Jonathan Gornall, Munchausen Man http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=447
by John Stone
12/05/2006
SLEAZE AND RECTITUDE
In a succesion of articles, the defence of the Government's fabricated illness
orthodoxy and the reputations of its leading proponents Sir Roy Meadow and Prof
David Southall, has fallen to the hands of journalist Jonathan Gornall. Gornall
is a curious figure, best known for his failed attempt to row across the
Atlantic a couple of years ago, and his raffish, not very pleasant, and recently
terminated Times column: Microwave Man.
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,1000069225,00.html?sym=QUE
Two articles on the Meadow case appeared in The Times last year (30 March, 24
June), followed by pieces in Hospital Doctor, The Guardian:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1781767,00.html
and BMJ:
'Royal College rewrites Child Protaction History':
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7560/194
'How doctors' anonymity in family courts is under threat':
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7576/1024
'Was message of sudden infant death study misleading?'
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7579/1165
Whether Gornall is the man you would want to defend you reputation is an open
question. Clearly he is a senior journalist of a sort, however, if a report in
the Independent is to be believed his own career at The Times seems to have
drawn to a close under a cloud of embarrassment earlier this year.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article353453.ece
Normally speaking this sort of tittle-tattle would not interest me. What is
bothersome about Gornall's contribution to the Munchausen debate is that it does
not seem hugely principled. Responding to his article 'How doctors' anonymity in
the family courts is under threat' I twice felt forced to challenge him
regarding what point he was making:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/333/7576/1024#149522
"Re: Author's reply 21 November 2006
"Jonathan Gornall writes:
""Small wonder that John Stone, despite reading my piece three times, has failed
to "pinpoint any argument in favour of expert anonymity and court secrecy" in my
article. There isn't one. That was not what the article was about, as I suspect
he well knows."
"Well, if so, it amounts to a defence of secrecy by ad hominem attack -
beginning with the way Sarah Harman dresses. And challenged by me Gornall fails
once again to produce an argument. There is surely no argument: if the evidence
cannot bear scrutiny then it should not be given. At least for once the
Government seem to be on the side of transparency and accountability.
Presumably, Gornall is lobbying for the status quo, but cannot do any better."
He did not return to answer this.