This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/21/doctor-waney-squier-denies-shaken-baby-syndrome-struck-off-misleading-courts
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Doctor who denies shaken baby syndrome struck off | Doctor who denies shaken baby syndrome struck off |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A leading expert in children’s brain development who denies the existence of shaken baby syndrome has been banned from practising as a doctor after being found guilty of misleading the courts in six cases where infants died. | A leading expert in children’s brain development who denies the existence of shaken baby syndrome has been banned from practising as a doctor after being found guilty of misleading the courts in six cases where infants died. |
| Dr Waney Squier, a consultant neuropathologist at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, has been struck off the medical register after being found to have lied and given misleading evidence in court. | Dr Waney Squier, a consultant neuropathologist at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, has been struck off the medical register after being found to have lied and given misleading evidence in court. |
| The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, the disciplinary arm of the General Medical Council, said on Monday that it had no option but to end Squier’s medical career given her serial dishonesty. | The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, the disciplinary arm of the General Medical Council, said on Monday that it had no option but to end Squier’s medical career given her serial dishonesty. |
| The MPTS’s judgment said: “Your conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as a medical practitioner. As such it has determined that your name be erased from the medical register. The tribunal considers that erasure is the only appropriate sanction which will maintain public confidence in the profession.” | The MPTS’s judgment said: “Your conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as a medical practitioner. As such it has determined that your name be erased from the medical register. The tribunal considers that erasure is the only appropriate sanction which will maintain public confidence in the profession.” |
| The tribunal’s five-page explanation of its decision was scathing about Squier’s conduct as an expert witness in six cases involving the deaths of babies aged between one month and 19 months with brain injuries at either the Old Bailey or the high court. | |
| Related: Doctor who doubted shaken baby syndrome misled courts, panel rules | Related: Doctor who doubted shaken baby syndrome misled courts, panel rules |
| “Your reports supported meretricious appeals, giving false hope to parents. Your evidence was given in very serious cases, based on a highly controversial subject and with great public interest. | “Your reports supported meretricious appeals, giving false hope to parents. Your evidence was given in very serious cases, based on a highly controversial subject and with great public interest. |
| “Your deliberately misleading and dishonest evidence in court had the potential to subvert the course of justice.” | “Your deliberately misleading and dishonest evidence in court had the potential to subvert the course of justice.” |
| Squier’s supporters, including the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, claim she has been victimised for daring to challenge the existence of shaken baby syndrome, which he insisted “the evidence increasingly suggests is unscientific nonsense”. | |
| Niall Dickson, the GMC’s chief executive, said: “This case was not about the science. It was about Dr Squier’s conduct as a doctor acting as an expert witness. It was brought following criticism of her evidence by no fewer than four senior judges presiding over some of the most serious matters the courts have to deal with.” | Niall Dickson, the GMC’s chief executive, said: “This case was not about the science. It was about Dr Squier’s conduct as a doctor acting as an expert witness. It was brought following criticism of her evidence by no fewer than four senior judges presiding over some of the most serious matters the courts have to deal with.” |
| The tribunal rejected the argument by Sir Robert Francis QC, Squier’s barrister at the six-month hearing, that striking her off could deter other doctors from giving expert testimony in cases involving allegedly shaken babies. | The tribunal rejected the argument by Sir Robert Francis QC, Squier’s barrister at the six-month hearing, that striking her off could deter other doctors from giving expert testimony in cases involving allegedly shaken babies. |
| It pointed to Squier’s multiple breaches of good medical practice, the ethical guidance that the GMC as the regulator of doctors expects all medics to abide by. It said, for example, she had breached her duty that “if you are asked to give evidence or act as a witness in litigation or formal inquiries, you must be honest in all your spoken and written statements. You just make clear the limits of your knowledge or competence.” | |
| Simply putting conditions on Squier’s licence would be inadequate, it ruled, given her repeated dishonesty. It also ruled out suspending her from practising as a doctor due to conduct it described as “of a morally culpable nature which brings the reputation if the profession into disrepute”. | Simply putting conditions on Squier’s licence would be inadequate, it ruled, given her repeated dishonesty. It also ruled out suspending her from practising as a doctor due to conduct it described as “of a morally culpable nature which brings the reputation if the profession into disrepute”. |
| Although many fellow doctors had testified to the “scrupulously honest” nature of her work as a neuropathologist, she deserved to be struck off because, the judgment said, “in your evidence to the courts and before this tribunal you demonstrated time and again that you would lie to support your own propositions, or to avoid conceding a point, showing little respect for your colleagues”. | Although many fellow doctors had testified to the “scrupulously honest” nature of her work as a neuropathologist, she deserved to be struck off because, the judgment said, “in your evidence to the courts and before this tribunal you demonstrated time and again that you would lie to support your own propositions, or to avoid conceding a point, showing little respect for your colleagues”. |
| Her failure to realise that she had done wrong, even after the tribunal’s finding to that effect earlier this month, was “an astonishing failure of insight”. | |
| Dickson added: “Cases involving allegations of injury to children are often complex and the courts must rule on matters that will affect the safety and custody of children and sometimes the liberty of adults. As such judges have the right to expect high standards of accuracy and objectivity from expert witnesses. | Dickson added: “Cases involving allegations of injury to children are often complex and the courts must rule on matters that will affect the safety and custody of children and sometimes the liberty of adults. As such judges have the right to expect high standards of accuracy and objectivity from expert witnesses. |
| “If it becomes clear that a doctor has lost objectivity – by cherry-picking facts or research to suit their views or by working outside their area of expertise – that is a problem which we must look at.” | “If it becomes clear that a doctor has lost objectivity – by cherry-picking facts or research to suit their views or by working outside their area of expertise – that is a problem which we must look at.” |