A/Prof. Neera Bhatia1
1Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
Biography:
Dr Neera Bhatia holds an LLB (Hons), Master of Laws from the UK, and a Doctorate in Law from Deakin University. She is the Director of ‘Law, Health, and Society’ (LHS) Research Unit.
Neera is the author of ‘Critically impaired infants and end of life decision making: Resource allocation and difficult decisions’, published by Routledge Cavendish (UK). She has published widely on contemporary issues in health law and bioethics. Her research interests are in end-of-life decision-making for critically ill infants and children, organ donation, voluntary assisted dying, determination of death, and emerging health and reproductive technologies.
She teaches Health Law in the undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Neera actively engages with the wider community as an expert commentator in the media on topical issues in health law.
Neera is currently the Deputy Chair, Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee, and the former Faculty Chair, Human Ethics Committee. She has previously served as the health law stream leader for the Australasian Association of Bioethics and Health Law (AABHL) and the Deputy Convenor of the Deakin Science and Society Network (SSN). She has also previously been a member of several clinical ethics committees.
Abstract:
In recent years there have been several cases that have been heard before the Australian Courts where expert opinion alone has informed decisions as to whether severe injury or death of an infant has been caused by deliberate shaking — known as “Shaken Baby Syndrome” or “Abusive Head Trauma”. A diagnosis of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” is clinically determined by the “triad” of injuries (i) extensive bilateral retinal haemorrhages; (ii) subdural haematoma; and (iii) encephalopathy. However, there is growing medical, ethical, and legal uncertainty about the “triad” diagnosis. This has garnered considerable media attention and controversy. This is a highly sensitive topic given that it concerns one of society’s most vulnerable cohorts (infants) and has significant implications on the lives of many (the accused and their families). In this presentation, I consider some of the controversies and recent case developments in Australia that surround “Shaken Baby Syndrome” including the lack of scientific evidence that does not support the diagnostic accuracy of the “triad” —often referred to as “junk science”, the role of expert witness testimony and confessions. I conclude, that “Shaken Baby Syndrome” is a complex issue that requires careful clinical and legal consideration.