The turning point really had to do with my involvement not only in clinical aspects, but trying to work at the medical-legal, and doing expert testimony more often in criminal situations. And most of my expert testimony really wasn't rendering an opinion that this or that child had been abused - in fact, in most cases I had never treated those children. It was really more educative for jury and judge.
I found it more interesting and challenging than I might have expected and seemed to be pretty effective at it. I saw it really as a teaching role in large part. I thought it was really important to transfer this educational information, to give judges and juries a framework to understand what was being presented to them. So I envisioned this as a really important education role.
I envisioned it also as a way of giving voice to the children, the women when there was so many ways of quieting them. I thought that by virtue of being a physician, being from Harvard, all the labels - I thought, I'm going to use the power and the status that comes with these labels to support the needs and the voices of those who can't speak out or who are quieted or dismissed or whatever. I think I was very measured in the work that I did, but there was a very passionate commitment of giving voice.