If you lose a child to a medical condition for which the diagnosis is the least bit dubious, the true explanation could be genetic, but could also be ALLEGED to be murder. If it is indeed genetic, any future children of yours will be at heightened risk of suffering the same fate, in which case the murder allegation will be deemed to be supported. Even if you're acquitted, you'll get no reimbursement of your legal costs and no compensation for pre-trial incarceration, and anyone who types your name into Google will instantly find the false allegation against you.

Conclusion: If you lose a child to a medical condition for which the diagnosis is the least bit dubious, DON'T HAVE ANY MORE KIDS.

I am surprised that this classification is still being used by expert witnesses in the Mental Health field. It was the darling of psychoanalytically trained therapists who rode the wave of child protection beginning in the 1980's and were,in Australia,generally based within protected Government positions. They held great power but ultimately, very little responsibility. Its about time someone questioned this issue but a great pity it has come from outside the mental health professions.

I found the article thoroughly incoherent in places, replete with unfounded assertions and otherwise lacking in a substantiated base.

Still, I persisted with reading it as it appears to be about an issue of some importance, that being children being incorrectly taken away from their parent/s on the basis of a mistaken charge of deliberate or attempted harm of the child/ren in question.

..

Still, even though I am not familiar with the underpinning legislation, I would be surprised to learn someone can be charged with the syndrome in question, but rather the court would be testing any evidence that a parent has attempted or actually harmed their child.

Any post decision based labeling of the act as this syndrome or that is besides the fact.

And of course, just because a doctor may not be able to make an accurate diagnosis in the instance of death or illness, that does not go to immediately conclude that a "bad parent" must have done something wrong. I seriously suspect that more would need to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the generally held legal conventions in order for a judge to make a finding against a parent or carer.

Michael Nott's essay on MSBP - Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy, leaves much to be desired. Is he debunking the Syndrome per se or resorting to hearsay evidence to support his controversial article ?

Me thinks, he is being silly to resurrect an article he previously submitted, and unashamedly falsifying some of the main issues without so much as " goggle-ing " substantial Medical criteria surrounding a Medical/Mental illness - too important to ignore.

Pediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadows career is at an end. In July 2008, the GMC ( General Medical Council ) UK had him " struck off " for serious misconduct, after misleading evidence in several cases before the Courts.

The assertion that NSW Child Care Protection Agency et al, still rely on facts based on Research by imminent Psychiatric and Psychological Alumni, throughout the World, and not solely on the good Professor's prejudicial testimony, is in stark contrast to the whole gist of this defamatory, whishy-washy, pusillanimous, under-grad endeavour.

Two out of Ten - recommendation. In need of a career change !

dalma:

I concur with everything you criticized about this poorly thought out and conceived, excoriating article - can't for the love-of-me make out what he is on about ?

I've wasted time trying to decipher whose side he's on ? Frankly,it seems by misquoting Court case's and deriding reputations for the sheer hell of it, is damaging and offensive.

Oh well, I think you summed it up pretty thoroughly.

Q. Is OLO scraping the barrel for decent articles to garner debate ??

lol

Cheers dalma.