Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

This blog has previously discussed the dangers of flame retardants, which have been widely used on clothing and furniture, enough so that constant exposure has led to trace amounts in people's bloodstream. Now, a new study finds that the dangers can be worse depending upon your race and socioeconomic group. Overall, the Duke University researchers found that nonwhite toddlers had higher levels of flame retardants in their bloodstream than white toddlers.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been added to consumer products over the past 30 years, from carpeting and furniture to electronics. While PBDEs reduce the risk of fire, they have also been known to disrupt endocrine activity and thyroid regulation. Exposure in the womb and during one's early years has been connected to low birth weight, lower intelligence, and physical and mental impairment. As a result of studies showing their danger, two commercial formulations of PBDEs, pentaBDE and octaBDE, were phased out over concerns about their toxicity.

However, in existing clothing and furniture, the chemical remains. What is worse, as the products age, they break down and release PBDEs into the atmosphere. The new study found that children were most likely to be exposed through food consumption, inhaling dust particles, and through their mothers' breast milk. Researchers examined 83 toddlers between the ages of one and three years old. They detected PBDE contaminants in all of the blood and house-dust samples, as well as 98% of all hand-wipe samples. The older the child, the higher the level of contaminants, with levels increasing each year by roughly 60% to 70%.

Researchers also found that nonwhite toddlers had twice the amount of contaminants in their bloodstream than white toddlers. They were unsure of the reason, speculating that methods of cleanliness (such as hand washing) could account for the difference. However, a previous examination of flame retardants noted that people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds may have higher levels of chemicals in their blood because their furniture was older and therefore more likely to release PBDEs into the atmosphere.

Studies have shown that if babies are exposed to endocrine disrupters while in the womb, there is a higher risk that they will be born with birth defects. If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to PBDE exposure, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. The greatest challenge would be locating the source of the toxins. If you suspect that it could be your furniture, you would need to have it tested and see whether the chemicals it released had any relation to chemicals that could have harmed your child. You would need to determine that toxins from the furniture, rather than another source, was the main cause. If your furniture is old or second hand, you might need to do some research and determine whether the manufacturer is even still in business. If you are able to identify the source with certainty and back it up with strong evidence, you may succeed in filing a toxic tort lawsuit.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Race and Socioeconomic Conditions Matter When It Comes to Levels of Flame Retardants in the Bloodstream" »

People who live in Appalachian communities exposed to mountaintop removal mining -- often referred to as "mountaintop mining" -- are speaking out in protest. First the Appalachian Community Health Emergency campaign formed, dedicated to educating lawmakers about the threat of mountaintop removal to health. Now Marilyn Mullens, a 22-year army nurse, is leading her own group of protestors.

Mullens and her group -- consisting of coalfield mothers, daughters, and activists -- will head to the West Virginia state capital to spread the message that people are "sick and dying" as a result of mountaintop removal practices. They intend to shave their heads as a way of drawing attention to the "bald face complicity" of politicians backed by coal mining companies, and to the health and human rights violations in coal mining communities.

Mountaintop mine removal is a practice common among coal and element-mining companies. The top of the mountain is stripped away in order to get to the valuable coal or other elements beneath. However, in doing so, mining companies release several dangerous toxins into the air, particularly mercury. Mountaintop mining has been linked to both an increase in health problems and in birth defects. Babies born to mothers who live in areas with mountaintop mining are believed to have a 26% higher rate of birth defects than babies overall. Mullens notes that while miners underground are given respirators, people living in the nearby valleys are not so fortunate.

Mullens hopes that the protest brings home not only the detrimental health effects, but also the way entire communities are devastated by the mountaintop removal practice. "[S]ometimes you feel as though you are in a war zone when you live in the middle of [mountaintop removal]," she notes.

It may take time before people's protests lead to significant change, and it may be too late for many who have breathed in mercury and other toxins for years. In the meantime, if you have a child with a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to mountaintop mining toxins while pregnant, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the mining company. You would argue that the company had a duty to the local community, as foreseeable plaintiffs, to operate according to health and safety guidelines. The company breached its duty by permitting unhealthy amounts of mercury and other toxins into the air and water. As a result of the breach, you were injured by being exposed to the toxins while pregnant. The resulting damage was your child's birth defect. Since this is a problem throughout the Appalachian states, you could very likely find enough similarly situated people to form a class action lawsuit.

Continue reading "Members of Appalachian Communities to Protest Mountaintop Removal Mining" »

A new study has found that women with epilepsy were prone to a higher rate of unintended pregnancies. This could be problematic, since antiepileptic medication taken by pregnant women has been traced to a higher rate of birth defects.

The Epilepsy Birth Control Registry surveyed 350 women with epilepsy, and found that for 125 of the 146 women -- or a total of 86% -- who got pregnant, the pregnancy was unintended. These results were significantly higher than the 49% rate for the 7,643 women representing the general population across the United States.

Researchers were surprised by these results because the scientific community had long been under the impression that women with epilepsy have a lower fertility rate than women without epilepsy. Researchers speculated that the reason had to do with how the women's antiepileptic medications interacted with their contraceptives.

The highest number of unintended pregnancies took place among those who used enzyme-inducing antiepileptic medication and hormonal birth control, such as depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Users of enzyme-inducing antiepileptic medication also frequently felt the need to stop using hormonal-based contraceptives.

Researchers found that some interactions between antiepileptic drugs and hormonal contraceptives made both medications less effective overall. Of the 408 women studied who stopped using contraceptives, 214, or 53%, did so for adverse reasons, including increased seizures, menstrual disorder, emotional changes, headache, and concern about antiepileptic drug interaction.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Women With Epilepsy Suffer a Higher Rate of Accidental Pregnancies" »

An environmental writer recently criticized the findings in a story that several British babies were born with birth defects after exposure to atrazine. However, the writer's complaint was that the article did not go far enough, failing to mention other studies that painted a troublesome picture of the connection between atrazine and birth defects.

Atrazine is a chemical used for weed control in various crops. Although banned in the European Union in 2004, it continues to be widely used in other countries. Atrazine remains the second-most widely used pesticide in the United States, with as many as 78 million pounds used in 2007.

The author refers to three recent studies that the original article did not include. Two studies, both conducted in Indiana, found a connection between the amount of atrazine in surface water and the number of babies born with gastroschisis. One study found that atrazine in the surface water increased rates of gastroschisis within Indiana. The other study found that it increased the rates of nine classes of birth defects (including gastrointestinal defects) across the country.

The author points to a 2010 study as having the "strongest evidence." The study, conducted by the University of Washington, found that not only were women who lived close to areas with high levels of atrazine in the water more likely to have babies with gastroschisis, but that the rates of the disease were seasonal -- if a baby was born at the peak rate of atrazine in the spring, the baby was more likely to be born with gastroschisis.

As sobering as these findings are, one bright spot is that they ought to help any family whose child was born with gastroschisis make their case against the person or entity responsible. If your family lives near an agricultural area, or where surface water containing atrazine could reasonably flow, you could argue that the atrazine caused your child's birth defect, using the studies mentioned above as evidence. Strong evidence is important, because birth defects can come from several different sources, as wide ranging as smog from traffic and mercury from a mountaintop mine. Often it is not easy to tell which of these sources is truly the cause -- especially since so many birth defects, such as spina bifida and cleft palate, could be caused by any of the sources.

Continue reading "Three Studies Add More Evidence of the Link Between Atrazine and Birth Defects" »

A new preliminary study has found that environmental toxins might not just harm us and our immediate offspring, but may also harm our descendants over multiple generations.

The study, published by the Washington State University School of Biological Science, found that exposure to environmental toxins such as bisphenol A (BPA), causes a range of problems from obesity to cognitive problems later in life. More significantly, it also found that these toxins could also cause health problems in future generations, sometimes more pronounced than health problems found in the immediate offspring of the ones exposed.

Researchers obtained these findings by exposing pregnant rats to high levels of BPA and phthalates -- both commonly found in plastics -- as well as pesticides, and the pollutant dioxin. These researchers then examined the potential influence the one-time exposure had on the ovaries of future generations. One question they hoped to answer was why polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which has been known to contribute to obesity, infertility, and diabetes, has been on the rise over the last couple decades. The condition currently affects 8% to 18% of women.

Not only did the results show that the toxins caused ovarian disease in descendants of those exposed, but they found that the effects on the third generation -- the first generation to not be directly exposed -- were more pronounced. No clear explanation was given as to why this was the case.

While scientists have long thought that the disease was caused by genetic abnormalities, injections of the toxins into the rats did not alter the genes. Instead, researchers gathered that exposure to the toxins changed how inherited genetic "instructions" were interpreted by subsequent generations.

Continue reading "Researchers Find That Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Can Result in Problems Generations Later" »

A new study has found that children who were born with birth defects have a higher risk of developing certain childhood cancers. However, the cancers are considered to be rare, and the study does not provide evidence of what the exact cause could be, simply that the two are connected. Researchers from Oregon State University note that the connection pointed to a "global relationship" between what caused birth defects and what caused childhood cancers.

The Oregon researchers focused their study on children born in Texas between 1996 and 2005, using databases to determine which were born with birth defects and which children developed cancer. During that span, more than three million babies were born in Texas. Of those, 4% (or 116,000) had at least one birth defect, including Down syndrome and cleft palates. Of the total number of Texas children, roughly 2,350 (about .08%) developed cancer during the years covered by the study. Of that group, 239 had been born with a birth defect. Researchers determined that children who were born with birth defects were three times more likely to develop a childhood cancer than children born without birth defects.

The rare cancers included leukemia, cancer of the eye and soft-tissue, ovarian cancer, and testis cancer. With the exception of children born with musculoskeletal deformities, those with birth defects were more likely to have these cancers. The highest risk appeared to be before the child was a year old.

What researchers cannot answer is why either the birth defects or the cancer occurred in the first place. Some speculated that it could be a genetic or a response to the environment. Difference in internal organ structure and different habits from a child without a birth defect might also play a role.

In any event, this is concerning news to anyone who has a child born with a birth defect. Even more troubling, researchers admit that there is currently no way to screen childhood cancer. However, at least you know that if your child does get cancer, it is likely connected to your child's birth defect, and if you know the cause of the birth defect, but have not yet obtained relief, you could always file a lawsuit against the offender. You would first have to be certain of the source. Was it the antidepressant your physician prescribed? Was it toxins spewed from the power plant a few miles away? Was it herbicides used by a nearby farmer? Whichever you think is the cause, you need to be ready to back up your argument with records and possibly expert testimony. The one charged with causing your child's birth defect will argue that it came from another source.

As the one filing the case, you have the burden of proving that the prescription medicine, power plant, or herbicides (or even all three) was the cause. In a civil suit, a plaintiff must usually provide enough to meet a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. That is tough, but it is still a lower standard to meet than "clear and convincing" or "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Children With Birth Defects More Likely to Develop Childhood Cancers" »

After finding that babies conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) had a higher risk of birth defects, now scientists have found that babies conceived after male fertility treatments have an even greater risk.

Scientists from the University of Adelaide in Australia found that while babies conceived through regular IVF (mixing eggs with sperm in a Petri dish) had no greater risk of birth defects than babies conceived normally, that changed when a single sperm was injected into the egg. Then the result was that 10% of babies conceived through sperm injection IVF were born with birth defects, compared with 6% conceived normally.

The study relied upon records of nearly 303,000 babies conceived naturally and 6,163 babies conceived with treatment in Australia from 1986 to 2002. The study also reviewed records of the birth defects some of these babies showed by the age of five. Researchers considered heart, spinal or urinary tract defects, limb abnormalities, and problems such as cleft palate or lip. However, minor defects were not considered unless they needed treatment. The study then grouped the results by the type of fertility treatment used. Only babies conceived through the sperm being injected into the egg showed a higher risk of birth defects once other factors were removed.

Scientists had several theories One is that that abnormal sperm are simply being forced to conceive. It may also be because the extra jostling of the sperm and egg causes damage. Scientists cautioned that physicians should inform patients that having children via IVF, including by sperm injection IVF, could increase the chance of them having babies born with birth defects. At the same time, scientists noted that male fertility treatments are safer now than when the study began, which could mean that the increased risk of birth defects is no longer a factor.

In the United States, 146,000 IVF attempts resulted in more than 60,000 babies born in 2009. Of those, three-quarters used the sperm injection method. If you live in the U.S. and believe that your child's birth defect is due to this type of fertilization treatment, you might consider filing a medical malpractice suit. You could argue that your physician had a duty to inform you, the patient, about the risks of a course of treatment. Did your physician, in describing the sperm injection method, fail to inform you that the risk of having children this way was higher increased the chances that your baby could be born with a birth defect? Had you known, you might have decided on a different type of fertility treatment than the sperm injection method decrease the risk of birth defects.

In his or her defense, your physician might argue that there was not enough information, within reasonable access, about the increased risks of birth defects. Also, as always, you would need to prove that the fertility treatment was at fault, as opposed to exposure to certain toxins or prescription medications.

Continue reading "Researchers Find That Male Fertility Treatments Are More Likely to Cause Birth Defects" »

While the United States remains advanced in many ways, it is still one of the riskier places for a baby to be born. In the latest Save the Children State of the World's Mothers Report, the U.S. moved up six places on the list -- but from 31 to 25. That means 24 countries are ahead of the U.S. in terms of providing quality care to pregnant mothers and newborns. Norway was No. 1, while the U.S. was situated between Belarus and the Czech Republic.

As for why babies have a poorer time in the U.S., one main reason cited by Save the Children is that there is less government support for would-be and new mothers. While parents in the U.S. can take off up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, many poorer women cannot afford to take it. By contrast, countries like Canada provide 52 weeks of leave, with 50 paid. Canada, at No. 19 on the list, is far from the most generous toward mothers.

While many U.S. companies do offer paid leave to their employees, they tend to offer it to professional middle- and upper-middle class employees, rather than employees with lower skills. As a result, more children than necessary may be born sickly and not receive the care they need. The U.S. is doing more to provide services for teen mothers, but a sizeable gap still remains between what is available and what is needed.

Living in the U.S. and raising a child presents several challenges, especially if your child was just born with a birth defect. Is there anyone you could hold accountable if your child suffers from lack of available government services? You might be able to sue your employer if he or she did not permit you to take Family and Medical Leave time off to which you were entitled. You might also attempt to sue the applicable government entity to extend you more services if you believe that you are being unfairly denied.

And of course, you could also file a lawsuit against the one that caused your child's birth defect, if the cause was not genetics or lifestyle. The resulting damages award could help you afford more services for your child than you would receive otherwise.

The outside causes of birth defects are wide, including pesticides in your food, certain prescription medications, power plants or factories spewing toxins like mercury into the air and water, or even common household products intended for cleaning or cosmetics. To obtain relief, you could either file a toxic tort lawsuit (such as in the case of pesticide use) or you could file a product liability lawsuit (in the case of cleaning products). The important thing in every case is to be able to prove that the outside offender was the cause, rather than genetics or something that you could control, such as your diet.

Continue reading "United States Ranks 25th On List of Safe Places For Babies to Be Born" »

In some disturbing news, researchers have found that more babies than ever are suffering from withdrawal symptoms due to an increase in women taking narcotics while pregnant.

The study -- the first to examine the issue -- found that more pregnant women were taking Vicodin, OxyContin, and a variety of illegal narcotics, including heroin. As a result, the number of babies suffering from narcotics withdrawal has tripled. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of newborns with withdrawal symptoms increased from just over one per 1,000 babies released from the hospital to more than three per 1,000 in 2009. As a result, more than 13,000 infants in the study were affected in 2009.

While the babies experience withdrawal, they are not addicted to the narcotics the way their mothers are. However, their bodies become dependent on the narcotics because of their mothers' use. As a result, some scientists advocate giving babies small doses of the narcotics to wean them off, rather than cut them off entirely. Doing so could cause seizures and possibly even death for the baby. Many believe that even though withdrawal symptoms are serious, they do not result in long-term health problems. Even so, weaning babies off of drugs can be both time consuming and very expensive -- requiring weeks or months in intensive care units. The cost of treating these infants rose from $190 million to $720 million between 2000 and 2009.

Some believe that the problem is not due to women simply being irresponsible, but to physicians pushing them to take powerful painkillers. Many women might start taking narcotics for legitimate reasons, such as an injury from a car accident, and then become addicted, turning to street drugs once the prescription runs out. Nonetheless, some states have taken a hard-line approach to mothers' drug use, jailing them if their babies suffer from withdrawal symptoms.

In any event, it is a growing problem in the United States, one that requires a systematic and compassionate approach. If you are one of the unfortunate individuals described above, and your child suffers from withdrawal symptoms, you might consider filing a medical malpractice lawsuit against your physician. You would argue that your physician was the one who urged you to take a prescription painkiller such as OxyContin or Vicodin.

A physician has a duty to inform patients of the possible risks of treatment so that patients can make an informed decision. Your physician may never have informed you about the risks associated with such drugs, claiming that the narcotic was safe, and that the levels you were prescribed would not result in addiction. If you took the narcotics while you were pregnant, a doctor prescribed them for you, and your baby was born with symptoms of drug withdrawal, it should not be difficult to link a baby's withdrawal symptoms to powerful drugs that your physician prescribed for you.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That More Newborns Than Ever Suffer From Narcotics Withdrawal" »

A new report has revealed that each year, 1.1 million babies die due to being born prematurely and the health problems that accompany premature birth. The report, called "Born Too Soon," was published by the World Health Organization and a partnership of 50 other health organizations. In addition to the rate of infant mortality, the study found that the lives of 15 million babies were endangered each year.

Two-thirds of all premature births occur in Africa and southern Asia, frequently due to high rates of adolescent pregnancies and illnesses such as HIV. The United States is sixth on the list of 184 nations with premature births, and the first among countries with high incomes. One reason could be because in the U.S., many older women give birth after using fertility treatments to get pregnant, resulting in a high rate of caesarean sections and induced labor. These alone account for more than half a million annually.

Despite the high premature rate, if a baby is born prematurely in the U.S., he or she has a 90% chance of surviving long term. By contrast, a baby born in Africa may be much more likely to die of premature birth. Overall, researchers note that 80% of babies born prematurely are less than two months premature and therefore have a good likelihood of survival. Sometimes the solution could be just as simple as keeping the premature baby warm and at the mother's breast, which could save an estimated 400,000 lives.

While in vitro fertilization may account for some premature births in the U.S., other causes may include exposure to smog or harmful toxins like mercury. Even if a baby survives, premature birth has been linked to delays in physical and cognitive development. Therefore, it is important to find the root cause of premature birth and ensure that the risk is greatly reduced. And if your child was born prematurely and you believe the root cause was something beyond your control, such as environmental toxins, you might be able to get relief by filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would argue that the offender -- whether it be a power plant, a mining company, or a large agricultural company -- had a duty to the surrounding community to operate as safely as possible, by not polluting harmful chemicals. The offender breached that duty, and as a result, you were exposed to the harmful toxins while pregnant. The damage was your child's premature birth.

The difficulty would be providing evidence that this offender was the primary cause of your child's premature birth. As noted above, premature birth can be the result of in vitro fertilization, age during pregnancy, or even genetics. In order to make a convincing case, you would need to provide evidence in the form of records and expert witnesses to demonstrate that the offender, and not any other cause, was the primary reason for your child's premature birth.

Continue reading "Premature Birth Puts 15 Million Babies' Lives At Risk Each Year" »

According to one new study, even products as innocent as gardening tools contain dangerous levels of toxins. HealthyStuff.org, a nonprofit group that researches toxic chemicals in common products, tested 200 garden products and found that two-thirds contained high levels of at least one dangerous toxin.

The study examined the toxic content of garden hoses, gloves, and tools like shovels and trowels, and found several toxins that were dangerous to human health, specifically lead, phthalates, and bisphenol A (BPA). Both BPA, a chemical used in plastic, and phthalates, chemicals used to soften plastic, are widely viewed as endocrine disrupters, which interfere with the body's hormone function. Studies have already linked both of them to an increased risk of birth defects and problems with physical and cognitive development.

Overall, researchers tested 90 different types of garden hoses and 53 different types of gloves. In both products, the levels of lead, phthalates, and BPA were higher than the standards set by the Consumer Products Safety Commission. What is worse, researchers found that chemicals in the hoses transferred to the water they carry, resulting in lead levels being 18 times higher than the federal standard and BPA levels 20 times higher.

HealthyStuff.org insisted that the public must know more about what is in these products. In the meantime, to avoid harmful toxins, the nonprofit recommends letting consumers run their hose for a few seconds before using it and keeping the hose out of direct sunlight. Researchers noted that temperature could increase the amount of chemicals released from the hose. HealthyStuff.org recommended that people not drink water from the hose unless they knew it was safe.

One of the greatest concerns raised by this new study is the effect that toxic gardening products could have on households' domestic food supply. With increasing reports of harmful toxins sprayed on crops and harmful toxins found in canned goods, families are turning to growing more of their food at home. Yet if this study is accurate, even your home-grown food supply may contain toxic chemicals, due to being handled by tools containing excess lead and watered by hoses filled with toxic chemicals.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to toxins from your gardening supplies, you might consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturers. You would argue that the manufacturers had a duty to consumers to create as safe a gardening product as possible, but breached that duty by creating products that contained unreasonably high amounts of dangerous toxins. The manufacturer could have made this product just as effective without these toxins. The breach caused you injury -- exposure to the toxins while you were pregnant -- and the damage was your child's birth defect. Since these gardening products are used far and wide, you could probably find enough similarly situated people -- people who have used gardening supplies from the same manufacturers frequently and who have children with birth defects -- to form a class-action lawsuit.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Gardening Products Contain Dangerous Levels of Toxins" »

In a neighborhood in southeastern England, a string of birth defects are being blamed on the presence of a banned herbicide. Atrazine, which was banned by the European Union in 2004, is the same toxic chemical that is also being targeted in the United States by Erin Brockovich.

Over 12 years, at least nine children living on Waterdales street in Northfleet, Kent, have been born with gastroschisis, a defect where the bowel protrudes through an opening in the abdomen wall. Normally the condition is much rarer, affecting only one in 7,000 babies born.

Because of Brockovich's campaign against atrazine (which is still legal in the United States), researchers were finally able to make the connection between the gastroschisis cases on Waterdales street and the toxic chemical. Studies were conducted in 2008 at 32 sites across Kent, including one that was less than a mile from Waterdales. The atrazine levels at the site near Waterdales were the highest of all and exceeded recommended limits.

It is unclear what effect these findings will have in the United States, but it might force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to come down harder on atrazine producers and users. As of November 2011, atrazine is the second-most popular herbicide in the United States (with Round up -- an herbicide with its own links to serious birth defects -- being the most popular). The EPA had declared that atrazine did not increase the risk of cancer, but in 2009, changed its procedure from making a general assumption about cancer risk to assessing the risk for causing certain types of individual cancers. In 2010, a geological survey by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that surface water and drinking water in the agricultural-intensive South and Midwest are "pervasively contaminated with atrazine." While it is unclear whether the EPA has already focused significantly on the risk of birth defects, with this latest news out of the UK and Erin Brockovich's campaign, the EPA may be pressured to do so regardless.

If you live in the U.S. and have a child with gastroschisis that you believe could be due to your exposure to atrazine while you were pregnant, you might consider filing a lawsuit against the offender responsible for atrazine being in the water supply. That means you could file both a toxic tort lawsuit against the farmer using atrazine on crops and a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the atrazine-laced herbicide. You would argue in both cases that the offender had a duty to create or use a safe product, given that it was highly foreseeable that the water supply touched by the herbicide would also be used by the local community. In both cases, the offender breached that duty by either creating a unsafe product or by using the unsafe product regardless of its effect on the community. In both cases, you were injured by exposure to atrazine while you were pregnant, and the damage was your child's gastroschisis.

Continue reading "Birth Defects in British Neighborhood Linked to a Banned Chemical Used For Herbicides" »

Health professionals state that one of the best ways for women to cut down on the risk of having a child with birth defects is to plan the pregnancy. If women on medication are aware of the risks that certain prescription medications cause, they could consult with their physicians and attempt to switch to less risky drugs before trying to conceive.

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in 33 babies, or 120,000 total born each year, is born with a birth defect. Birth defects are the leading cause of death in babies less than one year old. Most birth defects occur during the first trimester, often before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. Physicians claim that weeks three through eight are the most critical because that is the time the organs are forming.

In particular, physicians cite retinoic acid, used to treat bad acne, as a drug that can cause damage to a developing fetus. Women who take prescription medication for diabetes, high blood pressure, seizures, depression, or autoimmune diseases should also review the medication for dangers.

Overall, the March of Dimes has warned that the most dangerous medications are: medications that affect women's hormones, antiepileptic medications, retinoic acid, antidepressants, and cancer-fighting drugs. Hormone medications, for instance, can harm the developing fetus's genitalia, while antiepileptic and antidepressant medications have been linked to heart defects, among other birth defects. However, even over-the-counter medications and herbal medications pose a risk.

While the physicians' advice is sensible, much of it depends upon whether a woman is in a position to educate herself about the dangers of her medication. Some women may be highly educated and very well read, while others rely upon their physicians to inform them of the dangers posed by their medications. Even the most well read woman may not have access to the latest information declaring that her medication could be harmful. At some point, it becomes the responsibility of the physician who prescribed the medication in the first place.

Continue reading "Health Professionals State That One of the Best Ways to Reduce Risk of Birth Defects Is For Women to Plan Pregnancies" »

Researchers have found that those with allergies may be well protected not only from pollen, but also from more toxic substances in the environment. That is good news for many pregnant women, as that could mean a lower chance of having a baby with a birth defect.

In a study published in the journal Nature, Yale researchers found that that allergies might be an outgrowth of the way the body protects people from harmful substances in the environment. Both humans and other mammals alike were found to have two types of immunity. Type 1 protected against viruses, bacteria, and other harmful invaders. With Type 1 immunity, cells from the immune system swarm the invading virus or bacteria until it is destroyed. With Type 2, the immune system protects against larger, potentially more deadly invaders, such as helminth worms or spiders that bite. Rather than actively surround the invader, the immune system instead erects barriers.

It is Type 2 that may be responsible for the body repelling environmental toxins, including common toxins such as diesel exhaust. For instance, the body might respond to toxins in two ways: a runny nose, which expels the pollutants you breathe in, and nasal inflammation, which partially blocks more toxins from getting into the body where they can do harm. At the same time, researchers warn that Type 2 can also cause environmental hypersensitivity, so that even exposure to small portions of the toxin (such as peanut oil) can cause a significant reaction.

While hypersensitivity is a concern, it is encouraging that the body may have natural defenses against environmental toxins. This blog has repeatedly discussed the link between toxins and birth defects -- whether the toxin is from mercury exposed from mountaintop removal mining, pesticides used on crops, common household products, or car exhaust. Birth defects resulting from these toxins have ranged from cleft palates to neural tube defects such as spina bifida.

Even though some pregnant women might have immunity to these toxins, too many still have children with birth defects that can be traced to exposure. If you are one of these women, you have the option of filing a lawsuit against the offender. First, you would need to identify which source caused the problem. If you believe that it was pesticides or mercury exposure from mountaintop removal mining, you would file a toxic tort lawsuit. If you believe that it was a household product or another product that emits toxins, you would file a product liability lawsuit. The most important thing is that you have evidence to back up your claims, because birth defects can be caused by a variety of factors, including genetics. The other party will be quick to claim that the birth defect was not its fault.

Continue reading "Researchers Find That Allergies May Protect You From Environmental Toxins" »

A recent study found that babies conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) are more likely to be born with birth defects. However, the reason why remains illusive.

Researchers at Nanjing Medical University looked at the results of 46 studies that compared the birth defects in children conceived through IVF to the birth defects of children conceived normally. What researchers found was that for more than 124,000 children conceived through IVF, the risk of being born with a birth defect was 37% higher than the risk in other children. The increase in risk was not limited to a specific part of the body, but applied to a variety of bodily areas, including the skeleton, nervous system, digestive system, and genitals.

The researchers were unable to explain why babies conceived through IVF were more likely to have birth defects. Scientists have several theories. One believes that the same reason that some couples had trouble conceiving might also influence whether they were at greater risk of having a child with a birth defect. Another scientist speculates that IVF techniques, which include the jostling and handling of the embryos, as well as the drugs that accompany fertility treatment, could be responsible. Finally, one scientist speculates that, in fact, birth defects are actually no more common in babies conceived through IVF than through normal means. Because babies conceived via IVF are more closely monitored, scientists might detect more subtle birth defects than would otherwise be the case.

In any event, researchers acknowledge that they cannot come up with a plan to decrease the risk until they understand the cause. They recommend screening all potential couples for genetic defects.

If your child has a birth defect that may be due to IVF, what can you do? The difficulty is that it is unclear whether the birth defect is due to genetics or due to someone else's negligence. If you decided that it was due to someone else's negligence, you might consider filing a lawsuit against the person or persons who performed the procedure. In order to be successful, you would need to show that the person's behavior was unreasonable -- that it was not unavoidable that some of the embryos could be damaged in the process. However, the other party would argue that you could not prove that the person's handling caused the embryos to be damaged.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Babies Conceived Through In Vitro Fertilization Are More Likely to Have Birth Defects" »