A contribution to the discussion of probabilities and human hair comparisons

The paper by Gaudette and Keeping on "An Attempt at Determining Probabilities in Human Scalp Hair Comparison" in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (Vol. 19, No. 3, July 1974, pp. 599-606) has provoked considerable controversy. This paper highlights two of the sources of the controversy and shows how the probability, 1/4500, quoted by Gaudette and Keeping should be treated with caution. The necessity of the use of a likelihood ratio statistic is described. It is suggested that the hair examination form resulting from the responses to the questionnaire recently distributed by the authors and also the discussions at Quantico (Proceedings of the International Symposium on Forensic Hair Comparisons, 25-27 June 1985, Quantico VA) should be used to facilitate the collection of the data which will be necessary to enable a likelihood ratio statistic to be estimated effectively.     

Introduction to the Baby Jane Doe papers

A conference was held at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in October 1984 to discuss the controversy concerning treatment of a newborn with severe congenital defects that became known as the Baby Jane Doe case. Fox provides some background information on the case to introduce a set of of six articles consisting of papers delivered at the conference. These articles deal with historical aspects of the treatment debate (Stanley J. Reiser), problems of clinical decision making (John M. Freeman), the legal issues involved (John A. Robertson), coverage of the case by the media (Stephen Klaidman and Tom L. Beauchamp), federal efforts to regulate the treatment of handicapped newborns (Lawrence D. Brown), and the alliance that arose between opponents of abortion and advocates of the rights of the handicapped (Constance Paige and Elisa B. Karnofsky).