September 28, 2010 | 2:26 PM | By

Tuerkheimer Responds To Criticism On Shaken Baby Syndrome

FILED UNDER: Personal Health, child abuse, shaken baby syndrome

CommonHealth asked professor Deborah Tuerkheimer to comment on all of the impassioned responses (mostly negative) we got after linking to her op-ed piece in The New York Times. (The piece, called “Anatomy of a Misdiagnosis,” said that experts are growing wary of the science behind shaken baby syndrome and that innocent people have wrongly been convicted based on this bad science.)

Here is her slightly edited response:

I appreciate the interest and attention being
focused on this important issue. While I am not able to comment on blog
comments, I think it is worthwhile to emphasize – as I’ve done in my
work – the importance of viewing these scientific developments from the
perspective of criminal justice. From this vantage, outstanding areas of
disagreement within the scientific community are dwarfed in importance
by the ground that is shared.

If your blog readers are interested in a more thorough discussion of how
our criminal justice system has responded to SBS, my article can be
accessed here.

I am hopeful that the Times Op-Ed can catalyze a productive
conversation.

Regards,

Deborah Tuerkheimer
Professor of Law
DePaul University College of Law

About the author

Blogger, CommonHealth Rachel Zimmerman worked as a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal for 10 years, most recently covering health and medicine out of the paper’s Boston bureau. Rachel has also written for The New York Times, the (now-defunct) Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the alternative newspaper Willamette Week, in Portland, Ore., among other publications. Rachel co-wrote a book about birth, published by Bantam/Random House, and spent 2008 as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT. Rachel lives in Cambridge with her husband and two daughters. View all posts by Rachel Zimmerman →

  • illum

    Doctors are not God and they do not have all the answers; they are not infallible. An expert in any field is only as good as their experience, their education, and their knowledge and understanding of on-going non-bias studies and information. There are discoveries and new information every day as methods and treatments evolve. From antiquity to the late 19th century, patients were bled to health; it was the most common medical practice of that time. It was finally established that it was not effective, but most harmful patients.
    What of the lobotomy? It has been controversial since its inception in 1935; it was a mainstream procedure for more than two decades. Egas Moniz was actually awarded “The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine” of 1949 for his discovery of the therapeutic value, this despite general recognition of frequent and serious side-effects.
    As noted above, there are numerous obsolete medical theories and procedures in our history. I am not saying that child abuse does not occur, on the contrary it does and it needs to be addressed and stopped. However, there are many underlying medical conditions that can cause the so called triad of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Advocates, such as me, are pleading that the medical community educate themselves and render an unbiased theory of those possible conditions instead of swiftly and wrongly accusing the care givers of a child. The concept of SBS was initially described in the early 1970s, based on a theory by Dr. John Caffey. It is 2010 and it is time to take a real medical/scientific look at this 36 year old theory and bury it along with bleeding patients to health and the lobotomy! One man’s obsolete THEORY based on the medicine of 1970 is not the word of God, does not make medical sense in our 21st Century. It just demonstrates unrealistic assumptions.

  • Celeste Wilson

    As a child abuse pediatrician, I was disappointed by Professor Tuerkheimer’s op-ed article in the New York Times, Anatomy of Misdiagnosis. Her interpretation of the medical research regarding “Shaken Baby Syndrome” is apparently dated, clearly demonstrating a lack of awareness of the current literature on the topic. Of the many troubling statements contained in the piece, she highlights the recent change in terminology from “Shaken Baby Syndrome” to “Abusive Head Trauma” as support that confusion exists with the diagnosis. But, in fact, pediatric clinicians fully appreciate that children can be abused in many different ways, including, but not limited to a shaking event. When children present with concerning medical findings, it is incumbent on pediatric clinicians to be thorough in their approach to the evaluation, considering all possibilities. In many hospitals, a multidisciplinary team consisting of child abuse pediatricians, radiologists, neurosurgeons, nurses, and attorneys come together to make decisions regarding the best course of action and decisions of this magnitude are not taken lightly. Health care professionals are fully aware of the stigma attached to such a diagnosis and for that, as well as many other factors, are very cognizant of the range of mechanisms which could result in such injuries. Indeed, there is no debate about the extensive damage that can be inflicted upon a child at the hands of an adult perpetrator. It is most unfortunate that Professor Tuerkheimer feels there is a basis to suggest otherwise.

    Celeste R. Wilson, MD
    Associate Medical Director
    Child Protection Program
    Children’s Hospital Boston