in these cases in most states they would be considered Mandated Reporters and would be legally bound and can be held liable by the state by not doing so.

some states have laws stating anyone over 18, regardless of profession, are mandated reporters once they are aware of child abuse.

This is a responsability doctors have as part of their job during check ups and more serious injury. If it's obvious, then yes, they should be held accountable in not protecting a child. Who else better to report such findings.

I do not believe the theme of the article. Often doctors misread and overreact.

Gee, and they don't get fired, arrested or forced to resign their positions. Go figure.

In 13 out of 63? Hmmmm? Could it be the doctors had information not available to the "experts," as in they interviewed the parents and child. Yes, there are parents who lie, kids who cover up for them, but there are also injuries that have non-abuse explainations, especially when you have mixed sizes and ages of children playing together in a family. And if it is the family doctor who sees the parent and child regularly for check-ups and sore throats, he probably has a pretty good idea of when they are telling the truth. Our pediatrician for years has threatened to write a book on the weird ways kids injure themselves when he finally retires. My youngest says she better get a share of the royalties then, because hers will probably the oddest ones in the book. Most of which were from either trying to copy older siblings or from their suggestions - like when one of them told her to pretend her headboard was a tight-rope like at the circus.

There are certain injuries that can only be abuse, like shaken baby and multiple fractures to certain areas, but others that can occasionally have more innocent explainations, like a dislocation casued by the kids deciding include the little one in tug-of-war.

Interesting... when I was a kid I was beat up so bad at school and in the neighbourhood, that when I had to go to the ER one day for a broken nose they thought my father did it...

It can be easy to mistake child abuse as well as overlook it

"they need to be told why they need to report"...really? I can understand both sides of the argument about whether or not to report because of possible incorrect assumptions, but the question of WHY seems very clear to me...