News

29th March 2004

Shaken baby diagnosis scientifically unsafe

More evidence emerges this week casting further doubts on the expert belief that bleeding behind the eyes probably indicates that an infant has been physically abused.

Writing in the BMJ, a team from the US's Wake Forest University says there is very little hard science to support the view that this alone proves abuse and they are calling for the assumptions about Shaken Baby Syndrome to be challenged.

The research came about after a 14-month-old baby was admitted to hospital with severe head injuries. The father said that a television had fallen on him but Child Protection Services decided the injuries were non-accidental, basing their findings on the fact that the baby had bleeding behind his eyes.

The baby's three-year-old brother was taken into care but detailed investigations later showed that the injuries had been accidental.

The Wake Forest team searched the medical literature on the eye injury observed in this case and found no valid scientific studies to indicate that this particular eye injury could only result from shaken baby syndrome.

Lead researcher Dr Patrick Lantz said that the theory that retinal haemorrhage indicates Shaken Baby Syndrome has been based on observation rather than scientific proof.

Forensic pathologist Dr John Plunkett and brain damage expert Dr Jennian Geddes say it is not unusual for Shaken Baby Syndrome to be diagnosed on the basis of signs of bleeding from the eyes alone.

They said "If the issues are much less certain than we have been taught to believe, then to admit uncertainty sometimes would be appropriate for experts. Doing so may make prosecution more difficult but a natural desire to protect children should not lead anyone to proffer opinions unsupported by good quality science."

Rioch Edwards-Brown, who was wrongly accused of shaking her own baby son, has set up a support group for other parents who find themselves in a similar situation, called the Five Percenters. She said that the findings have raised disturbing questions about the opinion of medical experts in court.

"In approximately a third of cases their child's injuries followed a minor fall, but both birth trauma and difficulty in breathing can also cause bleeding under the skin and at the back of the eyes. Doctors have been so convinced that these injuries could only be caused by shaking, they have simply ruled out the possibility that the parents might be innocent after all."

The findings come just weeks after Lord Goldsmith QC, the Attorney General, announced that all criminal cases involving cot death over the last ten years are to be reviewed, with those whose convictions relied on expert witnesses being fast-tracked through the Appeals Court.

• A miscarriage of justice or not? Air your views in Your Shout
• Need help or advice? Visit the Five Percenters website