The Bayne Baby is now in the custody of a provincial ministry because the initial diagnosis of her medical condition upon which the ministry rested its decision was Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). That was two years ago. That diagnosis was one doctor’s opinion. The Bayne’s lawyer has a dozen medical experts whose opinions dispute SBS as a credible diagnosis for Bethany’s presenting injuries in October 2007. And having held this child for two years, the SBS finding is looking tired.
Quite apart from this child’s injury and that questionable diagnosis is the matter of her two brothers both of whom are also in the custody of the provincial ministry. The ministry’s own lawyer, based on medical examination results and history advised the ministry several months ago that there was no evidence of emotional or physical abuse to these children and therefore no acceptable reason to hold the boys. He further told the Fraser Regional MCFD that the children should be returned to their parents. That return did not happen. Last week in Chilliwack Court, the lawyer once more was compelled to acknowledge this same opinion before Judge Crabtree.
Now, reasonable people would conclude that the only other justifiable reason for withholding the return of the boys is because the parents are convincingly the worst possible parents and that returning them poses to them great risk. If anyone will spend time with the Baynes themselves rather than reading MCFD file opinion papers, you would know that these are highly reputable people of good character and values. And this outstanding case takes on an increasingly bad odor.
Well then back to the female child and the initial SBS diagnosis. The international community of child abuse experts is polarized over the validity of an SBS diagnosis. Typically, when medical professionals or pathologists find a combination of brain swelling, retinal bleeding and tissue damage to brain lings, the SBS is the automatic or default diagnosis. This has been the widely accepted opinion since the 1970’s. Shaken Baby Syndrome or SBS has sent many people to prison in the UK and in North America. Numerous people have written to me to tell me about false accusations of SBS. The explanation for that pivots around the controversy attached to SBS. Over recent years however, researchers have maintained that these same symptoms can be attributed to accident. Understandably, this growing skepticism about SBS is strengthened by Britain’s enormous 2003 Goldsmith review of 297 baby death convictions. The Goudge inquiry in Ontario also underscores skepticism about SBS.
Dr. Barr, professor of pediatrics at UBC is also an advisor to the National Centre on Shaken Baby Syndrome that is based in Utah. Quoted in a Globe and Mail article he insists that a similar review in British Columbia is unnecessary and would be a waste of money. He asserts that when accompanied by proper detective work SBS is a solid diagnosis.
Well readers, good investigative work of shaken infants should yield solid conclusions but that proper detective work may be missing when everything is revealed at the January 13th Court Date. The Baynes have stated from the start that this injury was accidental. One child falling on another. MCFD investigation may have uncovered something entirely different from shaken baby and that is Glutaric Aciduria. MCFD has not disclosed this. Someone divulged this without MCFD’s knowledge. That diagnostic possibility is important because some individuals with Glutaric Aciduria have developed bleeding in the brain or eyes that could be mistaken for the effects of child abuse. Aside from Glutaric Aciduria there are other medical explanations consistent with her premature birth that explain her presenting condition at the hospital back in September 2007.
The Baynes have been treated like villains far too long. Give their children back to them and stop this charade of protection.
Reader, please hit this link and sign this petition
No comments:
Post a Comment
I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise