Panel consensus as evidence — the institutional coherence of the fourteen signatories
Prosecution claim
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.
Counter-evidence
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.
What the jury heard
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.
What the Panel says
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.
What independent experts add
- The Panel's institutional geography spans eight countries and four continents — not a clustered or parochial sample of the profession.
- The Panel signatories include both academic researchers (Modi, Norman, Blencowe, Allegaert) and actively practising consultants (Hall, Khashu) — not just an academic perspective.
- The Panel includes population-outcomes researchers (Shah for Canadian Neonatal Network, Darlow for ANZNN, Blencowe for LSHTM global mortality) — calibrated to baseline outcome data.
- The Panel includes paediatric pharmacology expertise (Allegaert), respiratory physiology expertise (Hummler), and perinatal epidemiology expertise (Blencowe) — not just general neonatology.
- Since February 2025 no competing institutional panel of comparable credentials and breadth has been convened to reach a contrary conclusion.
- The Bar Council letter (April 2025) and Lord Sumption's November 2025 intervention both reference the Panel's institutional coherence as material weight.