杏吧原创

FORTY-SIX unexplained infant deaths and two conflicting verdicts on what caused them. That鈥檚 the latest twist in the controversy over whether a second cot death in a family is likely to be a simple tragedy or something more sinister.

Two years ago a research paper by Robert Carpenter at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and his colleagues shifted the blame away from parents, concluding that 40 of the 46 deaths were 鈥渘atural鈥� ( These conclusions are now being challenged by two retired British paediatricians. Chris Bacon and Edmund Hey used the same data, but concluded that only 20 of the deaths were 鈥渘atural鈥�, while six were 鈥渦nnatural鈥�. The remaining deaths they classified as 鈥渦ndetermined鈥� 鈥� a term they say provides a more honest verdict in cases where evidence was ambiguous or inconclusive ().

For example, in 13 of the 20 鈥渦ndetermined鈥� cases, there was no information to go on at all. 鈥淐arpenter categorises all of them as 鈥榥atural鈥�, but you can鈥檛 say one way or the other,鈥� says Bacon. He adds that since many of the other 鈥渘atural鈥� deaths occurred in families with histories of violence and mental health problems, another six should arbitrarily be reclassified as 鈥渦ndetermined鈥�.

鈥淢any 鈥榥atural鈥� deaths occurred in families with a history of violence鈥�

A joint statement issued last week by Carpenter and UK charity, the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths, calls for a thorough investigation when any baby dies unexpectedly.