LAMI-67
Response
Historic
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 formal government response has been recorded for this recommendation. No independent verification has been carried out.
Sources
Based on tracking data in the inquiry database.
How was this evidence gathered?
Evidence searched by baseline-data-v1 on 26 May 2026
Checked data held on this site (government responses, progress updates, independent evidence)
This recommendation asks for cultural or behavioural change, which is difficult to verify from published sources alone. The evidence above reflects policy commitments rather than measured outcomes.
Jurisdiction
UK-wide
Response
Historic
Response
HistoricNo government response recorded.
Themes & Tags
Recommendation age
23.3 yrs
Last formal update
No formal updates