http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xlazarogmc.htm
www.richardwebster.net
January 25, 2003
Shieldfield doctor faces GMC hearing
The fact that the General Medical
Council is due to hold its initial review of the complaint against Dr Camille
san Lazaro soon (on the 28 and 29 January) may seem,
to those who have followed the case closely, to mark the beginning of the end
of Dr Lazaro's career as a forensic paediatrician.
This may indeed turn out to be the case. However, recent developments in the
In the case involving Dr Moira Woods, who for many years led the sexual assault
treatment unit at the
Earlier this month, after the Medical Council had issued another report
criticising the running of the hospital in question, Irish Medical News
reported that Dr Woods was fighting back and had issued a statement:
I fully
reject the committee's report and I stand by my judgments in the cases
considered in the inquiry. This is not a matter of pride or defiance. No doctor
is infallible. Mistakes and oversights are a daily risk for all doctors, and I
am no exception. But as regards these cases, which have been under intensive
review during this inquiry, I remain adamant that I had no option but to act as
I did, on the evidence presented to me, and on my interviews with the children
concerned. Regrettably, much of the media comment on the report reflected what
I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is involved in investigating
alleged child sexual abuse. Those charged with this responsibility are rarely
able to establish proof of abuse to a standard required for criminal
prosecution. This is especially true if the children are very young, which is often the case. Investigation of sexual abuse is about
child protection. It is beyond doubt, given all the documented cases of sexual
abuse we now know about, that the medical profession in all its disciplines was
found wanting in this area in the past.
I am aware that some 50 doctors have protested to the council at the manner in
which the cases brought against me were handled and the consequences of the unchecked
inaccurate publicity. I am very grateful to them, and to the many doctors,
social workers and others who have contacted me privately to express their
support and solidarity.
The
case relating to Dr Lazaro is by no means an exact
parallel with that of Dr Woods. But we need not doubt that, given the issues
which are at stake, she too will have professional supporters. However, those
who believe that Dr Lazaro should be treated
leniently when she faces the GMC would do well to recall why it is she has been
summoned to appear before them in the first place.
At the Shieldfield libel trial last year it emerged
that Dr Lazaro had played the central role in an
investigation as a result of which two completely innocent nursery nurses had
found themselves imprisoned on remand as suspected
paedophiles. At their criminal trial in 1994 Dawn Reed and Chris Lillie were
found not guilty. However, largely because of the medical evidence which had
been supplied by Dr Lazaro, Newcastle City Council
remained convinced of their guilt. They set up an independent inquiry. After
the four child abuse experts who sat on the inquiry had taken evidence once
again from Dr Lazaro, and from parents whose children
she had examined, they found Reed and Lillie guilty over the heads of the
Court.
Branded by the local and national media as wicked perverts who had
systematically subjected the very young children in their care to horrific
sexual abuse, Dawn Reed and Chris Lillie were forced into hiding in different
parts of the country.
The only way they had of clearing their names was to take a libel action
against Newcastle City Council and the four members of the Review Team. The
case began in the High Court in
On other occasions she said that she had found physical evidence of sexual
abuse. However, because she did not arrange with any of her colleagues to
conduct joint examinations of the children, and because she did not use the
photographic equipment available to her to record the evidence she reported,
there has never been any objective confirmation of Dr Lazaro's
observations.
In many ordinary medical situations, of course, diagnoses frequently depend on
the unverified observations of a particular doctor. However, this was not an
ordinary situation. It was a criminal investigation of the gravest possible
kind involving the most serious allegations which had ever been made in
relation to any nursery in the
Everything therefore depended on the one hand on the clinical competence of Dr Lazaro, and on the other hand (and perhaps even more
importantly) on her own integrity and on the accuracy, reliability and
truthfulness of her medical reports.
During the libel trial some highly significant evidence was put forward which
called Dr Lazaro's clinical competence into question.
But, even more disturbingly, evidence emerged which suggested that her records
and reported findings could not be relied on as truthful or accurate
descriptions of what she had in fact observed.
In a report which she had submitted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Authority she had made claims about horrific abuse allegedly suffered by a
number of children. Yet these claims were, according to her
own earlier findings, untrue. The crucial fact here is not that Dr Lazaro herself admitted under cross-examination that her
report was 'overstated and exaggerated'. The crucial fact is that her own
records established beyond doubt that she made claims in her report which were
flatly contradicted by her own earlier reported findings.
This was by no means the most grave example of Dr Lazaro's conduct which emerged in the trial. As Bob Woffinden and I noted in the article we wrote in
the Guardian to mark the conclusion of the libel trial:
The case of
four-year-old Tracy, who had made the allegation of rape only after three video
interviews, was the most disturbing of all. Dr Lazaro
examined the child on 8 October and said she had found a partial tear in the
hymen; however, normal variants are sometimes misinterpreted as partial tears.
On 22 October, after
The
evidence which emerged in the trial, in other words, clearly showed that the
medical findings originally made in relation to Tracy had subsequently been
changed by Dr Lazaro without there being any new
medical examination of the child to warrant this. There are only two possible
explanations of this. The first explanation is that Dr Lazaro
acted with gross and inexcusable recklessness in circumstances whose gravity
demanded that she show the greatest possible caution and the most meticulous
attention to detail. The other explanation is that Dr Lazaro
deliberately ratcheted up her findings in a possibly well-intentioned, but
thoroughly dishonest attempt to oblige the police by affording medical
'corroboration' for an allegation which would eventually be found to be without
any substance at all.
It might be tempting for the GMC to opt for the first of these two
explanations. However, when it is placed alongside the clear evidence afforded
by the false report which Dr Lazaro submitted to the
CICA (and other examples of false or misleading information which was given out
by Dr Lazaro), the incident involving the
're-diagnosis' of Tracy is extremely disturbing.
Whichever view is ultimately taken of Dr Lazaro’s
conduct in regard to
The General Medical Council, in seeking to deal with Dr Lazaro
both fairly and firmly, faces a difficult and sensitive task. In the past it
has frequently been accused of 'looking after its own'. It is right and proper
that it should look after its own in any case where false or exaggerated
allegations have been made against a medical practitioner. But in this case the
evidence which was available to the Court even before Dr Lazaro's
disastrous appearance in the witness box, suggests that the only false and
exaggerated claims which are in question were those made by the medical
practitioner herself.
Above all it should be clear, and the GMC should itself recognise this at the
outset of its inquiry, that this is not a case which turns on whether medical
signs whose objective presence has never been in doubt have been correctly
interpreted. That would be a matter for specialists and one on which writers, journalists or members of the public who are not
medically trained would have no authority to pronounce.
This, however, is an inquiry which concerns, or should concern, the credibility
and reliability of the reports which Dr Lazaro made
of medical signs which she said she observed but which may not in fact have
been present at all.
When, some four years ago, Bob Woffinden and I
compiled our 70,000 word case analysis which eventually led to the bringing of
the libel trial, we reached our own assessment of the medical evidence only
after we had discussed it in detail with five experienced paediatricians or
police surgeons. However, one of the main effects of these
discussions was to confirm the view that the most important issue in the
case was the reliability of Dr Lazaro’s original
reports and not the manner in which other medical practitioners might now
construe the evidence they purported to record. It was this view which we set
out at the time:
The only
reasonable conclusion it is possible to reach is that Dr Lazaro’s
findings, unsupported as they are by photographic evidence, or by the opinion
of fellow clinicians, should properly be treated as subjective opinions, rather
than as clinical facts. There is no objective evidence that any of the children
in the Shieldfield case had been sexually abused.
There is only Dr Lazaro’s stated belief that she had
discovered such evidence [in some children] at the time of her examinations.
For all the reasons given above her reports should never have been relied on in
the way that they were either by social services or by the police.
This
view was subsequently vindicated in the libel trial itself. It should be noted
that it is not a medical conclusion; it is a conclusion about the reliability
and proneness to error of an individual human being.
This is the issue on which the GMC will shortly have to deliberate. Ultimately
the question they have to address is one which no amount of medical knowledge
can help them to resolve. It is nothing other than the question of whether Dr Lazaro's reports of what she said she saw can be relied on
as accurate and truthful.
In assessing this question the GMC panel should above all remember two things.
They should remember that doctors are human beings and that
human beings - even though they may be qualified doctors - are not always
reliable and do not always tell the truth.
If they attempt to resolve the issue in any other way, or to present it as
though it turned on questions of medical interpretation, they will themselves
be guilty of seriously misrepresenting the evidence which has been placed
before them. Were they to do that they would destroy at a stroke the confidence
which the GMC now has reposed in it by members of the public.
It is to be hoped that, for the good both of that public, and of the medical
profession itself, the GMC will face the issue which now confronts it squarely
and without flinching. If it does not, it will itself succeed in bringing into
grave disrepute the very profession it was set up to protect.