LAMI-67

Require recorded discussion and further opinion for differing deliberate harm diagnoses.

Laming Inquiry · Laming Inquiry — Final Report · Issued 28 January 2003

Government responseNot tracked (historical inquiry)

DeliveryNo statement from the addressee found

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry 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.

Laming Inquiry, Laming Inquiry — Final Report · 28 Jan 2003 Source PDF →

Government response

●No formal government response recorded

The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.

Delivery

No statement on delivery from the addressee has been found in the sources searched. 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 Feb 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).

From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version dated April 2025)

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.

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.