Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

In Indiana, environmental groups have reached a settlement agreement with state environmental regulators and owners of the steel mill, ArcelorMittal, that will require ArcelorMittal to remove or recycle waste that has accumulated for two decades, and to test the soil underneath to see whether it has been contaminated with toxins.

The settlement came as a result of a lawsuit filed two years ago by environmental groups, including Save the Dunes, intended to push Indiana regulators to require a cleanup. The waste lies near part of the Lake Michigan shoreline and, throughout the years, has amounted to more than three million tons. It consists of a mixture from the steel mill's smoke stacks, including "basic oxygen furnace sludge," "blast furnace filter cake," and "secondary wastewater treatment plant sludge."

Environmentalists argued that even though state and federal laws prohibit long-term dumping of solid waste, Indiana regulators have known of ArcelorMittal's dumping since 1999, yet did not take any action to stop the mill from creating ever-larger above-ground piles. Environmental groups believe that Indiana regulators were too focused on pleasing business interests to do their job as public safety officials. They point to the fact that Thomas Easterly, appointed to lead Indiana's regulatory agency in 2005, was a former employee for Bethlehem Steel, ArcelorMittal's previous owners. While the groups are pleased with the settlement, they still note that Indiana ranks among the worst in the United States in air and water quality. However, they hope that the settlement will set a new standard for other businesses in the state to follow.

As this blog has previously noted, toxic waste has been linked to a variety of birth defects, including spina bifida and cleft palate. Because of toxic waste's harmful effect on human health, it is important for regulators to take their jobs seriously, investigate every violation, and impose the property penalty. If regulators do not perform their work with reasonable care, they should be held accountable. Too often, parents of children with birth defects cannot sue the source of the toxins responsible, because the toxins may come from too many diverse sources (such as cars) to hold any one responsible. However, parents may be able to hold the regulators responsible for not enforcing standards. In the case of the ArcelorMittal mill, a parent whose child was affected by the toxic waste could sue the regulators and the mill, because the mill is such an identifiable source. In fact, since the mill may have affected the health of quite a number of infants, parents might be able to come together and form a class-action lawsuit. Class-action lawsuits do not have a definite minimum size, but the generally accepted minimum is 40 people.

Continue reading "Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Over Two Decades of Toxic Waste From an Indiana Steel Mill" »

A new article reports that more frequently, doctors are turning to a simple solution, readily available, to cure a number of ills: light. Among other problems, such as back pain or cancer, targeted light can also help those who suffer from epileptic seizures, whose condition is not well served by antiepileptic drugs. This could be a substantial benefit for pregnant women with epilepsy, who may fear that taking antiepileptic drugs will result in birth defects.

University College in London is conducting a trial whereby patients are exposed to a light box that emits a bright white light for a half-hour each day for three months. Researchers conducting this study are basing their theory on evidence that fewer people suffer seizures on bright, clear days, and that there are more seizures in northern Europe than in southern Europe. One reason for this may be because light increases the amount of Vitamin D in our system, which in turn produces more brain chemicals that put a damper on seizures.

Scientists are also using light to treat a host of other problems. Ultraviolet light is being used to treat skin conditions. Photodynamic therapy, which involves the person ingesting a special drug and then being exposed to blue light, is being used to treat skin cancer. Infrared light is being used to speed recovery after a stroke and help heal pressure ulcers. While the light treatment might not be successful in every case, the extent to which it is successful means that patients will need to take fewer prescription drugs for their problems, which could reduce the risk of giving birth to a child with a birth defect.

In the meantime, if you have epilepsy or depression, and have been prescribed medication to take while pregnant, you could be at risk for having a child with a birth defect. Studies have shown that antiepileptic drugs or antidepressants, especially when taken during the first trimester of pregnancy, can increase the risk. If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to medication that you were prescribed, you could choose to file a medical malpractice suit against your physician and/or a product liability suit against the manufacturer. Your physician could be guilty of negligence if he or she failed to inform you of the drug's potential dangers. A physician has a duty to inform the patient of all risks of treatment so that the patient can make an informed decision. Likewise, a manufacturer could be held strictly liable if the drug's design was found to be unreasonably dangerous. In both cases, if you were successful in your suit, you would be able to collect a monetary award for general and special damages -- that is, for specific items, such as medical bills, and for harder to calculate items, such as pain and suffering.

Continue reading "Light Therapy Treatments May Lessen the Need for Prescription Medicines and Decrease the Risk of Birth Defects" »

This blog has previously discussed the problems with in vitro fertilization (IVF) that could possibly lead to birth defects. Now, a new study from the University of Albany points to another potential problem with IVF -- when women who take the treatment are exposed to the toxic metals mercury or cadmium, their rate of pregnancy is reduced significantly.

Both mercury and cadmium -- especially mercury -- have been previously shown to cause significant damage to human health and can cause a range of severe birth defects, including spina bifida and cleft lips and palates. Mercury and cadmium are also frequently present in the air and water. Mercury has been discovered in certain fish, and may be absorbed into the human body when the fish is consumed. Even small amounts of these metals may pose a danger, but high levels may be found near mountaintop removal mining areas and coal-burning power plants. Only recently has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tightened the standards for allowable amounts of mercury emitted from power plants. Cadmium has the potential to severely damage the lungs, and tends to collect in the kidneys, which may lead to kidney failure.

The University of Albany study followed 58 women and 36 men obtaining IVF treatment. While they found no negative signs in the men, they found that even at what is considered to be "acceptable" levels, mercury and cadmium can harm a woman's reproductive system.

Even if you did not receive IVF treatment, you might still have been harmed by mercury or cadmium exposure while you were pregnant if your child was born with a birth defect. When that happens, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. The challenge, of course, is determining which source is the offender. If you live within a mile or two of a coal-burning power plant, you could fairly strong argument that the power plant is the offender. However, if the power plant is 10 miles away, you might have a harder time making the case that that your exposure to that plant's emissions was the direct cause of your child's birth defect.

If you think that your exposure to mercury or cadmium could be the result of multiple sources, you might consider suing all of them jointly and severally. Jointly and severally means that if you win the lawsuit, each defendant is liable for the full amount of whatever money award you may receive. Each defendant will not pay the full amount -- it just means that if one defendant cannot or will not pay, another defendant must be responsible. That defendant might later seek payment from the other defendants for their "share" of the total amount. Before suing multiple entities, it is a good idea to have strong evidence linking each entity to your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Women Exposed to Toxic Metals During In Vitra Fertilization Treatment Have Less of a Chance of Pregnancy" »

In the past, this blog has discussed American lawsuits against the German manufacturer of Thalidomide, and attempts to force the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release records of those who used the drug. Thalidomide is a morning sickness drug that was prescribed to pregnant women during their first trimester in the 1950s and 1960s. The drug was pulled from the market in 1961 after evidence was revealed that its use led to severe birth defects. Many believe that that the manufacturer might have known sooner, as evidence of birth defects existed as early as 1955.

Thalidomide use had worldwide consequences, as the latest news from Australia demonstrates. Lynette Rowe, who was born without arms or legs after her mother took Thalidomide, recently reached a multi-million dollar settlement with the British distributor of the drug. Grunenthal, the German manufacturer, refused to settle, continuing to insist that its actions were consistent with the scientific knowledge that existed at the time.

Rowe sued Grunenthal, Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Ltd., a British-based company that sold Thalidomide in Australia, and the successor company to Distillers, Diageo Scotland Ltd. In the lawsuit, Rowe claims Thalidomide's manufacturer should have known the drug was linked to birth defects while it was on the market. The lawsuit sought compensation for Rowe's pain and suffering, lost wages, and future medical care. Rowe was part of a class action containing at least 100 people, each of whom will have their claims heard by Diageo and the chance for a potential settlement.

Money is no substitute for the lower quality of life caused by certain birth defects. However, a money award -- otherwise known as "damages" -- can go a long way toward making your life easier by paying for the medical care and extra daily care that you need to lead a full, productive life. If your mother took Thalidomide while pregnant and you are not part of one of the existing lawsuits, you might consider filing your own product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. If your birth defects are consistent with those of people whose mothers took Thalidomide, and there is evidence that your mother took the drug before you were pregnant, you could argue that there is a sufficient link to establish that Thalidomide caused your birth defects. Therefore, the manufacturer should be strictly liable for designing an unreasonably dangerous drug.

For those whose mothers did not take Thalidomide, there is still reason to be wary of drugs that could cause birth defects. Studies have shown that antiepileptic or antidepressive drugs, especially if taken during the first trimester, can increase the risk of your child being born with a birth defect. If that is a case, you, too, could file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Continue reading "Australian Woman Gets Multi-Million Dollar Settlement in Thalidomide Lawsuit" »

This blog has discussed studies that show an increased risk of birth defects for those who take certain antiepileptic drugs, such as Topamax or Depakote. These studies found that pregnant women who were prescribed Topamax during the first trimester of pregnancy were more likely to give birth to children with certain birth defects, specifically cleft lip and cleft palate. Depakote's effects were even more widespread, increasing the risk of six different types of birth defects, including spina bifida. Other studies have linked antiepileptic to lower IQs in children.

Likewise, antidepressants have also been shown to increase the risk of birth defects. Studies have linked them to everything from slower head growth to heart defects.

Because of the concerning findings, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reclassified Topamax and Depakote as Pregnancy Category D drugs, a downgrade from Pregnancy Category C. Pregnancy Category C meant that while the drugs showed harmful effects to animals, no controlled studies had yet shown harm to humans. Pregnancy Category D means that controlled studies have shown that Topamax and Depakote posed a health risk to human fetuses, but still had potential benefits. Meanwhile, antidepressants such as fluoxetine, sertraline, and bupropion (more commonly known as Wellbutrin) have been classified as Pregnancy Category C drugs, while paroxetine and imipramine are in Pregnancy Category D.

Although these precautions have been taken, for some like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, it still is not enough. Senator Schumer has called for the FDA to require clearer warning labels on prescription medications that warn pregnant women about the risk these drugs pose to their fetuses. Senator Schumer's goal is to reduce the number of babies born addicted to prescription medications, but it has the effect of helping them in the area of birth defects as well.

When most people file product liability lawsuits, they often do not consider the adequacy of the product's warning label. Yet adequacy of the warning label is one of the key factors for determining whether the product is defective and its manufacturer is strictly liable for whatever damages was caused. An adequate warning label is generally in an obvious location, is easy to read, and accurately describes the product's dangers. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was due to your taking prescription medications, and you do not have sufficient evidence that the manufacturer could have produced a less dangerous drug, you could argue that the warning label did not provide a sufficient warning. Had the warning been sufficient, you would not have taken the drug.

Continue reading "Senator Chuck Schumer Calls for the FDA to Impose Clearer Warning Labels on Prescription Medications" »

Two new studies provide unsettling evidence that a parent's occupation can influence whether their children are born with birth defects. In one study, conducted by the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, researchers found that fathers with certain occupations were more likely to pass on the risk of birth defects. Some of these occupations may not seem surprising, such as occupations requiring chemicals, including landscaping, hairdressing, photography, and make-up artist. Other occupations linked to birth defects may seem more unexpected, such as mathematician, computer scientist, or food service worker. At the same time, it may be surprising which occupations were not linked to birth defects -- including firefighters, car assembly workers, and painters.

The team of researchers studied information from the U.S. National Birth Defects Prevention Study, identifying 1,000 fathers whose children had a birth defect versus more than 4,000 fathers whose children had developed normally. Researchers noted that the offspring of photographers and photo-processing workers are three times as likely to have congenital glaucoma as offspring of those who work in other occupations. However, they also noted that congenital glaucoma remains extremely rare, with just one in 1,000 infants being affected. While researchers were able to pinpoint that certain birth defects were associated with certain occupations -- for instance, babies of landscapers were more likely to be born with gut abnormalities -- they were not able to determine the exact source, such as specific pesticides or solvents.

The second study, conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that exposure to organic solvents at work seem to be associated with various types of congenital heart defects. Researchers collected data on 5,000 women exposed to organic solvents in the workplace early in their pregnancies, and looked for any associations between their babies' heart defects and exposure to the chemicals. They found that 4% of women whose babies had no birth defects and 5% of women whose babies did were exposed to organic solvents at a time when they were either trying to conceive or early in their pregnancies. Researchers noted that exposure to organic solvents could increase the risk of one's child being born with a heart defect by as much as an alarming 60 or 70%. At the same time, researchers noted that the results were self reported, which meant that they might be subject to memory error.

Neither study proves cause and effect, but either or both of them could be evidence if you filed a toxic tort lawsuit. If your child was born with a birth defect and you were in one of the professions described above, you might be able to file a lawsuit against your employer. Normally, workers are unable to sue their employers for workplace injuries if their employer carries workers compensation insurance. For instance, if you are injured by faulty equipment on the job, you are legally required to accept workers compensation payments. However, some states permit lawsuits against the employer in addition to workers compensation. You also have the option of suing the maker of the product responsible. If you file a toxic tort lawsuit, you could argue that your employer failed to provide proper safety equipment, and as a result, you were exposed to harmful levels of toxins. The toxins were either directly passed to the child while in utero, or created defects in the father's sperm. The result was your child's birth defect. Usually, in a successful case, a jury will award you money damages that cover pain and suffering, long-term care, and medical bills.

Continue reading "New Studies Find That Parents With Certain Occupations Are More Likely to Have Children With Birth Defects" »

This blog has discussed previous studies showing how certain antiepileptics, especially when taken during the first trimester of pregnancy, can lead to an increase in birth defects. Now a new study points to another troubling consequence: those who take antiepileptics are more likely to fall and suffer from fractures. What is worse: too few people prescribed antiepileptic drugs are aware of this consequence.

Researchers in Melbourne, Australia who conducted the study noted that antiepileptics have a history of affecting people's balance, leading to high numbers of falls. Women who take antiepileptic drugs are especially vulnerable, as they are twice as likely to fall and injure themselves as women who are epileptic, but do not take medication. While falling could lead to fractures and osteoporosis, it also has the consequence of possibly hurting a fetus or causing a miscarriage.

The researchers' study involved 150 drug users and 506 non-users, and concluded that their results demonstrated how little awareness there was about the affects of antiepileptic medication. Of those who had been diagnosed as epileptics, 70% claimed to be unaware that antiepileptic medication increased their possibility for falls, fractures, and decreased bone density. When so informed, people who took the medication expressed a desire to know more. Professor John Wark, leader of the study, stated that this showed people with epilepsy should be regularly assessed for their tendency to fall or suffer from fractures, and management strategies should be provided.

It is not clear whether antiepileptic medication in general, or just certain antiepileptic drugs, affect users' balance. It may be that the medication in general, based on its effect on the brain, can impact balance. This means that if you have epilepsy and are pregnant, you may have to be extra cautious about taking antiepileptic medications, even those that supposedly do not cause birth defects. Your physician has a duty to inform you of any known dangers, and thus you should speak to him or her about what medication is right for you.

If you have a child with a birth defect, or suffered a miscarriage, and you believe it was due to taking antiepileptic medication while pregnant, you might consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, and possibly a medical malpractice suit against your physician. For a product liability lawsuit, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to make as safe and effective an antiepileptic medication as possible. The manufacturer breached that duty by designing a medication that was unreasonably dangerous, when it would not have been too difficult or expensive to design a safer drug. The breach led to your injury -- exposure to the medication's effects -- and as a result, you suffered a fall that injured your fetus or caused a miscarriage, or your child was born with a birth defect as a result of exposure in the first trimester. In defense, the manufacturer might argue that it truly was not possible to create a safer drug, and that it followed all applicable safety rules.

Continue reading "An Australian Study Focuses On the Link Between Antiepileptic Drugs and an Increase in Falls and Fractures" »

A recent study out of Britain highlights recently discovered clues as to what causes people to develop osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis is a joint disorder where the cartilage between our bones breaks down and bones rub together, causing pain, swelling, and stiffness. It is associated with aging and is one of the more common conditions, although not everyone develops it. Osteoarthritis is thought to be caused by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors.

The study, considered to be the largest genome study in the world, compared the genetic differences between 7,400 people with severe osteoarthritis and 11,000 people without the condition. The findings highlighted eight genetic regions that contribute to development of osteoarthritis, whereas only three had been identified before. These genetic regions included the gene associated with regulating body weight and genes associated with regulating how joints are made and maintained, including a gene involved in the production and maintenance of healthy cartilage. In two cases, specific genes linked to osteoarthritis, CHST11 and PTHLH, are already being explored for possible treatments of osteoarthritis.

Scientists state that the next step is figuring out which changes in DNA occur to cause the condition, and how these changes impact the joints on our body. They acknowledge that there are many more genes involved with producing osteoarthritis than previously thought, which means that they cannot yet predict who is more likely to develop the condition. At present, osteoarthritis has no cure, and too many of those afflicted must have their joints replaced surgically.

While it is possible that the genetic factors for osteoarthritis could be completely unconnected to environment factors, more studies are showing that the environment can impact DNA and alter genes, even when you are still in the womb. What seems like a disease developed late in life may, in fact, be a type of birth defect. Toxins like BPA, an industrial chemical commonly found in packaged foods, are endocrine disruptors that affect hormones and produce changes in the body. If you are pregnant while exposed to BPA, your fetus's development may be adversely affected. Scientists have also discovered evidence that a grandparent's exposure to toxins affects genetics in a way that is felt over the next several generations. Some studies have even found that cell phone radiation can alter DNA.

If you suffer from osteoarthritis, can you file a lawsuit against a manufacturer or toxic offender for impacting either your or your children's development while still in the womb, or later life? You could certainly try, although you would encounter several difficulties. While there is evidence that environmental factors can alter hormones and DNA, there is still a lot of uncertainty as to their exact effect. Even though a group of people might be exposed to the same toxins, not everyone develops an illness as a result. The defendant in your case would likely argue that there is an insufficient link between your condition and the defendant's toxins, and might point to other factors that could be equally responsible, such as lifestyle. You would need to establish a fairly strong link between your condition and the toxins in order to refute these claims. That could involve finding people who were exposed like you and affected by the same condition, or employing expert testimony about the toxin's effects.

Continue reading "Scientists Locate Multiple Genes Responsible for Osteoarthritis" »

With all of the worrisome headlines about new causes of birth defects, at least parents can breathe easier about one potential source. Scientists from Denmark have concluded that pregnant women given doses of the H1N1 "swine flu" vaccine were not at a higher risk of having children with birth defects.

From 2009 through August 2010, the H1N1 virus was found in more than 214 countries and was estimated to have killed roughly 284,500 people around the world. The H1N1 virus disproportionately affected pregnant women, causing severe complications, as well as death. Danish researchers studied the vaccine's effects and reached conclusions that could be significant for any country that administered the vaccine. One caveat is that the Danish vaccine varied slightly from the one administered in the United States; unlike the U.S. vaccine, the Danish one contained a booster known as adjuvant that permits less of the vaccine to be used for the same result.

Danish researchers examined 53,432 babies born in Denmark, 13% (6,989) of which had mothers who were given the H1N1 vaccine during pregnancy. They found a significant birth defect had been diagnosed in 18 of 330 babies whose mothers have received the vaccine during the first trimester of pregnancy, compared to 15 of 330 in babies born to women who did not receive the vaccine. Regarding whether the H1N1 vaccine could make babies more likely to be born prematurely, researchers found that 31 of the 300 babies exposed in the first trimester experienced premature birth, while 302 of 6,543 babies exposed in the second and third trimesters were born prematurely. This compared to 24 of the 330 babies who were not exposed in the first trimester, and 295 of 6,366 babies who were not exposed during the second or third trimester.

Researchers found these results reassuring. This study, coupled with another recent study in Canada that found the H1N1 virus only slightly increased pregnant women's chances of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, provided evidence that the H1N1 vaccine was, by and large, safe for pregnant women to take.

One question mark remains as to whether the vaccine administered within the U.S. would provide a significantly different outcome. If not, it would be good to know that pregnant women could receive the vaccine and expect either few problems, or none at all. There have already been too many situations where medications once thought to be harmless actually increased the risk of birth defects.

Continue reading "A Danish Study Finds That Pregnant Women Who Received the H1N1 Vaccine Were Not More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

A study out of Italy could have ramifications for the United States and other countries with disinfected tap water. The study found that infants whose mothers drank water with two chemical byproducts were more likely to be born with spina bifida or a cleft palate.

The study was based in the Emilia Romagna region of northern Italy. In addition to using chlorine, which creates a chemical byproduct known as trihalomethanes (THM) that is regulated in both Europe and the United States, the Emilia Romagna region also treats water with two other disinfectants: chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite. These disinfectants create chemical byproducts such as chlorite, chlorate and chloride ions.

Researchers looked at the connection between eight types of birth defects and the mother's exposure to THMs, chlorate, and chlorite in drinking water during her first trimester of pregnancy. In particular, researchers examined: the number of babies born in Emilia Romagna with congenital abnormalities (6,134) compared with those born without abnormalities; the water authority responsible for delivering water to the mother's address during her first trimester; the mother's exposure to chemical byproducts; and the mother's exposure to THMs and chlorine required to be at regulation levels.

The study found that 3.4% of pregnant mothers were likely exposed to levels of chlorite higher than the nationally allowable threshold, resulting in them being three times more likely of giving birth to infants with renal defects, and almost seven times more likely of having a baby with abdominal wall defects. As for chlorate, pregnant mothers exposed to extremely high levels were 9.6 times more likely to have a baby born with a cleft palate, nearly five times more likely to have a baby born with spina bifida, and nearly three times more likely of having a baby with obstructive urinary defects, compared to mothers who were exposed to much lower levels.

Researchers noted that the study samples were quite small, which meant that more studies would need to be conducted in order to verify whether the study's findings were, in fact, accurate. If they are accurate, it could pose a problem for any country considering alternative ways of disinfecting drinking water. At present, THMs have already been linked to birth defects and cancer. It is unknown what other effects chemical byproducts -- which people are exposed to through showering, as well as drinking -- may have on people as a whole.

Continue reading "Study From Italy Finds That Certain Disinfectants Used to Treat Tap Water Could Cause Birth Defects" »

Wrongful birth lawsuits have proven to be controversial not only within the United States, but throughout the world. Certain states, such as Kansas and New Jersey, are considering a complete ban on these types of lawsuits, while recently, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that children born with birth defects could not file wrongful birth lawsuits. Their reasoning is that these suits undermine the value of life by claiming that the person would be better off never born than alive with a birth defect. Supporters of wrongful birth lawsuits argue that by removing them as an option, doctors are being permitted to lie to parents about conditions that harm the fetus in order to prevent parents from aborting.

Recently, a state court judge in Montana ruled that a wrongful birth suit could move forward. The suit involved a couple whose child was born with cystic fibrosis. The couple claimed that had they known their child had cystic fibrosis, which can be detected in the womb, they would have opted for an abortion. The couple claimed to have told a clinic nurse that the pregnancy was unplanned and that they wished to abort if the fetus tested positive for serious genetic abnormalities. The nurse failed to order a test that would have determined whether cystic fibrosis existed. As a result, the child was born with a serious condition for which the parents were unprepared. The couple seeks damages for a "decreased opportunity to fight the disease as well as their increased pain and suffering."

While the clinic's attorney argued that the couple was seeking damages for the mere existence of their daughter, the Montana judge disagreed. The judge noted that the issue was really about the couple's lost right to make an informed decision about whether to terminate the pregnancy. Furthermore, if the judge were to rule that the suit should not go forward, it would risk giving immunity from liability to medical professionals charged with helping people make informed choices.

The controversy is certain to continue, but for now, wrongful birth lawsuits remain an option in many parts of the United States. While opponents argue that these suits are claiming that the person with birth defects should not exist, that risks simplifying the issue. In truth, every person's reason for going forward with a wrongful birth lawsuit is personal. Such reasons for suing a physician over birth defects can vary widely:

- Getting monetary help to pay for excessive medical bills;

- Holding a physician accountable for failing to exercise reasonable care; or

- Even wantonly disregarding the pregnant couple's wishes.

If your child was born with a birth defect and you believe that it could have been properly diagnosed before birth, you might consider filing a wrongful birth lawsuit as well.

Continue reading "Montana Judge Permits Wrongful Birth Suit to Move Forward in Case Where Baby Was Born With Cystic Fibrosis" »

Stanford researchers have come up with a simple way to determine whether a fetus has birth defects, by administering a blood test. Whereas currently, birth defects can be determined through more invasive means, such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, the newly developed test would be uninvasive and would only require testing the mother. A previous version of the blood test, reported by the University of Washington, required both the mother's blood sample and the father's DNA.

The newly developed blood test manages to sequence the entire fetal genome. The reason is because a small amount of blood from the fetus always manages to mix with the mother's blood stream, allowing the fetus's DNA to be located within the mother's blood. The challenge is locating the fetus's DNA in the blood test. Stanford researchers were able to develop sequences for both the whole genome and the exome, and were thus able to determine that a fetus had DiGeorge syndrome, which is caused by a short deletion of chromosome 22. DiGeorge syndrome is associated with cardiac development troubles, neuromuscular problems, and cognitive impairment. Babies born with DiGeorge syndrome can suffer from difficulty with feeding and convulsions. It is not clear whether this condition is caused by purely genetic factors, or whether environmental factors are involved.

The researchers note that currently, the blood test is very expensive. However, they expect that over the next several years, the price will drop as the test becomes more common in discovering whether birth defects exist during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The new test would be a positive step toward making couples aware of their fetus's health and helping them plan accordingly. At the same time, it could add to the controversy over whether failure to administer this test would be an example of medical malpractice, and whether parents who did not receive the test could sue for wrongful birth.

Many are divided over whether a doctor should be held liable for choosing not to administer tests that could determine birth defects. Some argue that doctors should follow their consciences and not provide information that could lead couples to get an abortion; others note that doctors have a duty of reasonable care toward their patients, and that includes a duty to inform. However, the duty to inform has traditionally encompassed the duty to inform of risks in a course of treatment, not to inform of any possible harm.

If you have a baby with a birth defect and you sue your doctor for not informing you of the new blood test, the physician might argue that he or she reasonably chose not to because the cost associated with the test was far more than you could afford, and not one covered by insurance. Nonetheless, if you believe that you were wrongfully denied access to information by your doctor, you have the right to file a negligence lawsuit in court.

Continue reading "Stanford Researchers Develop a Blood Test That Can Reveal Fetal Birth Defects" »