LAMI-67
Response
Historic
AI-assessed
Require recorded discussion and further opinion for differing deliberate harm diagnoses.
Recommendation
When differences of medical opinion occur in relation to the diagnosis of possible deliberate harm to a child, a recorded discussion must take place between the persons holding the different views. When the deliberate harm of a child has been raised as an alternative diagnosis to a purely medical one, the diagnosis of deliberate harm must not be rejected without full discussion and, if necessary, obtaining a further opinion.
Published Evidence Summary
The following publicly available evidence relates to this recommendation:
No specific published evidence detailing the implementation of this recommendation, requiring recorded discussions for differences in medical opinion regarding deliberate harm to a child, has been identified within the provided official sources. The Laming Inquiry was published in 2003, and no recent progress reports or specific legislative actions directly addressing this recommendation were found.
How was this assessed?
Assessed by gemini-2.5-flash on 19 Mar 2026
Checked data held on this site (government responses, progress updates, independent evidence)
External sources searched: www.gov.uk, www.legislation.gov.uk, hansard.parliament.uk
This recommendation asks for cultural or behavioural change, which is difficult to verify objectively. The assessment is based on policy commitments, not measured outcomes.
Jurisdiction
UK-wide
Response
Historic
Response
HistoricNo government response recorded.
Themes & Tags
Recommendation age
23.2 yrs
Last formal update
No formal updates