In 1997, in the child abuse case involving British nanny Louise Woodward, the words shaken baby syndrome leapt from medical textbooks into international prominence. Woodward was accused of shaking infant Matthew Eappen, fatally injuring him. In the 11 years since Woodward was convicted of second-degree murder and then released on a lesser sentence for involuntary manslaughter, a debate has simmered in the child abuse world, and it is now rising to a boil.
On one side of the courtroom, representing mainstream medical opinion, are those who believe shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a valid diagnosis. They say that decades of clinical experience and criminal confessions—in which a parent has admitted to shaking a child with symptoms of SBS—bolster their case to the point of near-certainty. On the other side, a growing number of skeptics are now claiming that the evidence for the syndrome rests on dubious medical ground with questionable biophysical models supporting it.
Each side, too, is battling for the moral high ground. Those who give credence to SBS say they are using modern diagnostic technology (magnetic resonance imaging in particular) to catch child abusers who might once have gone unpunished. The skeptics, on the other hand, say that innocent families around the world have been left in ruins by prosecutors and child protective agencies who have wrongfully accused parents and child-care workers of child abuse.
Shaken baby syndrome excites such controversy partly because it invokes the specter of horrible cruelty to an innocent, often in the immediate wake of the child’s death. Yet in the classic SBS case, signs of child abuse that one might expect—suspicious bruises, burns, cuts, or other injuries—are missing. According to the 2001 textbook The Shaken Baby Syndrome: A Multidisciplinary Approach, “It is this absence of external signs of abuse which makes the early diagnosis of SBS so difficult.”
It is important to clarify that DISCOVER is weighing the science behind the textbook definition of shaken baby syndrome, not delving into casework involving children who do display “external signs of abuse.” This article is about the evidence for and against a specific syndrome, not the vital importance of child abuse prevention.
