
People v Henderson: The Prosecution Responds-Reply
Ronald Ariagno, MD
Stanford University School of Nedicine Stanford, Calif
Steven B. Karch, MD;
Boyd G. Stephens, MD
Medical Examiner's Office San Francisco, Calif
Robert Middleberg, PhD
National Medical Service Laboratories Willow Grove, Pa
Marie Valdès-Dapena, MD
University of Miami School of Medicine Miami, Fla
JAMA. 1996;275(3):183-184.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In Reply.
—We appreciate the letter from the prosecuting attorney. It illustrates eloquently the difficulties we had with this case. If there were a law that states a mother is totally responsible for any adverse event in her child's life, then Ms Henderson would be guilty. But is not that the same type of reasoning that put many parents of infants who died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in jail? Our point was and still is that it is improper to pretend to use science to adjudicate a predetermined end.
Regarding the reimbursement received for testifying, we received a total of $11135. As itemized in the Editor's note, this sum barely covered out-of-pocket expenses and does not reflect the time and professional work we devoted to this case.
Ms Green assumes that the methamphetamine came from breast milk, although the mother had not used the drug for 2 or
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|