SIDS paper : Author's reply  

Oleh:

Gornall, Jonathan

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: British Medical Journal (keterangan: ada di Proquest) vol. 334 no. 7583 (Jan. 2007), page 7.

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan FK Nomor Panggil: B16.K.2007.04 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

Carpenter et al fail to address the concern of David Hall, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, that the conclusions of their paper were "seriously misleading." Such defence as they do mount is equally misleading: "We did not materially change the cause of death for any case [Emery] knew about" and "No case previously attributed to either NAI or suspected or proven filicide was reclassified". All true—but beside the point. The question that remains unanswered is why, after Emery's death, all but those seven cases of "NAI or suspected or proven filicide" came to be classified as "natural" deaths. The authors did, after all, admit that: "We cannot exclude the possibility in our study that some of the 13 cases in which enquiries were not possible were cases of covert homicide." If so, then how can they justify classifying as "natural" all 13 of these . . .

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali