Royal college denies rewriting child protection history

Editor—We were surprised to read the article by Gornall on the Child Protection Companion, a handbook from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.¹,² In view of the accusations and the unwarranted reference to Stalin we would have expected to be given the chance to respond at the time.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health strongly supports the work of Professors Meadow and Southall. It forms an important part of the evidence on which we base our recommendations for practice in this field.

The Companion was produced as a handbook to guide general paediatricians in protecting children. It was never meant to be a fully referenced textbook on child protection. At no stage was there any attempt to rewrite history.

There are 22 references to the work of Professors Meadow and Southall given via reports published by the Department of Health and the college, which are available on websites and are the easiest way for general paediatricians to access them.

Fabricated or induced illness is an important but uncommon issue faced by general paediatricians. Chapter 6, referred to by Gornall, contains 15 sections on aspects of maltreatment, and fabricated or induced illness is one. The majority of references are not relevant to fabricated or induced illness.

The section on covert video surveillance is appropriately succinct—given the rarity with which this will be contemplated. It gives essential information for use by general paediatricians.

Gornall refers to discontent in the royal college members' discussion group. We have 9000 members and so far there have been only three replies to the original email expressing concern about the Companion.

The training course on child protection is a separate piece of work aimed at the most junior trainees. It focuses on commonly encountered child protection issues but nevertheless the materials refer to the work of Professors Meadow and Southall.

It is not the role of any royal college to comment publicly on individuals. Much public and behind the scenes work has been done by Professor Sir Alan Craft and Professor Sir David Hall to support paediatricians in protecting children. We have not changed our stance.

We strongly support Gornall's concern for expert witnesses. Complaints made to the General Medical Council result all too easily in lengthy processes, during which doctors find their careers and their lives blighted. These must be reformed. We must be fair to complainants but we must be fair to doctors too.