The actions of the General Medical Council (GMC) have once again prompted paediatricians to caution that what they see as a witch-hunt may discourage doctors from undertaking child protection work. The first time was when the GMC moved against Professor Roy Meadow two years ago. But in rushing to the defence of Professor David Southall, who has been found guilty this week of serious professional misconduct, parts of the medical profession are making a mistake. It is not in the public interest for doctors to be deterred from examining children, or from giving evidence in abuse cases. But nor is it in the public interest to suggest that doctors should somehow be immune from criticism if they act incompetently or inappropriately.

Southall believes that a campaign has been orchestrated against him, and this may well be true. Much attention has focused on the allegation that he falsely accused a mother of murdering her child, which he denies and which has not been corroborated by the social worker in the room. But this is only one of several charges on which the GMC's ruling turned.

He was also found to have hidden the notes of children in different cases, conduct which it would be bizarre not to regard as unprofessional. Rather than expressing its “disappointment” at the verdict, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health might have done better to explore why so many accusations have been levelled at a man who was first barred from child abuse work in 2004, after he wrongly accused the husband of Sally Clark of murdering their two sons, having watched him on a television programme.

Child protection work is undoubtedly fraught. Child abuse is a highly emotive issue and has become even more so since the case of Victoria Climbié. Doctors and social workers understandably fear letting another child slip through the net to a tragic death. Meanwhile, there is increasing public concern about miscarriages of justice, fuelled by a steady drip of appeal rulings that have overturned previous judgments against parents, including the murder convictions of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark.

Hostility and suspicion lie on both sides of the argument. But the need to protect children is increasingly being used as an argument for protecting professionals from their own regulat-ory bodies. That ways lies the potential for great injustice. Professionals must be accountable for their actions in child protection work as much as they are in police work.

The royal colleges should be arguing for more scrutiny, not less. This would mean, first, more research into injuries which were once considered to be diagnostic of abuse but where there is now increasing doubt. For many years, Professors Meadow and Southall encouraged the view that unexplained illnesses or injuries were a likely sign of parental abuse. Recent judgements and American research have cast doubt on areas ranging from certain types of fractures to allegations of “shaken baby syndrome”. These doubts should have been awarded more credibility.

There also needs to be far more openness in the court system. Two years ago the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee recommended reforms to open up the family courts. It is an affront to justice that these courts remain secret, closed to the media, with judgments made public only at the discretion of indvidual judges. Public confidence has plummeted since reports have started to surface of repeated miscarriages of justice. These courts cannot send people to jail but they can remove children from their parents permanently, which is another form of life sentence.

The privacy of children must be a vital consideration in the opening-up of the family courts. Some reporting restrictions may be needed. But without scrutiny, it will be impossible to know whether doctors, social workers and other professionals are doing their jobs properly. The irony is that greater transparency would probably improve public confidence, because many professionals do an excellent job. If paediatricians really want to protect children, rather than their own backs, they should be in favour of the most rigorous scrutiny.