SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dr. John Plunkett died this week. He spent nearly 20 years arguing in court against bad forensic science, for which he was maliciously prosecuted and received false ethics complaints. Through his efforts, 300 innocent people were exonerated. (This sentence from fark.com)
Like a lot of other doctors, child welfare advocates and forensic specialists, John Plunkett at first bought into the theory of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). It's a convenient diagnosis for prosecutors, in that it provides a cause of death (violent shaking), a culprit (whoever was last with the child before death) and even intent (prosecutors often argue that the violent, extended shaking establishes mens rea.) But in the late 1990s, Plunkett — a forensic pathologist in Minnesota — began to have doubts about the diagnosis. The same year his study was published, Plunkett testified in the trial of Lisa Stickney, a licensed day care worker in Oregon. Thanks in large part to Plunkett's testimony, Stickney was acquitted. District Attorney Michael Dugan responded with something unprecedented — it criminally charged an expert witness over testimony he had given in court. Today, the scientific consensus on SBS has since shifted significantly in Plunkett's direction.
[...] According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 16 SBS convictions have been overturned. Plunkett's obituary puts the figure at 300, and claims that he participated in 50 of those cases. I'm not sure of the source for that figure, and it's the first I've seen of it. But whatever the number, Plunkett deserves credit for being among the first to sound the alarm about wrongful SBS convictions. His study was the first step toward those exonerations.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:26AM (7 children)
These guys should rank among our heros. They use science to challenge and overturn conventional wisdom. It reminds me of Marc Edwards, the troublemaker scientist who exposed the Flint lead crisis.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:00AM (6 children)
Well you have to wonder why SBS is still a thing, if this guy was so demonstrably right.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20366619 [mayoclinic.org]
https://www.medicinenet.com/shaken_baby_syndrome_abusive_head_trauma/article.htm [medicinenet.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusive_head_trauma [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusive_head_trauma [wikipedia.org]
http://www.aans.org/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Shaken-Baby-Syndrome [aans.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:54AM (4 children)
Possibly - money? People have latched onto SBS, just as people fell in love with the idea of a lie detector. There is funding for SBS.
Besides which, Dr. Plunkett didn't establish that SBS can't be caused by shaking a baby. He ONLY established that a baby can suffer all of the symptoms of SBS due to trauma unrelated to being shaken. That is, the baby displaying those symptoms may or may not have been violently shaken.
Or, to state the case differently, Dr. Plunkett established that a conviction for SBS abuse requires supporting evidence. If ten people actually see you shaking the baby like a rag doll, and the baby subsequently dies of SBS symptoms, there can be little doubt that you caused the baby's death. In the absence of supporting evidence, the state should not presume that you are guilty.
Of course, we already have a constitution, which is supposed to prevent the state from presuming guilt.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:51AM
Money is the root of all evil, eh? But it isn't, quite. In this case, it's the desire for the quick and easy answer, and refusal to admit that total control and safety is impossible. This is "think of the children!!" versus the fact that no amount of protecting can ever achieve 100% safety.
When a child dies, parents everywhere are screaming for blood. There's a lot of pressure to pin blame on some human agency, and string them up. We don't like that there are still many things beyond our control. If a meteor struck and killed a child (an exceedingly low probability), some would still want to blame it on a person. Like, if the child was playing outside and died of a meteor strike, then it's the caregiver's fault for not keeping the child safe indoors.
Long time ago I read of a case in which a young boy rather suddenly started suffering severe health problems. They rushed him to emergency, the doctors operated, but the boy died anyway. The parents sued the doctors for malpractice, of course. Wanted those faking, lying, incompetent, malicious doctors' heads. But, it turned out the lad was infected with one of those nasty intestinal parasites that he picked up when some country cousins visited, and most unfortunately for him, the parasite took a wrong turn and ended up in his brain where it caused lots of problems that were ultimately fatal. It's very rare. The doctors were young and inexperienced, and totally missed the parasitic causes of the problems, but even experienced doctors were likely to have missed it, and then, even if they had figured it out, it was by then too late and they probably could not have saved the boy anyway. It was the work of another investigator who uncovered the presence of the parasite, and helped the doctors win the lawsuit, thereby saving them from having their careers unjustly ruined.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:00AM (2 children)
I actually went out of my way not to cite money grubbing sites like don'tshake.
I was pretty sure all of those I cited were reasonably reputable. Yet the first comment assumes a profit motive among the medical community is the reason SBS still exists. Unbefuckinglievable!
Like doctors have no better way to make money.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:05AM
Yes, the first comment to your post was a bit uninspired in ascribing to "money", what can better be explained by vindictiveness (on several levels). But other than that it was spot on. So you're trying to top this by holding on to your misapprehension that SBS was "disproven", somehow?
And still you wanted to believe it so much...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:00PM
I didn't necessarily ascribe the money motive to doctors. Mayo Clinic is a great place, and the doctors there are also great. But, doctors don't exactly run Mayo, either. There are managers, accountants, as well as hoards of other staff. Doctors mostly do doctor stuff, and those hoards to hoard stuff. Among the hoard stuff is hoarding money. If some charitable organizations, individual donors, and/or gubbermint are making funds available for SBS research, then SBS will be done. You know the facts of life, man.
I have been to places where the doctors decide what happens, when, and how, and establish their own rates. These places are generally called "clinics", and they are generally small businesses, run as a partnership, or some such arrangement. The doctors call all the shots, and no one else gets a vote.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:06AM
Because he is not arguing against the existence, the danger, or the criminal relevance of SBS at all.
He's arguing against taking certain pathological findings as proof that the baby was in fact shaken violently, against the defendant's testimony.
Emphatically: Shaking your baby violently is still a very, very bad idea, and may in fact still kill your baby. Don't do that.