Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Sally Clark and Sir Roy Meadow Part II

Well, I was going to do a determined fisk of Terry Hamblin's attack on Sally Clark just after her death, but there is a problem. Namely that the post has vanished. The url is inactive, and there is nothing on Hamblin's blog anymore. May be the negative reaction to his appallingly insenstive and crass comments was too much for Hamblin, and he has decided to go back to wittering on about technical medical issues. Which I suppose is a shame - I am not a fan of censorship in any form, even self-censorship.

However DK has quoted the most insulting of Hamblin's comments on Sally Clark, namely:

"Perhaps [Clark] was possessed by guilt that she really had killed her kids and remorse that she had brought down two eminent professors of paediatrics in getting the decision reversed."

Um, yeah, well, it would be worth pointing out that when the full results of the autopsy into the death of her second son were revealed and when Roy Meadow's statistics were dismissed Sally Clark's conviction was quashed. In other words, she was innocent. She didn't kill her kids. I accept the court may have got it wrong in setting her free as courts are fallible, but from my limited layman's knowledge it appears that Sally was innocent and her imprisonment was a gross miscarriage of justice. The decision was reversed based on evidence.

And I very much doubt that Sally was worried about bringing down two eminent professors not least because they actually brought themselves down. In Roy Meadow's case by getting it wrong time and time and time again.

But the simple truth is I don't care whether Hamblin thinks Clark murdered her children. Hell, he is entitled to his own viewpoint, so as far as I am concerned he can believe that evil pixies came from Outer Mongolia to kill those two boys. What I do object to is the timing - there is no way that Hamblin should have voiced his ill-informed and obnoxious opinions so soon after Sally Clark's death was announced. To do so simply heaps further insult and unhappiness on a family that has been torn apart by the death of children, then the unjust imprisonment of the mother, and then the premature death of the mother. I wonder how Hamblin would feel if he lost a loved one, only to find a blog somewhere that accuses that loved one of terrible crimes.

There were other parts of Hamblin's post that riled me, such as the veiled accusation that Clark may have killed herself (before any autopsy or inquest) and also the tenuous link between depression, alcoholism and child killing. But as the post doesn't exist anymore and I can't quote directly from it, I will leave it.

However I would note that Hamblin's writings displayed all the cold and clinical disassociation from reality and from human feelings and suffering that Sir Roy Meadow also showed when he helped innocent women be sent to prison with ill thought out and poorly researched statistics.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

At 1:57 pm , Blogger CoralPoetry said...

Hi,

The Google cached copy is available.
.
.
.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:CJL9FZLd_24J:mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/2007/03/sally-clarks-death.html+Terry+Hamblin%2BSally+Clark&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
.
.
So is the deleted original post which he assumed would be lost in the cyber wilderness.
.
.
.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:1CH5k6QD4NIJ:mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/+Terry+Hamblin%2BSally+Clark&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk
.
.
.
Regards,
Coral

 
At 11:56 pm , Blogger CoralPoetry said...

Hi,

The Google cached copies have now been deleted but a permanent snapshot has been saved here:

http://jkn.com/View?j=784939.998232583196

With hindsight, this eminent Professor, Terry Hamblin, posted this message into his blog at
.
.
http://mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/
.
.
24 hours after Sally Clark’s death. He deleted it, then reposted the same message 48 hours after her death. He then deleted it for good, but there was a Google cached copy, which has also been deleted. A snapshot copy can be viewed here:
.
.
http://jkn.com/View?j=784939.998232583196
.
.
It is now on record that the deliberately erroneous, arrogant opinions of Professor Terry Hamblin may have marred potential referrals to him, which could be considered to be unsafe and not in the public interest in the event of his being called upon as an expert in his field.

Regards,
Coral

 
At 7:14 pm , Blogger Yusuf Smith said...

Sally Clark is not the only person who has been accused of killing her two children, of course - David Southall made public accusations against her husband. It is a pretty good job he was away on business at the time of her death, otherwise he might have repeated the claim and accused him of killing Sally Clark too.

 
At 3:57 pm , Blogger TOOTLEPIP said...

Seems ironic that David Southall, the professor who accused Sally Clark’s husband of murdering his child whilst he was away from home, has been involved with smothering experimentation WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.


http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31383&SESSION=875

EDM 2767

WORK OF PROFESSOR DAVID SOUTHALL
17.10.2006


Hemming, John

That this House notes that according to the report written by Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work of Professor David Southall in the report written for the University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish and Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish said that Professor Southall `pursued multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in babies'; believes that such comments are important comments that require proper consideration; is surprised that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research and procure children for his research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1859611,00.html

Monday August 28, 2006
Guardian

Detectives have stepped up an investigation into claims that the leading paediatrician David Southall left a child brain damaged as a result of a controversial breathing experiment 15 years ago, the Guardian has learned.

South Wales police have broadened their inquiry into an allegation that Professor Southall assaulted the boy by carrying out the test and are asking dozens of parents whose children may have come into contact with the paediatrician over the years to come forward if their child suffered any injuries as a result of his treatment. Professor Southall has denied that his treatment has harmed any child.

In a letter to parents last week, Detective Inspector Chris Mullane, of the force's child protection unit, said further inquiries could be opened as a result of the responses from parents. The letter says police are investigating an allegation of assault on a boy that may have occurred while he was undergoing treatment by Prof Southall at the University Hospital of Wales. It asks parents: "Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall ... Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that treatment ... Have you reported this matter to the police or any other body?"

The investigation began after the parents of Ben McLean alleged that he had been left brain damaged by Prof Southall's experiments at the University Hospital of Wales in 1991.

The child's mother, Davina McLean, believes that without their informed consent, her five-year-old son was given carbon dioxide to breathe and his airway was occluded during a sleep study. She claims that she and her husband were forced to take part in the study after Prof Southall said they were suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, and warned that unless they allowed Ben to take part he would be taken into care. Prof Southall has also denied these claims.

When Ben left hospital he was placed in foster care, but a year later a court found the McLeans had not harmed their child. Ben, now 20, lives with his parents and has severe speech and learning difficulties. Mrs McLean told the Guardian: "We are pleased that other parents out there who may have concerns are being contacted. All we want is justice for our son."

Prof Southall has attracted praise and controversy during his long career. Last year he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and banned from child protection work for three years after wrongly accusing the husband of Sally Clark of killing their baby sons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/realmedia/midlandstoday/bulletin.ram

South Wales Police Heddlu De Cymru

Working with the Community Cydweithio Gyda’r Gymuned

Public Protection Unit
Central Police Station
King Edward VII Avenue
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NN

Telephone (029) 20527272

10th August 2006



Dear

South Wales Police are currently investigating an allegation of assault on a young boy that may have occurred whilst undergoing treatment by Professor David Southall at the University Hospital of Wales.

I have been given your details by Mr William BACHE, Solicitor, who assures me that he has your authority for me to make contact with you.

I would be obliged if I could be provided with certain replies to the below questions. I must emphasise that South Wales Police are not carrying out an enquiry into Professor Southall, but are investigating one allegation of assault carried out in our force area. It may well transpire that further enquiries are carried out in the future if document dictate that to be the appropriate course of action. Please reply via email if you wish or I have enclosed a S.A.E.for your convenience.

1. Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall.
2. If yes please outline the document of that treatment.
3. Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that treatment.
4. Have you reported this matter to the Police or any other body such as the GMC (please specify).
5. If you reported the matter to the police
i) which force
ii) when
iii) have you details of an investigating officer or any other means of reference
iv) Result of the Police investigation

My apologies for being brief and to the point, but I am sure you appreciate the complexities of this enquiry.

Yours faithfully


Chris Mullane
DETECTIVE INSPECTOR
chris.mullane@south-wales.pnn.police.uk



DAILY EXPRESS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6 2001 Page 30

Scandal of 'smothered' babies in cot death test
Police investigate experiments on little children with lung problems

EXCLUSIVE
BY LUCY JOHNSTON
AND JONATHAN CALVERT


SECRET hospital cot death experiments in which doctors planned deliberately
to `smother' babies are being investigated by police.


The research project, devised by some of Britain's leading child specialists,
envisaged using tiny infants with severe breathing difficulties.

The babies' faces were to be covered with a mask attached to a breathing
machine and their mouths `smothered' for up to 10 seconds on five occasions.


It is not clear whether the scheme was ever fully carried out, but it
appears that some parts did take place.


The controversial procedure, approved by an ethics committee, was regarded
as safe. The infants would be secretly monitored by doctors as they got
older. If they died of unrelated illness, pieces of their lungs, brains,
livers, and hearts would be sent to a pathologist in Sheffield Children's
Hospital for analysis and comparison with the project data.


The study was designed to help discover whether cot death was caused by
breathing and heart abnormalities and involved children across the country.


In a highly unusual move, doctors decided they would not seek written
consent from parents because they did not want to cause alarm.


The study, named the Sudden Infant Death Project, was planned to be carried
out at three hospitals: Rotherham District General, the Doncaster Royal
Infirmary and the Barnsley District Hospital during the late Eighties and
early Nineties.

A spokesperson for the Rotherham District General Hospital said: "Our
consultant has said that the study did go ahead so I'm pretty sure it did."


A spokeswoman for the Doncaster Royal Infirmary said it could not comment on
the matter "because it is subject of a police inquiry".


The Daily Express has evidence the experiment could also have been conducted
at other hospitals. Two sets of parents believe their children were brain
damaged after being put into similar experiments.


The two children, whose brains were developing normally, now have speech and
co-ordination problems and severe learning difficulties.


The parents have not been able to find out what happened while their
children were in hospital.


British Medical Journal paper recording the experimentation in smothering.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7135/887

http://tinyurl.com/2so6pd

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home