May 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry report delayed to at least September 2026 · six-baby inquests relisted to 2027 · CCRC review active · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.
Public commentary sceptical of the Panel report has sometimes argued that the Panel represents a minority or fringe position within international neonatology — fourteen individuals who happened to agree with each other. The implication is that a competing panel of equally credentialled experts might reach a different conclusion.
The Panel's fourteen signatories are drawn from flagship neonatal institutions across eight countries — Canada (Lee, Shah, Campbell at Mount Sinai / Toronto), the UK (Modi at Imperial, Khashu at Bournemouth, Blencowe at LSHTM, Hall as a UK consultant), Sweden (Norman at Karolinska), Germany (Hummler at Ulm), Belgium (Allegaert at KU Leuven), New Zealand (Darlow at Otago), Taiwan (Yeh), and the United States (Manzar at LSU, Taylor at Tulane). Three of them — Lee, Shah, Campbell — are the past and present leadership of one of North America's premier neonatal programmes. Institutional representation this broad, across this many countries, reaching the same case-by-case conclusion, is not a minority position. It is an international neonatology consensus.
Fourteen neonatologists from eight countries, drawn from flagship programmes, reviewing the same casebook and reaching the same conclusion, is what international medical consensus looks like. 'Competing panel' framings misrepresent the state of the professional debate.
The jury did not hear from any of the Panel members — the Panel was convened after verdict. The jury had no comparable institutional-consensus document before it.
The Panel itself identifies its institutional coherence as a material feature of its findings — a case-by-case review by fourteen independently credentialled specialists, agreed in conclusion, is different in kind from any single-expert report.