Responses

Download PDFPDF

Neonatal shaken baby syndrome: an aetiological view from Down Under
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Neonatal shaken baby syndrome: an aetiological view from Down Under

    Dear Editor

    We are grateful to colleagues for their comments on our annotation.[1] We would stress that we merely abstracted the views of others so any criticisms (apart from our brevity) will be of the lawyers, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and parents who contributed to the Royal Commission Report. We found it to be systematic, rational and objective.

    We strongly refute any suggestion that any of t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Neonatal shaken baby syndrome - lessons to be learned

    Dear Editor

    Drs Williams and Sunderland[1] and the accompanying commentary from Drs Rosenbloom and Ryan[2] discuss a severe cystic brain lesion associated with chest physiotherapy in very preterm infants. Rosenbloom is correct that the topic lacks topicality, but mainly because neonatal chest physiotherapy is now used very little if at all. I disagree that there is an abundant literature detailing appropriate treatm...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Neonatal shaken baby syndrome - historical inexactitudes

    Dear Editor

    I read with interest the article on Neonatal Shaken Baby Syndrome.[1] While a fascinating account of the sequence of events in this saga it is factually incorrect in several respects.

    As the perinatal pathologist involved in the Birmingham series I raised the possibility that the brain damage was due to the effects of physiotherapy prior to the publication of our report. My co-authors felt tha...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.