Minutus

This is a witch-hunt!

re: Jane Donegan, a GP and homeopath who is vocal about the dangers of
vaccines in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... ss&feed=11

Doctor who used 'junk science' in court faces GMC hearing

· GP could be struck off after criticism from judge
· Expert witness opposed all child immunisation

Clare Dyer, legal editor
Monday October 2, 2006
The Guardian
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.

Whether the case goes ahead may depend on the outcome of an appeal by the
GMC against a high court ruling quashing a finding of serious professional
misconduct against Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician who gave misleading
statistical evidence in the Sally Clarke murder case.

A high court judge, Mr Justice Collins, ruled that expert witnesses are
virtually immune from action by the doctors' disciplinary body over their
evidence in court. The only exception is if a judge lodges a complaint
against them.

The GMC, backed by the attorney general, appealed against the ruling giving
experts immunity. Judgment is expected soon and lawyers predict that the
appeal will succeed.

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.

In the two unrelated cases, which were heard together in the high court's
family division, the fathers of two girls, then aged 10 and four, 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."

Regardless of which side calls them, expert witnesses are supposed to remain
neutral, giving their honest opinion and presenting the scientific evidence
accurately. 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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

Dear Sheri

I am sorry that this case is reached this far - However, please note:
[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."]

These are VERY strong words - She may have been a poor Expert Witness.

We do not know what papers she presented that "turned out either to support
the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own".
Yet there is so much stuff collected by Viera Schribner.

If one gives evidence to the court, one has to present documents and back-up
so as to make it easy on the court to come to a decision. That is to say to
remove ambiguities as far as possible. That is why the court is relying on
an expert.

(I say this based on the fact that my father was and my brother is an expert
witness and at close quarters I have seen the amount of work that goes in
their reports. I have also given evidence to a court in UK as an expert - I
must add that none of these cases were medical.).
Rgds
Soroush