…go read this long and immensely distressing piece by Emily Bazelon about the scientific and legal perils of diagnosing and prosecuting cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Researchers have known for quite some time — see this 2004 BMJ article, for example — that some of the classic indications of SBS aren’t necessarilyspecific to incidents of violent shaking, a problem for which an obvious correctivewould be the exercise of great care in making sure that diagnosis rests on all three of the classic signs of such abuse (i.e., brain swelling, retinal bleeding, and bleeding beneath the skull).
Bazelon, however, points out that more recent studies have suggested that even in cases where the usual triad of symptoms are present, the difficulty of establishingwhen the injury occurred is greater than previously thought — with the upshot being that parents or child care providers could possibly find themselves falsely accused of abuse if they happen to be in the baby’s presence when the first signs of distress occur. Moreover, there’s some evidence that other causes — undetected infections for one — might produce symptoms that strongly resemble SBS, in which case humans might wind up being prosecuted for the crimes of viruses.
It’s worth noting that the debate here isn’t over whether Shaken Baby Syndrome exists at all, but rather over how well anyone understands its causes and symptoms and what the implications of all this might be for prosecuting and defending legal charges stemming from alleged abuse.
I still think this is horrifying…