Recommendation LAMI-67: Require recorded discussion and further opinion for differing deliberate harm diagnoses.
From Laming Inquiry — Final Report, published 28 January 2003.
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.
Government response
No government response to this recommendation is on the record yet.
Delivery
No statement on delivery from the addressee has been found in the sources searched (last checked 27 February 2026). This is separate from the response above.
What other bodies have found
In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.
Thirlwall Inquiry legal team (27 February 2026)
The Government accepted this recommendation: This is included in the checklist of good practice recommendations issued on publication of the report (paragraphs 40-47). The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is working with the Government to identify the key issues around differences of opinion between staff within and between agencies, and decide how to take these forward, probably as part of the revisions to the Children Act 1989 guidance or through training (paragraphs 34-36).
Site note: The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team's own notes on implementation, from its Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version dated April 2025, published 27 February 2026). The review does not colour its Extent of Implementation cell for this recommendation green; it leaves the cell uncoloured where a recommendation was rejected, where evidence of implementation was insufficient, or where steps had been taken but implementation was not yet complete. Table row: section 7.2 No. 67, PDF page 164.
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Thirlwall Inquiry legal team
Finding