Responses

Download PDFPDF

Avoidable pitfalls when writing medical reports for court proceedings in cases of suspected child abuse
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Avoidable pitfalls when writing medical reports for court proceedings in cases

    Dear Editor,

    In their response to Professor T. J. David’s article, Dr Paul Davis and others complain that his recommendation that parents or carers should be interviewed was “unreferenced and not evidence based.” The need is so obvious that I would be surprised if anybody has bothered to assemble the evidence or generate references.

    They say, and I agree with them, that a substantial proportion, (or m...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Controversy

    Dear Editor,

    An expert is instructed to advise the Court and one follows the instructions received - which usually indicate whether a paperwork or clinical exercise is required.

    If they are ambiguous or seem to limit one's ability to do an adequate job then one should return to the Court to explain the position and obtain further guidance.

    Whilst not taking David's position absolutely on the que...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Taking a history

    Dear Editor,

    In reading this piece and the published response concerning the merits of personal interviews in child protection cases, I was struck by the sentence introducing the topic which reads: "Most paediatricians would not dream of giving a clinical opinion without taking a history".

    Accordingly this week I kept a diary of clinical opinions given. It was a quiet week "off service", there were only...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Should expert witnesses interview parents?

    Dear Editor,

    Professor David's article [1] was, in the majority a helpful guide to those involved in this specialised work. I wonder how many of the readers are involved in this sort of work?

    As a recently qualified general paediatrician I was surprised to read his recommendation that expert witnesses should interview the family. In the few child protection cases that I have been involved in as a witnes...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Expert Witnesses: Opinion and dogma are pitfalls in medical journalism as well as in reports.
    • Paul M Davis, Consultant Paediatrician
    • Other Contributors:
      • Margaret Crawford, Jean Herbison, Jacqueline Mok, Alison Mott, Heather Payne, Robert Postlethwaite, Jean Price, Martin Samuels, Jo Sibert, John Sills, and Nigel Speight

    Dear Editor,

    Professor David’s review provides a welcome summary of the Code of Guidance for Expert Witnesses in Family Proceedings. All Paediatricians who undertake this type of work should be familiar with the Code of Guidance and have due regard to it. However, Professor David also goes on to express some highly personal opinions which, whilst forcefully argued, are unreferenced and not evidence based. The most...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.