Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

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" »

This blog has previously discussed the harmful effects of flame retardants. Flame retardants are widespread on clothing and on furniture. Though intended to protect people from danger, their chemical composition, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have also been known to disrupt endocrine activity and thyroid regulation. Studies have found that those exposed while still in the womb suffer from low birth weight and physical and mental birth defects. Nowhere are children more vulnerable than in California, where it was found that pregnant women had the highest levels of PBDEs in their bloodstream worldwide. The reason is because California has strictly regulated flammable materials since the 1970s, causing manufacturers to make nearly every product flame retardant. Several of these products are still in use.

Fortunately, it appears that California is finally going to make a change to its flammability standard, TB 117, that will curb the use of PBDEs. All upholstered furniture is currently required to meet this standard, even though the efficacy of the flame retardant chemicals has come under some controversy, and a combination of other methods, such as smoke alarms, has also proven to be effective.

Governor Jerry Brown directed the state to phase out TP 117, and his directive will be followed by public hearings and a lengthy administrative process. As a result, it could be more than a year before a new rule is implemented. Even with the delay, Governor Brown's directive is certain to result in healthier lives and fewer birth defects.

In the meantime, if you live in California and your child has a birth defect that you believe is the result of your exposure to flame retardants while pregnant, you might consider filing a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturers responsible. You would argue that the manufacturers had a duty to consumers to create a safe product, but the manufacturers breached that duty by creating a product that was unreasonably dangerous due to PBDEs. The manufacturers could have chosen a different approach that was no less cost effective, but chose not to do so. As a result, you were injured through exposure to the chemical, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

The difficulties with this option are that first, the manufacturers could argue that they were in compliance with existing law, and had no choice but to use that chemical. Second, since PBDEs are in practically every piece of furniture since the 1970s, it may be difficult to find the exact source of the PBDEs to which you were exposed. Some furniture might come from manufacturers that are no longer in business. Finally, you would need to determine which products you were exposed to while pregnant, since it is possible that the furniture you have now is not the same as the furniture you kept then.

Continue reading "California Governor Issues Directive That Could Lead to Decrease in Flame Retardant Chemicals" »

Recently, this blog discussed efforts by Senators, the so-called "Dirty 30," to repeal new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on toxic emissions. Instigated by Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the repeal legislation was intended to prevent "killing jobs" in coal and other applicable industries. Had the full Senate voted to repeal the regulations, the Congressional Review Act would have prevented similar regulations from being enacted in the future.

As it turned out, the measure was defeated on the full Senate floor 53 to 46. The EPA's new rules will therefore be implemented, strictly limiting the amount of heavy metals, like mercury and arsenic, that can be released by power plants that burn coal and oil. These toxins and others are widely believed to cause cancer, birth defects, and other health problems. Currently, the EPA estimates that power plants are responsible for the majority of toxic releases, which includes 50% of mercury emissions and 77% of acid gas emissions. The new regulations are expected to prevent 11,000 premature deaths each year. Existing power plants will have four years to comply with the new standards. Critics like Inhofe claim that the steps required would be too painful for power plants and coal producers and would result in these businesses failing. However, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, representing the coal-producing West Virginia, claimed that it would force the coal industry to clean up and prepare for the future.

Despite the good news, it will take several years before the impact of the new EPA regulations is felt. If you suffer from health problems related to toxic exposure, or have a child with a birth defect, it may already be too late for you to benefit. Even so, you can obtain relief by filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offending power plant. You would argue that the plant could have made reasonable efforts to operate safely, but chose not to do so. As a result, you were injured by exposure to the toxins while pregnant, and the damage was your child's birth defect, as well as your own health problems. You would have a stronger case if exposure occurred after the power plant was supposed to comply with the new regulations.

Your greatest challenge would be proving that it was that particular power plant that was responsible for your various health problems. While it would be foreseeable that someone who lived in the same town could be affected by a nearby power plant, it would be less foreseeable if the power plant were several miles away. That does not mean you could not make an effective case -- you would just need more evidence providing the link, such as that mercury leaked into a stream that wound through your area and polluted the seafood that you and others consumed.

Continue reading "Senate Defeats Attempt By "Dirty 30" to Repeal New EPA Regulations" »

In the past, this blog has written about the dangers of chemicals in beauty treatments, both to those who receive the treatments and to those who administer them on a daily basis. The National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance, founded in 2007, has continued to monitor the dangers that these chemicals pose to salon workers. What it found was that the chemicals are particularly hazardous to female employees from nonwhite backgrounds.

According to the Alliance, more than 250,000 businesses across the country are labeled as salons, with a workforce of up to 850,000 people. Over the past 10 years, the number of people employed as nail technicians has increased dramatically, to more than 380,000 nationwide. Of this total, 96% of these workers are women, and of these women, 42% are immigrants from Asian countries, and most are of reproductive age. Most of these workers have limited English proficiency and do not know national or state labor laws. They typically earn less than $19,000 a year and lack health insurance.

The Alliance also found that on a daily basis, nail salon technicians "handle solvents, glues, polishes, dyes, straightening solutions and other nail and beauty care products," which contain numerous chemicals that are unregulated and suspected to cause health problems ranging from respiratory illnesses like asthma to cancer and birth defects. Most of this activity takes place in poorly ventilated work areas, with a lack of protective gear and absolutely no oversight.

Numerous groups are pushing for more awareness and tighter regulations. In New York, the ACLU and labor activists are campaigning to raise awareness of the abuses suffered by low-paid salon workers. In California, salon workers, owners, and public health advocates have collaborated to provide health and safety training for salons, as well as to advocate for tighter regulations on the industry. The combined efforts might be enough to provide much-needed change.

In the meantime, salon workers need to know that if they or their offspring suffer from the harmful effects of their work, they can file a lawsuit against the manufacturers of the products they use, as well as their employers. Many salon workers have already done so, forcing manufacturers of the "Brazilian Blowout" to cease deceptive advertising practices and put caution labels on the products, stating that they release formaldehyde gas. Salon workers who administered the treatment had been suffering from rashes, headaches, and bloody noses. A salon worker can file a product liability lawsuit, claiming that the manufacturer created a product that, by design, was unreasonably dangerous. A less dangerous product could have been created that would have been just as effective and for roughly the same cost, but the manufacturer chose not to do so. As a result, the salon worker was injured through repeated exposure to salon chemicals, and the result was asthma, cancer, or their child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Health Advocacy Group Warns About Dangers of Beauty Salons to Minority Female Workers" »

In past posts, this blog has discussed attempts by environmental and community groups to hold the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accountable for enforcing air quality rules. These groups complained that the EPA's failure to enforce the rules meant that more cancer-causing pollutants -- as well as pollutants that caused birth defects -- were being released into the air.

Now the EPA has moved forward with a plan to tighten the nation's smog restrictions. The agency would lower the current top level limit for fine particles to 12 or 13 micrograms per cubic meter, down from the current national standard of 15. The move is estimated to save between $69 million and $88 million in health-related cost-savings per year. Currently, poor air quality is responsible for higher mortality rates and more strokes, heart attacks, and cases of asthma. The EPA took this step after not only being sued by advocacy groups, but also after being sued by 11 states, including New York and California. The states' attorneys general argued that although the Clean Air Act requires air quality standards to be updated as necessary every five years, the EPA has not reviewed air quality standards since October 2006.

Supporters of the new rule do note that even under the more restrictive measure for fine particles, most counties would pass the test. Even in California, infamous for its smoggy cities, only two counties would not be in compliance if the standard were 13 micrograms, and only six would not comply if the standard were 12 micrograms. In fact, by 2020, the EPA projects all but six counties across the nation to be in compliance with air quality standards.

Nonetheless, even air at these standards can be harmful to health, so it is important to always be watchful and ensure that the EPA is doing its job. If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to exposure to poor air quality, you might consider filing a lawsuit against the agency whose job it was to uphold air quality standards -- like the EPA. You could also file a lawsuit against the entity that caused the poor air conditions, but that would usually only work if the entity were easy to identify. When the cause of poor air quality is thousands of cars, the task of singling one out becomes much more difficult. Therefore, many people choose to file suit against the enforcer. You could sue the enforcer for negligence, stating that it had breached its duty to uphold air quality rules, despite knowing the harm that could come if the rules were not upheld, and despite having the resources to uphold the rules. As a result, you were injured due to breathing in the bad air while you were pregnant, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "The EPA Updates Its Smog Rules After Facing Pressure from Lawsuits" »

In the past, this blog has discussed the alarmingly high rates of birth defects found in Kettleman City, a town in central California surrounded by agriculture and situated four miles from a toxic waste site. Even so, a controversial new report claims that the number of birth defects appears to be decreasing.

The study, conducted by state health officials, was an update of a report conducted in February 2010. State officials looked at information on infants born with birth defects between 2009 and 2011 in Kettleman City, Avenal, and the counties of Fresno, Madera, Tulare, Kern, and Kings. They concluded that since 1987, the birth defect rate in Kettleman City has been no higher than in similar towns. The 2010 to 2011 rate was 1.79 per 100 live births, consistent with the rate before 2008, when the birth defect rate shot up to 8.51 per 100 live births. The study also found no pattern to the birth defects, which would have suggested an underlying cause.

The study's findings come on the heels of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding that the birth defects were not caused by toxic chemicals that had spilled at the nearby toxic waste site. However, the study was incomplete, and residents of Kettleman City complained that official did not speak to any of them over the past 18 months. Both residents and environmental groups pushed state officials to answer questions that, so far, have not been answered. Despite the state's findings, the debate about whether, and to what extent, the environment causes birth defects seems far from over.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was caused by your exposure to toxic waste or pesticides while pregnant, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offenders. If there were several offenders, and it is not clear to which one is most responsible, you might consider suing them all jointly and severally. To sue several defendants jointly and severally means that if you win, each defendant is responsible for paying the entire money award. Of course, not every defendant would pay the entire amount -- that would result in you getting far more than the situation merited -- but that if the other defendants refused or could not pay, at least one could. Typically, the defendant that paid might then try to go after the others to pay their share of the amount.

However, in order to be successful in your suit, you need to have strong evidence that toxins released by the offenders did cause your child's birth defect. You would need to have a correlation between the toxins emitted and when you were exposed. If you were exposed before you were pregnant, you would have a more difficult case to make. If you were exposed throughout your pregnancy, then your case would be easier. Studies and statistics can help you make your case, though they are not definitive.

Continue reading "California Health Officials Find That the Rates of Kettleman City Birth Defects Are On the Decline" »

When babies are born too early, they may be born with a birth defect known as "retinopathy of prematurity," also known as "baby blindness." Baby blindness can strike up to half of babies born before 28 weeks, due to the fact that the retinas are unable to fully develop. However, experts have discovered a way of decreasing the risk: an antioxidant called rhSOD.

The Brigham and Women's Hospital's Department of Newborn Medicine conducted a study to find out whether rhSOD could reduce the risk of retinopathy. The team of scientists used data from a trial that considered the link between rhSOD and a chronic lung condition in various newborns to assess the link between rhSOD and blindness.

In that particular trial, 302 babies born prematurely were given either rhSOD or a placebo. While a look at the entire group did not reveal much difference in the rate of retinopathy between babies given rhSOD and those given the placebo, researchers found that the differences were much starker when they looked at the youngest babies. Of the 72 babies born before 26 weeks, 22% had a lower rate of retinopathy if they received rhSOD instead of the placebo. Of the 24 babies born before 25 weeks, 53% who received rhSOD experienced a decrease in retinopathy compared with those who received a placebo.

Researchers cautioned that more studies would need to be conducted before they could confirm that rhSOD is effective at preventing retinopathy. However, this one study serves as an important step toward helping babies born prematurely live a normal life.

If your baby suffers from baby blindness, are there any options for seeking relief? If you could prove that an exterior source was the cause of your child's premature birth, you may be able to sue for negligence, product liability, toxic tort, or even medical malpractice. Each of these involves tort theory, which is the idea that the offending party owed you a duty, then breached that duty by acting unreasonably. For instance, suppose you could provide evidence that a factory's toxic smoke was the cause of your child's -- and other children's -- premature births. You could file a toxic tort lawsuit, arguing that the factory owners had a duty to operate the factory reasonably by following regulations. The factory owners failed to follow regulations, breaching their duty. As a result, you were injured (through inhaling the toxic smoke), and the resulting damage was your child's early birth and baby blindness.

Continue reading "Study Finds That An Antioxidant Treatment Reduces the Risk of Baby Blindness" »

The previous year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved of the United States's first national protections rule, meant to reduce the amount of heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, nickel, and other toxic pollutants released by coal- and oil-burning power plants. These toxins have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other health issues. Now as many of 30 Senators are preparing to repeal these new protections.

Nicknamed the "Dirty 30" by John Walke, Clean Air Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Senators are led by Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe claims that the new regulations will "kill coal" and any coal-related jobs. The regulations would require a yearly performance test program for both new and existing electric generating units. Each test would consist of an inspection and any necessary maintenance and repairs.

Inhofe aims to use a seldom-used law called the Congressional Review Act to nullify the new regulations. Under the Congressional Review Act, an actual Senate committee vote on the regulations is not required if 30 senators sign a measure in support. Instead, the repeal would be able to leave the committee and go to the Senate floor for a full vote. If the repeal were to pass, the Congressional Review Act would also prevent similar regulations from being enacted.

That worries supporters of the new regulations, who argue that they will save thousands of lives and prevent health issues that come from too much exposure to mercury. They point out that the regulations are long overdue, as the Clean Air Act has required the EPA to address toxic air pollution since 1990. Power plants are considered to be the largest source of toxins released into the air, particularly mercury emissions (50%) and acidic gas emissions (77%). Mercury that reaches water becomes the highly toxic methylmercury, which can build up in fish that people consume. Methylmercury is particularly harmful to pregnant women, fetuses, and small children.

Even if the new regulations remain in place, it may be too late to help you or your child. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was due to mercury exposure while you were pregnant, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the power plant responsible. You would argue that the plant had the duty to operate as safely as possible, but breached that duty by allowing harmful levels of toxins into the air. Your attorneys would argue that you were injured by exposure to the toxins while pregnant, and as a result, your child suffered damage. The power plant owner might argue that the power plant followed the appropriate regulations at the time, but the owner could still be liable if he or she failed to make alterations in order to comply with the new regulations, especially if the new regulations were reasonably easy for the owner to discover.

Continue reading ""Dirty 30" Senators Trying to Repeal EPA Rules on Toxic Pollutants" »

Recently, a panel of experts found that spray tanning -- thought to be a safer alternative to tanning under the sun -- may damage the user's DNA, leading to birth defects and other health problems.

The panel of six experts -- spanning toxicology, dermatology, and pulmonary health -- reviewed a variety of literature and 10 of the latest reports about the chemical used for spray tanning, dihydroxyacetone (DHA). What they found left them concerned about the possibility of tanning agents getting absorbed through the lungs and into the bloodstream. They discovered that the compounds, in some cells, could promote the development of cancer and other malignant growths. That is because DHA seems prone to cause genetic mutations. The result may be that a person who regularly spray tans may end up developing lung cancer, while a pregnant woman who uses spray tans could end up absorbing the chemical, which would then harm the fetus.

While the experts cautioned that more studies needed to be done to determine the full extent of DHA's harmful effects, they also noted that the testing that led to DHA being labeled "safe" was far from adequate. The information on which approval was based dates back to the 1970s, when many facts available today were not known. Furthermore, the fact that spray tanning has exploded as a trend means that even those who do not use the chemical may still be affected. While a person who uses spray tans now and then would not be harmed, someone who routinely used spray tans without further protection could experience health problems.

If you believe that your use of spray tanning may have led to your child's birth defect, you have several options. First, you could file a product liability suit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer owed consumers a duty to produce as safe a product as possible, but the manufacturer breached that duty by creating an unreasonably unsafe tanning spray. The manufacturer could have created a product without DHA that would not have been more expensive, but chose not to do so. As a result, the manufacturer's breach caused your injury (absorption of the DHA) and the result was your child's birth defect.

If your physician told you that it would be safe to use tanning spray while pregnant, you might also consider filing a medical malpractice suit. You would argue that your physician had a duty to stay reasonably informed about the possible health risks for a pregnant woman, which would include exposure to harmful chemicals. Your physician could have reasonably learned about the harm of DHA in tanning spray, but chose not to do so. Your physician therefore breached his duty to you as a patient. The breach led to your using a harmful product that then caused your child's birth defect. Your physician's counter argument might be that it was not possible to stay reasonably informed of every new piece of information that arises, and that he was simply basing his opinion on the information that was available.

Continue reading "Experts Find That the Chemical in Spray Tans May Cause Cancer and Birth Defects" »

In Britain, the alarm is being sounded about toxins in plastics and the harm it poses to developing fetuses. More and more people are making the conscious choice to avoid using plastics in their everyday lives, citing their concern that it could prevent them from conceiving or cause their children to be born with birth defects.

One woman has chosen to turn her kitchen into a "plastics free" zone, stating that plastics "poison" us and "I won't have it in my body and I don't want it anywhere near anyone I love." Instead, she has replaced any plastics with cotton, hemp, glass, and ceramics. She has also chosen to give up her career as a lawyer and launch a brand of organic cosmetics. Others have joined the movement away from plastics, with joggers and bicyclists replacing plastic water bottles with stainless steel or paper.

The great concerns are over Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, which are used to soften plastic. Both compounds are considered to be endocrine disrupters, mimicking human hormones and altering development of the brain and body. Studies have found that both chemicals may leak into the food and drink we consume, especially if the plastics that contain them are heated to high temperatures. In 2004, a study out of the United States Centers For Disease Control And Prevention found that BPA was in 93% of the urine samples collected from 2,517 people. A 2008 U.S. study provided a link between BPA and behavior and development problems in infants and children. Even small amounts of BPA and phthalates have the potential to cause serious disruptions.

That said, there is still much debate about how harmful BPA and phthalates truly are. Professor Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council's Centre For Reproductive Health points out that many of the studies that produce the most concerning results cannot be replicated. If other studies do not produce similar results, those researchers are often accused of being bought by the plastics industry.

Despite a lack of conclusive results overall, the number of studies showing a link between BPA, phthalates, and health problems were enough for Breast Cancer UK to push for a ban on baby bottles that contain BPA. Elsewhere, parents are replacing plastic water bottles and resisting packaged foods. Time will tell if it has a positive effect.

Continue reading "In Britain, More People Reject Plastics Due to Concerns About BPA and Phthalates" »

Back in April, this blog discussed a study that showed how consumption of high-fructose corn syrup could lead to higher rates of autism. In California, at least, the peak rates of consumption coincided with higher autism rates. Scientists thought that the reason could be that high-fructose corn syrup depleted the body's zinc reserves. Zinc interferes with the elimination of heavy metals in the body. Without it, the scientists believed that people -- especially children -- were more vulnerable to metals such as mercury and arsenic, both of which affect brain development. High-fructose corn syrup also depleted calcium, which affects the brain as well.

The increasingly negative publicity associated with high-fructose corn syrup may have prompted its manufacturers to try and give it a makeover. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected the Corn Refiner Association's attempt to give high-fructose corn syrup a new name: corn sugar. The Corn Refiner Association submitted an application in 2010, but the FDA finally rejected it because it defines sugar as "solid, dried, and crystallized food," as opposed to syrup.

In addition, the Corn Refiner Association has been running a marketing campaign claiming that high-fructose corn syrup has the same nutritional value as white table sugar. The Sugar Association has countered that they are two separate products.

Regardless of high-fructose corn syrup's name or nutritional value, the American Medical Association has said that more research is needed before it is known whether its use should be restricted. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has said that there is no evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than table sugar.

The Corn Refiner Association's campaign and the Center's findings could complicate any efforts to claim that high-fructose corn syrup causes autism or other physical or mental problems. For instance, if your child has autism or a specific birth defect that you believe is due to consumption of high-fructose corn syrup, you might be inclined to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer. However, you would encounter several difficulties.

Continue reading "FDA Rejects Efforts By Manufacturers of High-Fructose Corn Syrup to Change the Name to Corn Sugar" »

Researchers from Emory University are partnering with the Sofie's Voice Foundation to launch an international research and prevention center focused on spina bifida. Sofie's Voice Foundation was created to provide prenatal education about spina bifida, and to help those who were born with the disorder.

Spina bifida is one of the most widely known neural tube defects. The neural tube is an embryo's precursor to the central nervous system. Spina bifida occurs when the neural tube fails to close in utero, resulting in a spinal cord that is not fully formed. This condition can cause mild to severe physical and mental disabilities. Each year, more than 325,000 babies are born with neural tube defects around the world. Researchers estimate that 75% of such birth defects could have been prevented if mothers had consumed enough folic acid while pregnant.

The goal of the new Center for Spina Bifida Research, Prevention and Policy is to prevent spina bifida worldwide by 2022. In advancing this goal, the Center will do two things: expand research on the potential causes of spina bifida and design programs intended to enhance the quality of life for those living with the condition. Through these programs, founders of the Center hope to help those with spina bifida achieve their full potential, as well as create successful models for spina bifida healthcare. As for the expanded research, it will include investigations into the deaths of young adults with spina bifida, seeking to identify preventable causes, as well as research on the use of certain drugs found to increase the risk of neural tube defects.

Researchers cite the fact that when a concerted effort was made to wipe out polio, the disease went from affecting 350,000 to just 500 in 25 years. They hope that the new Center, a 10-year, $50-million endeavor, has the same impact.

While spina bifida and other neural tube defects have been linked to insufficient folic acid, other studies have pointed to other potential causes. As this blog has discussed previously, spina bifida has been linked to the use of certain prescription drugs by pregnant women, such as antiepileptic or antidepressant medication. Spina bifida has also been linked to environmental causes, such as toxic levels of mercury in the air and water, caused by a power plant or a mining company.

Continue reading "New Center for Spina Bifida Research Formed With the Purpose of Preventing All Cases of Spina Bifida By 2022" »

The Israeli Supreme Court recently held that children with birth defects could not sue physicians for wrongful birth. Could the same conclusion be reached in the United States and other parts of the world?

Wrongful birth lawsuits have become more common over the years, as children or their parents sue physicians for withholding crucial information about the child's development. However, the Israeli Supreme Court found that suing for wrongful birth posed both legal and ethical difficulties. They claimed that defining a life as "damaged" because the person has a birth defect, so much so that the person should not have been born at all, undermined the value of life.

Before this ruling, Israelis with birth defects could legally sue for wrongful birth any time before they turned 25 years old. Now, however, these lawsuits will be limited to parents of children with birth defects only. The parents would be permitted to seek compensation for the extra expenses of raising a disabled child and meeting the needs for the rest of his life. However, they could only do so if they could establish a causal relationship between the defect the physician failed to identify and the child's physical or mental problems.

There is no evidence that the United States Supreme Court has ever followed the Israeli Supreme Court on this sort of matter. However, the issue of whether wrongful birth suits should be permitted continues to rage across the country. In the United States, there appears to be no restriction on whether a parent or child may file a wrongful birth suit, but the parent is more likely to do so. The Israeli Supreme Court raises the interesting question of why it is more valid for a parent to file a wrongful birth suit -- in the Supreme Court's view, stating that the child should have never been born -- than the child living with the birth defect. Wouldn't the child have the clearest sense of whether the birth defect interfered with leading a happy, productive life?

While there is currently no restriction in the United States, several states such as Kansas and New Jersey are debating whether to pass laws outlawing wrongful birth lawsuits altogether. Critics claim that these laws are designed to permit physicians to withhold critical information about fetal development in order to prevent women from having abortions. Other states like Arizona are debating laws that ban wrongful birth lawsuits, but have an exception for "intentional or grossly negligent acts" by the physician. The state legislators miss a critical point: in trying to give each human life dignity by invalidating wrongful birth lawsuits, they are denying parents and children who live with the reality of birth defects the right, as free-thinking individuals, to choose a lawsuit.

Continue reading "Israeli Supreme Court Rules That Children With Birth Defects Cannot File Wrongful Birth Lawsuits" »