted the police to comment on a case ininvited (& because he was "an expert" they fell over themselves to believe him)ditto to another paediatrician & kept secret files on secret experiments on babies without their parents knowledge or consent. FACT

Read Laurence Alexanders letter at the end of that Guardian article- he is one of the first victims now come to adulthood who can now speak up in his own right.

I can see that if you come onto a thread and everyone there is agreeing in condemning someone it is going to read like a witch-hunt.
However you have to remember the context to this. I am delighted about Southall being struck off because it will 1. stop him continuing to damage families and he really did need to be stopped and 2. it will make it more likely that rules are changed to stop similar things happening in cases which don't involve Southall and most importantly, 3. it will be the first step in a process of which may mean that some of the families who have had their children taken away may actually get to see them again.
I am delighted about all this, and it's not vindictiveness. Doesn't need to be.

The comments against him are so extreme it makes one veer to his side actually but I've read nothing about what he allegedly did or didn't do.

God knows why anyone goes into medicine these days - so risky and you earn a fraction of what your Oxbridge colleagues who go into the city earn.

Yes that was me saying he was evil Soph AND the mengele thing-sorry if that offended you but he is both.

FACT he kept covert files on babies doing dubious experiments that were not conducted under the usual strict protocols that most professionals use.There are guidelines & procedures & they involve being open & above board in your documentation., He was not.

Well it's bloody loads compared with what your Oxbridge colleagues who go into teaching or academia will get . 100k is enough for most people, you know, Xenia

Not so much as many of these talented people could earn if they rejected their calling to medicine. It's a financial sacrifice often for the good of others and they work very hard indeed for it. My father was an expert witness for years. It is a tough role at times.

I hope people are very sure they are being 100% accurate or else some of these comments will be libellous, without doubt and not only you personally would have to pay him damages but also the site too.

Obviously you can report as fact what the GMC have said.

Did someone say £100K?

Where!?

What do I need to do?

Well, that is a fair point, Xenia.