2/10/06 (UK):
Echoes of Meadow?
|
Yet another warning to experts that objectivity is the watchword. A doctor accused by a senior judge of peddling "junk science" as an expert witness in a court case is facing action by the General Medical Council which could strip her of the right to practise.
Jane Donegan, a GP and homeopath, gave evidence for two mothers who were fighting attempts by their former partners to have their children given childhood immunisations. The mothers opposed immunisation altogether, believing it unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
Dr Donegan, who has more than 20 years' experience in practise, is accused by the GMC of failing in her duty to the court by not giving objective evidence. A hearing to decide her fitness to practise is scheduled for December.
That hearing is likely to go ahead bearing in mind the Court of Appeal's judgment in the GMC (Meadow) case, however it should be noted that even before this judgment, disciplinary bodies often investigated the activitities of their expert witness members upon complaint from a judge. However, In Dr Donegan's case, although she was criticised by the trial judge, Mr Justice Sumner, and the appeal court, the judges did not file a complaint with the GMC. The cases are also different in that in GMC v Meadow, it was the expert's lack of qualifications in giving damning statistical evidence that was the subject of complaint. Here, it's the science itself that has been called into question.
In the current instance, two unrelated cases, which were heard together in the high court's family division, involved the fathers of two girls, then aged 10 and four, who sought orders that they should have the whole range of childhood immunisations against the wishes of their ex-partners. Dr Donegan was called as an expert witness by the two mothers, whose daughters had received none of the vaccinations routinely given to children, including jabs against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), diphtheria, tetanus, meningitis and polio. The mothers lost in the high court in 2003 and their appeal was thrown out later that year.
The GP, who delivered two written reports and gave oral evidence, opposed immunisation in general.
According to Lord Justice Sedley, one of the three appeal court judges: "Dr Donegan's report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science."
In his judgment ordering that the girls had to be vaccinated, Mr Justice Sumner said: "I am compelled to the reluctant conclusion that in this case Dr Donegan has allowed her deeply held feelings on the subject of immunisation to overrule the duty she owes to the court."
© X-Pro 2006
|
|
