Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is the leading cause of fatal head injuries in children younger than 2 years. A multidisciplinary team bases this diagnosis on history, physical examination, imaging and laboratory findings. Because the etiology of the injury is multifactorial (shaking, shaking and impact, impact, etc.) the current best and inclusive term is AHT. There is no controversy concerning the medical validity of the existence of AHT, with multiple components including subdural hematoma, intracranial and spinal changes, complex retinal hemorrhages, and rib and other fractures that are inconsistent with the provided mechanism of trauma. The workup must exclude medical diseases that can mimic AHT. However, the courtroom has become a forum for speculative theories that cannot be reconciled with generally accepted medical literature. There is no reliable medical evidence that the following processes are causative in the constellation of injuries of AHT: cerebral sinovenous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischemic injury, lumbar puncture or dysphagic choking/vomiting. There is no substantiation, at a time remote from birth, that an asymptomatic birth-related subdural hemorrhage can result in rebleeding and sudden collapse. Further, a diagnosis of AHT is a medical conclusion, not a legal determination of the intent of the perpetrator or a diagnosis of murder. We hope that this consensus document reduces confusion by recommending to judges and jurors the tools necessary to distinguish genuine evidence-based opinions of the relevant medical community from legal arguments or etiological speculations that are unwarranted by the clinical findings, medical evidence and evidence-based literature

An Empirical Investigation of the Right to Explanation Under GDPR in Insurance

The GDPR aims at strengthening the rights of data subjects and to build trust in the digital single market. This is manifested by the introduction of a new principle of transparency. It is, however, not obvious what this means in practice: What kind of answers can be expected to GDPR requests citing the right to “meaningful information”? This is the question addressed in this article. Seven insurance companies, representing 90–95% of the Swedish home insurance market, were asked by consumers to disclose information about how premiums are set. Results are presented first giving descriptive statistics, then characterizing the pricing information given, and lastly describing the procedural information offered by insurers as part of their answers. Overall, several different approaches to answering the request can be discerned, including different uses of examples, lists, descriptions of logic, legal basis as well as data related to the process of answering the requests. Results are analyzed in light of GDPR requirements. A number of potential improvements are identified—at least three responses are likely to fail the undue delay requirement. The article is concluded with a discussion about future work