In the absence of definitive biological markers, ASD remains a behavioural diagnosis that is often complex and uncertain. In response to systems that demand a categorical diagnostic response, specialists are providing ASD diagnoses, even when uncertain. The motivation for this practice appears to be a clinical risk/benefit analysis of what will achieve the best outcomes for children. It is likely that these practices will continue unless systems change eligibility to funding based on functional impairment rather than medical diagnostic categories.

Infants aged under 1 year with fractures have a high prevalence of abuse. The risk of abuse as cause for the fracture is greater in those aged under 4 months. Infants with non-accidental fractures have a high risk of further abuse even with intervention.

Medical practice in Queensland around diagnosis of ASD is characterized by considerable variability. There is still a long way to go if we are to achieve consistency around medical issues of organic diagnosis and practices impacting on health as well as consideration of differential developmental diagnoses. The finding that recently trained paediatricians felt just as unprepared for this work as their older colleagues suggests that the graduate training response to this 'new morbidity' has not been adequate.

In the rules of evidence in all legal jurisdictions, medical experts are required to maintain objectivity when providing opinions. When interpreting medical evidence, doctors must recognise, acknowledge and manage uncertainties to ensure their evidence is reliable to legal decision-makers. Even in the forensic sciences such as DNA analysis, implicit bias has been shown to influence how results are interpreted from cognitive and contextual biases unconsciously operating. In cases involving allegations of child abuse there has been significant exposure in the media, popular magazines, legal journals and in the published medical literature debating the reliability of medical evidence given in these proceedings. In these cases judges have historically been critical of experts they perceived had sacrificed objectivity for advocacy by having an investment in a 'side'. This paper firstly discusses the issue of bias then describes types of cognitive biases identified from psychological research applied to forensic evidence including adversarial bias, context bias, confirmation bias and explains how terminology can influence the communication of opinion. It follows with previously published guidelines of how to reduce the risk of bias compromising objectivity in forensic practices then concludes with my own recommendations of practices that can be used by child protection paediatricians and within an organisation when conducting forensic evaluations of suspicious childhood injury to improve objectivity in formulation of opinion evidence.