AAL Commercial Awareness: Dr Waney Squier and Shaken Baby Syndrome

Feb 10, 2018

Written By Jack J Collins, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Following the dismissal of Dr Waney Squier earlier this month, the medical profession has been divided over whether they think her punishment was justifiable in that she shirked her civil duty of impartiality in a court of law, or that she has been made into a scapegoat for those that dare to challenge the status quo.

To understand the full complexity of the case, the history of Dr Squier must be made clear. Graduating from the University of Leeds in 1972, Dr Squier specialised in neuropathology from the outset, holding positions at the Institute of Psychiatry and at Great Ormond Street, London.

In 1984 she took on the position as a Consultant Neuropathologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, a position she held for 34 years, until earlier this month when she was struck off the Doctor’s Register.

As one of the country’s leading experts on infant brain pathology, she appeared in numerous court cases, originally on the prosecuting side against parents of causing Shaken Baby Syndrome. She was an advocate of the widely accepted notion that a combination of three brain injuries in a baby (known as ‘the triad’), was sufficient evidence to prove the baby had been shaken.

However, influenced by new research around fifteen years ago, Dr Squier began to develop doubts about the scientific basis of the syndrome, slowly becoming convinced that Shaken Baby Syndrome might not exist, and that the triad could actually occur naturally in children.

As a result, she appeared as a witness for the defence in six trials between 2007 and 2010, which have formed the basis of the General Medical Council’s initial complaint with her, and why she was called before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. The GMC have stated that in these trials she brought the profession into disrepute.

The first tribunal took place in September 2014, but no verdict was reached and a full hearing was scheduled for the following year. Civil and criminal proceedings were opened in October of 2015. Earlier in March the Tribunal ruled that she had acted in a misleading and dishonest manner, and this week she was struck off as a result of this, ending her medical career.

With all this said and done, the debate has descended into chaos. On one side, Squier’s supporters state that the scientific protocol for her theories is sound and that she has been the victim of a witch hunt because she has challenged the theories of the medical establishment.

On the other side, the GMC and its supporters state that this case really has nothing to do with the science of SBS, but rather is to do with Squier’s behaviour at the trials for which she was a witness, where she is condemned as having only used scientific information which supported her theories, rather than being honest and open about all theories in court.

So who’s right?

The truth is, no-one can really say. All we can do is examine the evidence from both sides. In October’s trial, Tom Kark QC, barrister for the GMC, stated that: “In each of the cases being considered Dr Squier provided a report and gave evidence in court to the effect that the injury received was either non consistent with non-accidental injury, or was more likely to have been caused by other means.

“Far from doing so in an objective and helpful way, as an expert is expected to, Dr Squier, the GMC says, conducted herself in a way that was demonstrative of her clinging to a theory so that in fact her evidence was misleading and biased, and the GMC say that when analysed, the evidence demonstrates that she must have known that what she was doing was misleading and thus it was dishonest.”

Whilst it was conceded that Dr Squier was allowed to hold whatever opinion she wanted on the matter, in a matter as delicate as SBS, and with criminal justice at stake, there can be no doubt as to the objectivity of the evidence. By disregarding the views of all other experts in the field, Kark stated, Squier “failed in her overriding duty to the court to remain objective and to assist the court.”

Niall Dickson, who is the Chief Executive of the GMC, stated that: “This case was not about the science. It was about Dr Squier’s conduct as a doctor acting as an expert witness. It was brought following criticism of her evidence by no fewer than four senior judges presiding over some of the most serious matters the courts have to deal with.”

On the other side of the fence, a variety of lawyers, doctors and academics stand in Squier’s corner, united in the belief that she has become a scapegoat for challenging what the GMC widely accept as scientific fact. In a letter published in The Guardian, supporters have stated that: “the case of Dr Squier follows another troubling pattern where the authorities inflict harsh punishment on those who fail to toe the establishment line.”

A further argument was made that “It is a sad day for science when a 21st-century inquisition denies one doctor the freedom to question “mainstream” beliefs,” claiming that until an inquisition who could understand the pathological impact of her claims could be the jurisdictional panel, it is completely unfair to remove her privileges as a member of the medical elite.

Squier meanwhile, told the Mail on Sunday that: “Some pathologists want to remain in an unchallenging comfort zone of an outdated theory. Yet my views are based on the incontrovertible evidence provided by the tissue I see daily on the microscope slides and informed by research and critical examination of the scientific literature. I am happy with rigorous debate but take exception to attacks on my integrity and professionalism.”

Thus, Squier has become the focal point in a debate which seems to be between the immovable object and the irresistible force – there is no way that the GMC want to turn what they see as a civil decision into a scientific debate, and Squier’s supporters will not accept that this is a matter that can be settled without investigating the science. Dr. Squier is expected to appeal the decision over the coming months, and with the anatomy of such a case as complex as this, there is simply no telling what the outcome might be.

Legal Spotlight