The Preventionist

Very well done and worth listening to.

What is the thesis of this podcast? lVHS has too many false child abuse investigations? That’s a fine thesis but it doesn’t seem to be the point of the podcast. Most of the podcast is not about this. We don’t get a breakdown into these cases. Mark’s paper was only about MCA but the parents discussed mention multiple rib fractures, one off head trauma not a Munchausen allegations. Shaken baby, brittle bone and MCA are all shoved together as “over-diagnosed child abuse” . But Episode 2 isn’t about Lehigh at all, it’s mostly about a single doctor’s history in Florida and how those social workers and judges disliked her. So is the thesis “Dr. Jensen is a bad doctor?” (There is a lot of upset that a doctor had confidence and ego… these traits are praised in male doctors.) From the anecdotes told in episode 2 she seems to be an annoying or arrogant person but is she a bad doctor? This isn’t answered. We dwell on Mark (who is a campaigning politician) and his complaints that allegations are expensive to respond to (so?), that parents are upset to be called abusers (duh) but not the children’s outcomes. Was Dr. Jansen wrong about the Lehigh cases? I don’t know. A Munchausen expert would be helpful in this case. The thought repeated is that because Jansen finds MCA more than other providers she is doing something wrong. We do not discuss the children. Are the children passing a separation test? Do symptoms disappear when removed from the home? We do not discuss the children. This brings us to episode 3 “better safe than sorry”about Amanda. Amanda’s baby was dropped to the floor. Her newborn is suffering; he has a brain bleed and fractures. Amanda’s other children have history of child abuse allegations (against the fathers). What should a doctor do here? I don’t know why NYT is staking the emotional portion of this case on this woman. She is not a convicted child abuser but I don’t know if she is a good parent. Amanda tells her child, who allegedly dropped the baby, that she will call the cops on her and she will end up in jail for pulling another child’s hair. Amanda is hesitant to file to get her son back from foster care. Amanda stopped talking to the reporter after that. I sympathize with Amanda, she has a hard life, but… what is this podcast about? Mark’s report isn’t about cases like hers. Dr. Jensen did not take Amanda’s son away. Yet Amanda gets a full third of the show. What is the thesis of this podcast? The conclusion stated is “Everyone involved in child welfare cases should doubt child abuse pediatricians” “we should require a second opinion”. With what money? Would it be more efficient to require Continuing Education for CAPs? Suddenly we are back to Mark, his controllers office, and his concern that child abuse investigations without slam dunk evidence is a waste of funds. The real conclusion of these three episodes seems to be “think of the parents.” The sad parents speaking at the town hall. Those who are in civil litigation. Amanda telling her children not to snitch. The poor victims of the government conspiracy daring to ask why their kids are suffering. Should more children die like Olivia Gant? It would lower the county budget but is that the society we want?

This was a fascinating and heartbreaking piece of reporting. I appreciate that Amanda shared as much of her story as she did. What impossible calculus she’s had to do. As for reviews claiming bias reporting, I wonder that those reviewers listened to the full series.

This is another Caliphate, if you’re familiar with that disaster of a podcast. So disappointed in then NY Times. This undermines your credibility. Worse than that, you’re lending credibility to the notion that we shouldn’t believe specialists when they diagnose Munchausen By Proxy or medical child abuse. Why on earth would you automatically believe a parent when they say they didn’t abuse their child? Is this really something you think a parent readily admits? Why would you discount the testimony of a specialist? What on earth do you think they have to gain? This reporting cynically chases a tantalizing story at the cost of endangering the system that seeks to protect children. There’s no excuse for this shoddy reporting.