Campaign group defends "dishonest" doctor struck off medical register for 'shaken baby' evidence
A PETITION has been launched in support of an Oxford doctor who was struck off the medical register for giving "dishonest evidence" to courts during "shaken baby" trials.
AUTHOR
Matt Oliver
PUBLISHER
Witney Gazette
DATE
March 24, 2016

Dr Waney Squier, an internationally-renowned consultant neuropathologist of 32 years, was removed from the register on Monday by a panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.
It came after the panel ruled the 67-year-old's fitness to practice was impaired and she had been "deliberately misleading" when acting as an expert witness.
The findings said she had been "dogmatic" about her view that "shaken baby syndrome" did not exist – a view not held by the majority of experts – and had "cherry picked" evidence.
The hearing focused on six cases between 2007 and 2010, including those in which parents were accused of killing their children.
But campaign group Protecting Innocent Families yesterday launched a defence of Dr Squier, calling her "a physician of unwavering intellectual honesty and staggering courage" in a letter singed by 23 people, including medics and parents.
In a letter to the General Medical Council, which led the prosecution of Dr Squier, the group wrote: "We are dismayed that the council is sanctioning her for having the courage and intellectual honesty to express her own views, which are not popular but which are founded on solid scientific thinking and the best available evidence.
"Dr Squier is a brilliant physician whose work is internationally known and respected by the scientific community, with the exception of child abuse experts. Her professional writing is founded in science and the scientific method.
"Her acumen, professionalism, and probity are beyond reproach."
This article or media transcript is attributed fully to the author(s) and publishing agency listed above. This work does not belong to the Family Justice Resource Center—it is shared solely for archival and reference purposes. Any citations should include the original publication, found by following the link above. Transcription may be incomplete and/or contain errors. No revenue is generated by works in this archive. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Family Justice Resource Center. For any inquiries, revisions, or requests regarding content recorded in this archive, please contact us here.
