Roy Meadow

Meadow was born in Wigan, Lancashire, the son of Samuel and Doris Meadow. He was educated at Wigan Grammar School and Bromsgrove School, before studying medicine at Worcester College, Oxford. From 1962 to 1964 he practised as a general practitioner in Banbury, Oxfordshire, before progressing to junior appointments at various hospitals in London and Brighton. In 1967 he became a Medical Research Council Fellow at the University of Birmingham, and three years later was appointed senior lecturer and consultant paediatrician at the University of Leeds.{{Who's Who | title = MEADOW, Sir (Samuel) Roy | id = U27149 | volume = 2024 | edition = online}} Meadow was appointed professor of paediatrics and child health at Leeds in 1980, based at St James's University Hospital.{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3307427.stm|title=Profile: Sir Roy Meadow|date=10 December 2003|access-date=7 August 2018|via=news.bbc.co.uk}} He retired with the title Emeritus Professor in 1998.{{Cite web|url=http://www.leeds.ac.uk/calendar/emeritus.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120926134723/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/calendar/emeritus.htm|url-status=dead|title=University of Leeds, List of Emeritus Professors|archivedate=26 September 2012}}

Throughout his early years in medicine, Meadow was a devoted admirer of Anna Freud (daughter of Sigmund Freud), whose lectures he would often attend. Speaking in later life, he said: "I was, as a junior, brought up by Anna Freud, who was a great figure in child psychology, and I used to sit at her feet at Maresfield Gardens in Hampstead. She used to teach us that a child needs mothering and not a mother." There is some controversy over these claims. According to the London Evening Standard, representatives of the Anna Freud Centre claimed to have no record of him completing a formal training there and repudiated his description of her philosophy.{{cite news | date=23 January 2004 | url=http://www.msbp.com/Munchausendiscredited3.htm | title=He Doesn't Like Women, Says Ex-Wife | publisher=Evening Standard | access-date=30 November 2023| author=David Cohen}}

In 1961, Meadow married Gillian Maclennan, daughter of Sir Ian Maclennan, the British ambassador to Ireland. The couple had two children, Julian and Anna, before divorcing in 1974. Four years later he married his second wife, Marianne Jane Harvey.{{citation needed|date=February 2020}}

{{BLP sources section|date=January 2023}}

In 1977, in The Lancet medical journal, Meadow published the theory which was to make him famous.Meadow, Roy [http://web.tiscali.it/humanrights/articles/meadow77.html "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: The Hinterlands of Child Abuse"], The Lancet, 13 August, pp. 343-5, 1977

Sufferers of his postulated Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy or MSbP (a name coined by Meadow himself) harm or fake symptoms of illness in persons under their care (usually their own children) in order to gain the attention and sympathy of medical personnel. This claim was based upon the extraordinary behaviour of two mothers: one had (Meadow claimed) poisoned her toddler with excessive quantities of salt. The other had introduced her own blood into her baby's urine sample. Although it was initially regarded with scepticism, MSbP soon gained a following amongst doctors and social workers.

{{main|Meadow's law}}

In 1993, Meadow gave expert testimony at the trial of Beverley Allitt, a paediatric nurse accused (and later found guilty) of murdering several of her patients.{{cite web |url=http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/angels/beverly_allitt/6.html |title=Beverly Allitt: Suffer the Children |access-date=6 February 2007 |date=10 May 2000 |publisher=The Crime Library |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070208092708/http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/angels/beverly_allitt/6.html |archive-date=8 February 2007 }}

Meadow went on to testify in many other trials, many of which concerned cases previously diagnosed as cot death or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Meadow was convinced that many apparent cot deaths were the result of physical abuse. Families that had suffered more than one cot death were to attract particular attention: "There is no evidence that cot deaths runs in families", said Meadow, "but there is plenty of evidence that child abuse does". His rule of thumb was that "unless proven otherwise, one cot death is tragic, two is suspicious and three is murder".[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4221973-102285,00.html Gene find casts doubt on double 'cot death' murders]. The Observer; 15 July 2001.

Although this dictum is believed not to have originated from Meadow's own lips, it has become almost universally known as Meadow's law.{{citation needed|date=January 2023}}

This trend was to reach its apogee in 1999 when solicitor Sally Clark was tried for allegedly murdering her two babies. Her elder son Christopher had died at the age of 11 weeks, and her younger son Harry at 8 weeks. Medical opinion was divided on the cause of death, and several leading paediatricians testified that the deaths were probably natural. Experts acting for the prosecution initially diagnosed that the babies had been shaken to death, but three days before the trial began several of them changed their collective opinion to smothering.

By the time he gave evidence at Sally Clark's trial, Meadow claimed to have found 81 cot deaths which were in fact murder, but he had destroyed the data.Cassandra Jardine.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581407/Has-Sally-Clarks-case-changed-attitudes-to-infant-death.html Has Sally Clark's case changed attitudes to infant death?], The Telegraph, 16 March 2008. Amongst the prosecution team was Meadow, whose evidence included a soundbite which was to provoke much argument: he testified that the odds against two cot deaths occurring in the same family was 73,000,000:1, a figure which he erroneously obtained by squaring the observed ratio of live-births to cot deaths in affluent non-smoking families (approximately 8,500:1). In addition he extrapolated his erroneous figures stating that the 1 in 73,000,000 incidence was only likely to occur once every hundred years in England, Scotland and Wales. He further illustrated his miscalculation by stating that the very unlikely odds were the same as successfully backing to win an 80/1 outsider in the Grand National for four successive years.{{cite web |url=http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/case-files/archive/legal/appeal-judgments/sally-clark-appeal-court-judgment-2003-successful |title=Sally Clark Appeal Court Judgment 2003 (Successful) | MOJO Scotland |access-date=10 October 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150217165601/http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/case-files/archive/legal/appeal-judgments/sally-clark-appeal-court-judgment-2003-successful |archive-date=17 February 2015 }} The jury returned a 10/2 majority verdict of "guilty".

Meadow's 73,000,000:1 statistic was paraded in the popular pressThe Guardian 13 October 1999, page 5, author Paul KelsoThe Observer 10 November 1999, page 2, author Paul Kelso and received criticism from professional statisticians over its calculation. The Royal Statistical Society issued a press release stating that the figure had "no statistical basis", and that the case was "one example of a medical expert witness making a serious statistical error."{{cite press release | title = Royal Statistical Society concerned by issues raised in Sally Clark case | publisher = Royal Statistical Society | date = 23 October 2001 | url = http://www.rss.org.uk/PDF/RSS%20Statement%20regarding%20statistical%20issues%20in%20the%20Sally%20Clark%20case,%20October%2023rd%202001.pdf | access-date = 25 April 2009 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080407224224/http://www.rss.org.uk/PDF/RSS%20Statement%20regarding%20statistical%20issues%20in%20the%20Sally%20Clark%20case,%20October%2023rd%202001.pdf | archive-date = 7 April 2008 | df = dmy-all }} The Society's president, Professor Peter Green, later wrote an open letter of complaint to the Lord Chancellor about these concerns.{{Cite web |url=http://www.rss.org.uk/Images/PDF/influencing-change/rss-use-statistical-evidence-court-cases-2002.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=13 October 2015 |archive-date=10 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161010101329/http://www.rss.org.uk/Images/PDF/influencing-change/rss-use-statistical-evidence-court-cases-2002.pdf |url-status=dead }}{{full citation needed|date=September 2018}}

The statistical criticisms were threefold: firstly, Meadow was accused of applying the so-called prosecutor's fallacy in which the probability of "cause given effect" (i.e. the true likelihood of a suspect's innocence) is confused with that of "effect given cause" (the probability that an innocent person would lose two children in this manner). In reality, these quantities can only be equated when the a priori likelihood of the alternative hypothesis, in this case murder, is close to certainty. Murder (especially double murder) is itself a rare event, whose probability must be weighed against that of the null hypothesis (natural death).

The second criticism concerned the ecological fallacy: Meadow's calculation had assumed that the cot death probability within any single family was the same as the aggregate ratio of cot deaths to births for the entire affluent-non-smoking population. No account had been taken of conditions specific to individual families (such as the hypothesised cot death gene) which might make some more vulnerable than others. Finally, Meadow assumed that SIDS cases within families were statistically independent. The occurrence of one cot death makes it likely that the family in question has such conditions, and the probability of subsequent deaths is therefore greater than the group average. (Estimates are mostly in the region of 1:100.)

Some mathematicians have estimated that taking all these factors into account, the true odds may have been greater than 2:1 in favour of the death not being murder, and hence demonstrating Clark's innocence.{{cite web|author=Joyce, Helen|url=http://plus.maths.org/issue21/features/clark/|title=Beyond reasonable doubt|publisher=Plus Magazine|date=September 2002|access-date=15 September 2009}}

The perils of allowing non-statisticians to present unsound statistical arguments were expressed in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial by Stephen Watkins, Director of Public Health for Stockport, claiming that "defendants deserve the same protection as patients."{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.320.7226.2 |pmid=10617504 |pmc=1117305 |title=Conviction by mathematical error? |journal=BMJ |volume=320 |issue=7226 |pages=2–3 |year=2000 |last1=Watkins |first1=S. J }}

{{See also|Sally Clark}}

Meadow's statistical figure was amongst the five grounds for appeal submitted to the Court of Appeal in the autumn of 2000. The judges claimed that the figure was a "sideshow", which would have had no significant effect on the jury's decision. The overall evidence was judged to be "overwhelming" and Clark's appeal against conviction was dismissed. Clark's supporters rejected this decision. Meadow considered that he had been fully vindicated. He responded to Watkins in a BMJ paper of his own,{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.324.7328.41 |pmid=11777809 |pmc=1121945 |title=Personal paper: A case of murder and the BMJ |journal=BMJ |volume=324 |issue=7328 |pages=41–43 |year=2002 |last1=Meadow |first1=R }} accusing him of being both irresponsible and misinformed. He reiterated his erroneous claim that "both children showed signs of both recent and past abuse" (injuries which the defence claimed were either misidentified in a badly-performed post-mortem, or caused by the mother's attempts at resuscitation) and underlined the judges' controversial ruling that Clark and her husband had given "untrue evidence".{{citation needed|date=January 2023}}

Meadow's vindication was to be short-lived: after the campaigning lawyer Marilyn Stowe obtained new evidence from Macclesfield Hospital, it emerged that another expert witness, Home Office Pathologist Dr Alan Williams,{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.330.7504.1347 |pmid=15947383 |pmc=558274 |title=Pathologist in Sally Clark case suspended from court work |journal=BMJ |volume=330 |issue=7504 |pages=1347 |year=2005 |last1=Dyer |first1=Clare }} had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in the form of results of medical tests which showed that her second child had died from the bacterial infection Staphylococcus aureus, and not from smothering as the prosecution had claimed. A second appeal was launched and in allowing Clark's appeal to proceed Lord Justice Kay stated in open court that Meadow's statistics were 'grossly misleading' and 'manifestly wrong'.{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/14/health.medicineandhealth | title=John Sweeney on infant death | website=TheGuardian.com | date=14 December 2003 }}

Although the central reasons for the Clark appeal's success were separate from Meadow's evidence, the discredited statistics were revisited in the hearing. In their ruling, in marked contrast to the opinions at the first appeal, the judges stated that:

{{Blockquote|"....if this matter had been fully argued before us we would, in all probability, have considered that the statistical evidence provided a quite distinct basis upon which the appeal had to be allowed."}}

Sally Clark's conviction was overturned in January 2003.{{Cite news |last=Shaikh |first=Thair |date=17 March 2007 |title=Sally Clark, mother wrongly convicted of killing her sons, found dead at home |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/17/childrensservices.uknews |access-date=8 December 2023 |issn=0261-3077}}

Sally Clark died unintentionally on 16 March 2007 from acute alcohol intoxication.{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/nov/08/childrens | title=Solicitor wrongly jailed for killing sons died from excess alcohol | website=TheGuardian.com | date=8 November 2007 }}

She never recovered from the severe psychological trauma resulting from the experience of the deaths of two children, then being unjustly convicted of their murder with subsequent imprisonment leading to her being separated from her third baby.{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7082411.stm | title=Alcohol killed mother Sally Clark | date=7 November 2007 }}

{{BLP unreferenced section|date=February 2024}}

In June 2003, the CPS used Meadow's expert testimony against Trupti Patel, a pharmacist accused of killing three of her babies. After a highly publicised trial lasting several weeks, the jury took less than 90 minutes to return a unanimous verdict of "not guilty". Even then, a spokesperson for the prosecution stated that the crown would still be "very happy" to use Meadow's evidence in future trials. However, the Solicitor General for England and Wales, Harriet Harman (whose sister is Sarah Harman, a lawyer involved in another subsequent high-profile case where the parents had been accused of harming their children) effectively barred Meadow from court work; she warned prosecution lawyers that the defence should be informed of court criticisms of Meadow's evidence.

{{BLP unreferenced section|date=February 2024}}

The following December Angela Cannings, a mother convicted on Meadow's evidence, was freed on appeal. She had been wrongly convicted of murdering two of her three babies, both of whom had died in their first few weeks of life. Following the quashing of her convictions, Meadow found himself under investigation by the British General Medical Council for alleged professional misconduct.

Cannings' case differed from Clark's in that there was no physical evidence. The prosecution rested upon what was perceived to be "suspicious behaviour" on the part of the mother (telephoning her husband instead of emergency services when one of the deaths occurred) and upon Meadow's opinion that she was an MSbP sufferer. He had told the jury that the boys could not have been genuine cot death victims because they were fit and healthy right up until the time of death (contradicting other experts who claim this is typical of SIDS cases). The prosecution had also rejected any genetic explanation, stating that there was no family history of cot death. Although no enumerated statistics had been presented, Meadow had told the jury that double cot death was extremely unlikely. The jurors took nine hours to return a guilty verdict.

Cannings had already lost one appeal but, in the wake of the Clark and Patel acquittals, the case was "fast tracked" for a second appeal. In the weeks that followed, an investigation by the BBC showed that the prosecution's "no family history" argument had been incorrect: at least two of Cannings' paternal ancestors had lost an abnormally large number of infants to unexplained causes, making a genetic predisposition to cot death highly plausible.

The appeal was heard in December 2003 and the Court of Appeal declared the original conviction unsafe and allowed Cannings' appeal.

{{BLP sources section|date=January 2023}}

In January 2004, the Deputy Chief Justice, Lord Justice Judge, gave the full reasons for allowing Cannings' appeal. His comments included criticism of Meadow's evidence, of his standing as an expert witness and of 'experts' adopting an over-dogmatic stance :

{{Blockquote|"Therefore the flawed evidence he gave at Sally Clark's trial serves to undermine his high reputation and authority as a witness in the forensic process. It also, and not unimportantly for present purposes, demonstrates not only that in this particular field which we summarise as "cot deaths", even the most distinguished expert can be wrong, but also provides a salutary warning against the possible dangers of an over-dogmatic expert approach".{{cite BAILII|litigants=R v Angela Cannings|link=Angela Cannings|court=EWCA|division=Crim|year=2004|num=1|para=|eucase=|parallelcite=|date=19 January 2004|courtname=|juris=|ref=}}}}

Only a relatively small number of appeals were actually launched, though most of these were successful (including that of Donna Anthony, who served six years after being wrongly convicted of killing her son and daughter). In addition to this, the law was changed such that no person can be convicted on the basis of expert testimony alone.

On 21 June 2005, Meadow appeared before a GMC fitness to practise tribunal. On the first day of Meadow's defence, Dr Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, published an article in defence of Meadow.{{Cite journal |last=Horton |first=Richard |date=2–8 July 2005 |title=In defence of Roy Meadow |journal=The Lancet |language=en |volume=366 |issue=9479 |pages=3–5 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66798-0 |pmid=15993209|s2cid=41571852 }} This controversial interference in the GMC process 'incensed' Sally Clark.{{Cite news |date=1 July 2005 |title=Cot death expert defends evidence |language=en-GB |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4641587.stm |access-date=18 December 2020}} Her husband, Stephen, later wrote to the Lancet to highlight Horton's "many inaccuracies and one-sided opinions" in order to prevent them prejudicing independent observers.{{cite journal | last=Clark | first=Stephen | title=Roy Meadow | journal=The Lancet | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=366 | issue=9484 | year=2005 | issn=0140-6736 | doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67048-1 | pages=449–450 | pmid=16084242| s2cid=32832108 }}{{Cite web |last=Stapely |first=Sue |date=1 July 2005 |title=Response by the Clark family to Richard Horton's comment in the July Edition of The Lancet |url=http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/Lancet050701.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507060045/http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/Lancet050701.html |archive-date=7 May 2016 |access-date=18 December 2020 |website=Sally Clark}}

On 13 July, the tribunal ruled that his evidence in the Clark case was indeed misleading and incorrect and on 15 July decided he was guilty of "serious professional misconduct".{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.331.7510.177 |pmid=16037430 |pmc=1179752 |title=Professor Roy Meadow struck off |journal=BMJ |volume=331 |issue=7510 |pages=177 |year=2005 |last1=Dyer |first1=Clare }}

It was during the hearing that, when questioned directly on the matter, Meadow made his first public apology for the effect of his 'misleading' evidence. He cited the reasons for the delay as being 'legal advice' and 'professional etiquette'.{{Cite news |date=6 July 2005 |title=Meadow apologises for 'misleading' cot death claim |language=en |work=The Guardian |url=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/06/NHS.uknews |access-date=18 December 2020}} The failure to apologise, and not admitting that he was wrong, was the reason why Sally Clark's father, Frank Lockyer, had raised his concerns about Meadow with the GMC.{{Cite web |date=12 January 2009 |title=Frank Lockyer, Camilla Cavendish and Professor Sir Roy Meadow |url=http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2009/01/12/frank-lockyer-camilla-cavendish-and-professor-sir-roy-meadow/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180908170711/http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2009/01/12/frank-lockyer-camilla-cavendish-and-professor-sir-roy-meadow/ |archive-date=8 September 2018 |access-date=18 December 2020|website=Stowe Family Law}}

His failure to apologise spontaneously was not his first departure from good ethical conduct in this case; during a break at Clark's committal hearing at Macclesfield Magistrates' Court Meadow had approached the defence team and addressed Sally Clark saying, 'this is terrible for me, it must be awful for you.' He was instructed by Clark's barrister Michael Mackey to 'go away'.{{cite book

| last = Batt

| first = John

| author-link = John Batt

| title = Stolen Innocence

| publisher = Ebury Press

| date = 2005

| page = 121

| isbn = 978-0-09-190569-9}}

The decision was made that his name should be struck from the medical register. The Society of Expert Witnesses commented that the severity of this punishment would cause many professionals to reconsider whether to stand as expert witnesses.{{Cite news |date=16 July 2005 |title=Meadow ruling 'risk to witnesses' |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4688367.stm |access-date=18 December 2020}}

The following month, Meadow launched an appeal against this ruling. On 17 February 2006, High Court judge Mr Justice Collins found in his favour, ruling against the decision to strike him from the medical register. The judge stated that although the GMC had been right to criticize him, his actions could not properly be regarded as "serious professional misconduct".

On 26 October 2006, the Appeal Court overturned the High Court's earlier ruling, allowing expert witnesses to be disciplined once again but ruled that the High Court decision that Meadow was not guilty of serious professional misconduct should stand. However, on the issue of serious professional misconduct, the Appeal Court panel was split 2:1 with the dissenting senior judge, Sir Anthony Clarke, concluding Meadow was "guilty of serious professional misconduct" and provided detailed reasons for his conclusion. One of the other two judges, Lord Justice Auld, said Meadow "was undoubtedly guilty of some professional misconduct" but that it "fell far short of serious professional misconduct" (see Richard Webster's article discussing the judgment.{{Cite web |last=Webster |first=Richard |date=7 February 2007 |title=Roy Meadow and the statistics of cot deaths |url=http://www.richardwebster.net/cotdeaths.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071006100958/http://www.richardwebster.net/cotdeaths.html |url-status=usurped |archive-date=6 October 2007 |access-date=18 December 2020|website=richardwebster.net}})

In 2004, Meadow's ex-wife, Gillian Paterson, accused Meadow of seeing "mothers with Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy wherever he looked," and implied that he was a misogynist: "I don't think he likes women... although I can't go into details, I'm sure he has a serious problem with women".

In 2009, Meadow relinquished his registration with the GMC and thus became unlicensed to practice medicine. In addition this voluntary erasure from the list of registered medical practitioners meant that he would no longer be answerable to the GMC should any further concerns be raised regarding any previous professional activity.{{Cite web |last=Blakemore-Brown |first=Lisa |title=Sir Roy Meadow removes himself from the General Medical Council Register |url=http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=4111#newspost |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150205173733/http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=4111#newspost |archive-date=5 February 2015}}

In the 2005 trial of Ian and Angela Gay over the death of their adopted son Christian, the prosecution relied heavily upon Meadow's 1993 paper "Non-accidental salt poisoning",{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/adc.68.4.448 |pmid=8503665 |pmc=1029261 |title=Non-accidental salt poisoning |journal=Archives of Disease in Childhood |volume=68 |issue=4 |pages=448–52 |year=1993 |last1=Meadow |first1=R }} citing it many times throughout the trial. The judge also referred to the paper citing it five times during his summing up. Ian and Angela Gay were found guilty of manslaughter and spent 15 months in prison before their convictions were quashed.{{cite web | url=https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/angela-gay/ | title=Angela Gay }}{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/02/ukcrime.children | title=Court clears couple of poisoning boy with salt | newspaper=The Guardian | date=2 March 2007 }}

In interviews for BBC Radio 4's File on 4 programme,BBC Radio 4, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_11_05_miscarriagesofjustice.pdf "Miscarriages Of Justice"], transmission date 29 November 2005. Professor Jean Golding and Professor Ashley Grossman both questioned the reliability of the Meadow paper. The naturally occurring condition diabetes insipidus was suggested as a more likely cause of an elevated salt level than deliberate salt poisoning.

• Miscarriage of justice
• Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom

{{reflist|2}}

• {{cite book | first1 = Leila | last1 = Schneps | first2 = Coralie | last2 = Colmez | author-link1=Leila Schneps|author-link2=Coralie Colmez|title = Math on trial. How numbers get used and abused in the courtroom | publisher = Basic Books | date = 2013 | isbn = 978-0-465-03292-1 | chapter = Math error number 1: multiplying non-independent probabilities. The case of Sally Clark: motherhood under attack|title-link=Math on Trial }}

• [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1.html Judgment of the Court of Appeal] in the case of Regina vs. Cannings, Jan 2004.
• [http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1469735,00.html Meadow faces GMC misconduct hearing] from The Guardian.
• [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4723778.stm 'Disappointed and disheartened'] BBC News report on the reactions of the women who were jailed.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070205233838/http://www.gmcpressoffice.org.uk/apps/news/latest/detail.php?key=180 GMC Fitness to Practice Panel] finding of serious professional misconduct against Meadow, July 2005.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222338/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j3889/meadow_v_gmc_0206.htm Judgement in High Court appeal] in case brought by Meadow against GMC finding of serious professional misconduct, Feb 2006.
• [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1390.html Court of Appeal judgement] restoring the ability of the GMC to discipline misconduct by expert witnesses, Oct 2006.
• {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20000831054435/http://www.ashermeadow.com/ AsherMeadow]}}, a web-based information resource devoted to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
• [http://www.munchausen.com/ Information on Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy], a website devoted to Munchausen syndrome and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy by expert Dr. Marc Feldman.

{{James Spence Medal winners}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Meadow, Roy}}

Category:1933 births

Category:Knights Bachelor

Category:Alumni of Worcester College, Oxford

Category:20th-century English medical doctors

Category:British forensic scientists

Category:Forensic statistics

Category:British paediatricians

Category:People from Wigan

Category:Medical doctors struck off by the General Medical Council

Category:Academics of the University of Leeds

Category:Wrongful convictions

Category:Living people

Category:Recipients of the James Spence Medal

Category:Presidents of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health