zlacker

>>rossan+(OP)
The worst part here is: He spent months researching 500 medical papers to even realize this was a problem. No way in hell will a single defense lawyer get someone to be able to research enough to figure this out. As stated, how many people are in jail or lost their kids due to something that didn't actually happen. And how many people don't know that a minor bump in the head for a baby could be life threatening, but we just mark it as SIDS. And even worse, no medical doctor will go this hard trying to figure out how to defend a person they believe murdered a baby.

It is the perfect combination of crap.

Cyrille Rossant may save a lot of lives, in both parents and children, if this becomes common knowledge.

>>Justsi+8m4
Since having a kid and reading a lot I've been bothered by how clearly a lot of what is labeled as "SIDS" is pretty clearly accidental suffocation. The conclusion is impossible to escape when you begin reading about measures that have "reduced SIDS." Yet I also wonder if continuing to observe this social fiction is just a way of keeping overzealous prosecutors and other crusaders from locking up and treating as depraved murderers grieving families for accidental deaths.

>>emoden+B69
Not an expert but it seems to me you'd be making the same kind of error that the article denounces: attaching equal value to direct evidence on the one hand and inference to the best explanation on the other. If a physician does not observe tell-tale signs of suffocation in an infant, then it is not their role to say "Well, statistically speaking, or logically speaking, pretty good chance it's accidental suffocation isn't it? I'll jot this down as Accidental Suffocation Syndrome" or alternatively "I know in my heart that this is accidental suffocation but let's just call it SIDS for the benefit of the parents" but rather they should simply conclude "there's not enough evidence, therefore this death remains unexplained".