Responses

PDF
Shaken baby syndrome
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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    After the Court of Appeal:R v Harris and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 1980

    Dear Editor,

    Analysis of judgements in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal is not usually carried out by doctors or even groups of eminent doctors. In this journal (Perspectives 21.02.06) Mr Richards and his colleagues have attempted an analysis of R v Harris and, with respect to them, have fallen into many errors. Given that their article may leave readers with the impression that the veracity of the “tri...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Shaken Baby Syndrome

    Dear Editor,

    The suggestion of Peter Richards et al that the ‘term’ Shaken Baby Syndrome be abandoned is of the utmost significance and merits further comment. (1) Shaken Baby Syndrome is not a ‘term’, it is a self validating diagnosis where the ‘syndrome’ of retinal and subdural haemorrhages in a young child is deemed characteristic of violent intentional ‘shaking’ - equivalent in force (allegedly) to a high...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Child Abuse: Diagnosis, reporting and investigations
    • Lalith E Chandrakantha, Consultant Community Paediatrician
    • Other Contributors:
      • Robert Sunderland, Andrew Williams

    Dear Editor,

    Sir, Richard et al (1) suggests abandoning the term Shaken Baby Syndrome and point out that it may be advantageous to separate the therapeutic and clinical investigative aspect of the condition. We believe that such an approach, extended to all forms of abuse perhaps combined with mandatory reporting, is likely to resolve the present crisis in child protection. Present system is failing to safeguard ch...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Inflicted head injury in infants - issues arising from the Geddes hypothesis

    Dear Editor,

    Richards et al (1) are to be commended for condensing the essence of the complex issues argued before the Court of Appeal last year, and for making eminently sensible suggestions for the role of doctors in the future. However, there are some matters that are a proper cause for concern that remain to be addressed.

    Firstly, there is the manner in which contentious medical hypotheses are put befor...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.