>> From: Bronwyn Hancock >> >> Here is an article published in Australian Doctor Weekly on 12th February, >> 1999 (pg 56), in the "Law in Practice" section of the magazine. It is a >> milestone in the fight to get justice to prevail for this to be broadcast >> like this to doctors all over the country. (Lets hope they bother to read >> it!!) >> Ah, this is only a taste of much bigger things to come!.... >> >> DOUBT OVER SHAKEN BABY >> >> Strange Cases, by Dr Maree Bellamy >> >> How reliable is medical evidence related to shaken baby syndrome? The UK >> manslaughter case involving Australian nanny Louise Sullivan has >> highlighted the syndrome, but a US case casts doubt over its diagnosis.... >> >> A US lawyer has successfully used the defense that a DTP vaccination was >> responsible for what prosecutors claimed was shaken baby syndrome. >> >> William Carey was tried for causing brain damage to his five-month-old son >> Ryan by shaking him violently. Now three, Ryan is severely developmentally >> delayed. >> >> No one saw Carey shake the infant, and no one testified that he was not a >> good father. But the medical evidence presented by the prosecution >> suggested that shaking was the only possible cause of Ryan's injuries. >> >> The "New Jersey Law Journal" reported that a Hunterdon County jury found >> Carey not guilty of the allegations. >> >> The results have fuelled debate over the reliability of shaken baby >> syndrome diagnoses as evidence in criminal cases. >> >> On 22 March 1996, Carey was at home, off duty from his job as an officer in >> the Union County Police Department, when he called an emergency medical >> team. His son had experienced a violent seizure, Carey told the ambulance >> officers. The boyb was taken to Hunterdon medical Center and later to >> Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. >> >> Three pieces of information that emerged during the ambulance officers' >> attendance later became relevant. >> >> First, Carey was asked whether he had shaken the baby. He said no. >> >> Second, Carey told them Ryan had received a DTP shot earlier in the day. >> >> Third, one of the workers found Carey's behaviour suspicious. Unlike most >> parents who refuse to let a sick child out of their sight, Carey refused to >> go to the hospital with Ryan. Instead, while the team took Ryan to the >> hospital, Carey waited at home until his wife arrived from work, then they >> went to the hospital together. >> >> Notes made by the ambulance team and one of the first doctors who examined >> Ryan mentioned Carey's reference to the DPT shot, but within a couple of >> days consensus emerged among the doctors who examined and investigated the >> child. Although Ryan Carey did not die, he exhibited the bleeding and >> neurological damage associated with classic shaken baby syndrome, the >> prosecution said. >> >> In 1996, a family court judge transferred custody of Ryan to a relative of >> the Careys and ruled that Ryan could never be alone with his parents - even >> his mother, who insisted her husband was innocent. >> >> The defence focused on the DTP shot, which had been administered earlier in >> the day of Ryan's seizure. For years, medical experts have been observing a >> relationship between shaken baby sundrome and DTP vaccinations, but the >> medical basis of this link has never been properly established. >> >> Prosecution experts in the Carey trial testified that there was an >> overwhelming consensus among doctors in the field that, although a DTP shot >> could cause fevers which could lead to seizures, there was no causal link >> between DTP shots and the bleeding symptoms associated with shaken babies. >> >> It was argued that Ryan had a previous neurological condition that mimicked >> shaken baby syndrome, which was discovered and misdiagnosed as shaken baby >> syndrome after Ryan's adverse reaction to the DTP shot. >> >> At birth, Ryan had respiratory problems attributable to his delivery by >> caesarean section. From the time of his birth, the ratio of Ryan's head >> size to body size was so high, it was "off the charts" in terms of what is >> considered normal. The Careys and their paediatrician had discussed the >> possibility of a CAT scan to determine whether the head size was caused by >> an abnormality, but the scan was never performed. >> >> At the age of two months, Ryan was hospitalised for three days because of >> uncontrollable, projectile vomiting. On the basis of these medical factors, >> it was alleged Ryan should not have been given the DTP shot. It was argued >> that cranial bleeding could have been caused by several other causes, such >> as pressure on the brain. >> >> Carey has regained custody of Ryan and has been reinstated as a police >> officer with more than $100,000 in back pay. >> >> Given the victory based on the theory that a pre-existing condition, >> exacerbated by the DTP shot, could have been diagnosed of a CAT scan had >> been ordered, it is now possible the doctors treating Ryan earlier could find >> themselves embroiled in litigation. >> >> (Dr Bellamy is the editor of Law in Practice and a practising GP) >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> We now have over 85,000 e-mail communities. Check out our new web site! >> http://www.onelist.com >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical or legal >> advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is >> yours and yours alone. > >-- > >*************************************************************** >Karin Schumacher >Vaccine Information & Awareness (VIA) >12799 La Tortola >San Diego, CA 92129 >619-484-3197 (phone/voicemail) >619-484-1187 (fax) >via@access1.net (email) >http://www.909shot.com (NVIC website) >http://www.access1.net/via (VIA website) >*************************************************************** >We Must Have The Freedom To Choose & Respect Everyone's Choice >*************************************************************** >Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical >OR legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you >implement that decision is yours and yours alone.