this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

3764 readers
301 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A growing number of medical experts and law enforcement officials are reversing testimony that put parents behind bars. But they face an uphill battle.

Thousands of caregivers have been arrested since the early 1980s based on the medical belief that young children hospitalized with three symptoms — brain swelling, bleeding in the brain and bleeding at the back of the eyes — must have been forcefully and deliberately shaken. Many doctors and pediatric associations remain steadfast in the view that those symptoms help prove that a child has suffered what is now often called “abusive head trauma.”

But a growing number of medical and forensic experts say the diagnosis is too definitive, particularly in the absence of other signs of abuse. Accidental falls from changing tables can similarly jostle the brain. Clotting disorders and other illnesses can also cause brain bleeding. While some babies are undoubtedly shaken by overwhelmed caregivers, which can cause life-threatening brain damage, these scientists say it isn’t enough to look only at three symptoms before they draw conclusions.

In a major victory for shaken baby syndrome skeptics, New Jersey's Supreme Court recently agreed, affirming a lower court ruling that likened the diagnosis to unreliable "junk science" and barring expert testimony about it from two upcoming trials. The 6-1 ruling, closely watched by accused caregivers and their attorneys nationwide, could shift how courts weigh shaken baby evidence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 22 points 9 hours ago

I have to always remind myself, on the internet, I’m probably talking to a child who hasn’t been outside since before Covid