Archive for the ‘Birth Injuries’ Category

Medical Malpractice: Newborn Carbon Dioxide Poisoning Results in Verdict of $16.5 Million

May 19, 2010

Dwight Peterson, Army Staff Sgt., and his wife Shalay presented to Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, HI for an elective cesarean section in January of 2005. Their son Izzy was born a healthy child, but now requires 24 hour care.

The Star Bulletin reported that within just one minute after the birth of Izzy Peterson, pediatrician Army Major Danielle Bird mistakenly administered carbon dioxide, used for stomach surgery, to the healthy newborn. It was not until nearly 42 minutes had passed, and the carbon dioxide tank was almost empty that someone realized this tragic error. Oxygen was supplemented, but by the time this intervention was attempted, Izzy had sustained irreversible brain damage.

Soon after Izzy’s birth, the Peterson family relocated to San Antonio, TX where they have obtained specialized care for Izzy. Izzy is fed through a gastrostomy tube and breathes through a tracheostomy, which he will do for the rest of his life.

Rick Fried, the Peterson’s attorney, filed suit in which it was alleged that Major Bird, a pediatrician doing her fellowship in neonatology, should have noted the difference between the carbon dioxide and oxygen tanks prior to administration. You think?!

Bird…would have had to adjust the upright regulator of the free-standing cylinder clearly labeled carbon dioxide, different from the clocklike regulator attached to oxygen tanks…

Attorneys for the defense tried to claim early on that Izzy had been born with some type of defect; an at-home video of Izzy’s birth as a healthy baby boy proved otherwise.

“You see him take his hand, trying to brush it (the carbon dioxide) away,” Fried said. “Even at birth he knew it wasn’t good for him.”

Although severely brain damaged, Izzy maintains self awareness, can track movement with his eyes and recognizes and responds to his parents. Izzy can feel pain and kick a ball, but will never perform as an average child.

Not present for the decision, the Petersons were informed that federal judge, David Ezra, ruled in favor of the family. Dwight and Shalay Peterson were awarded $16.5 million, which will help to pay for Izzy’s extensive medical care.

Tripler’s Maj. Gen. Carla Halwey-Bowland said in a news release: “Tripler Army Medical Center accepts responsibility for this tragic incident and respects the decision made by the Honorable David Ezra. Our command and well-trained staff are committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure an incident similar to this never happens again, such as improvements in medical gas safety — how they are labeled and handled and staff education.”

Tripler Army Medical Center is the largest Army hospital in the Pacific basin. It contains over 200 hospital beds and provides medical care to almost 400,000 eligible patients. The Medical Center is accredited with providing the best medical care in it’s region, but even in the best hospitals, mistakes can be made.

Advertisements

Malpractice Verdict: NY jury renders verdict in excess of $60 million for brain damage from dystocia

April 29, 2010

Mary Swanson gave birth to Michael Swanson, October 10, 2003 at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco, NY. While giving birth, Mary Swanson was found to have dystocia,  a condition in which the child’s shoulder becomes entrapped by the mother’s pubic bone.

Mrs. Swanson and her husband, Bruce, alleged that the obstetrician, Dr. Carla Eng-Kohn, and the hospital’s staff were negligent in properly performing Michael’s delivery.

Plaintiffs’ counsel also claimed that dystocia was a result of a nurse’s mismanagement of the delivery. Dr. Eng-Kohn was not present when the nurse initiated the pushing process. Swanson’s counsel contended that Mary Swanson’s unsupervised pushing led to the development of the dystocia.

The plaintiffs’ expert obstetrician also opined that eight or nine minutes passed before the dystocia was relieved, and the plaintiffs’ expert neurologist testified that the prolonged dystocia asphyxiated the baby. He stated his opinion that monitors indicated that Michael suffered two minutes of tachycardia, which is an abnormally fast heartbeat, and he suggested that the condition was an indication of distress. Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that Michael was not crying when he was delivered and that the child’s face exhibited a bluish discoloration.

To complete delivery, excessive traction was applied to the baby’s head causing a brachial plexus injury and lateral medullary syndrome. The child’s residual injuries include moderate speech delays and the delayed ability to swallow and complications from aspiration pneumonia. Plaintiffs claimed Michael will need surgical intervention and/or need permanent residential care, intense speech, physical and occupational therapy.

Michael’s parents sought recovery of Michael’s past medical expenses, the cost of his future rehabilitative therapy, the cost of his future custodial care, his remaining future medical expenses, his future lost earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering .

After hearing all the evidence, the jury found that Women’s Medical Associates was vicariously responsible for Dr. Eng-Kohn’s actions and along with the doctor, was assigned 75% of the total liability. Northern Westchester Hospital was charged with the other 25% liability. The Swanson’s were awarded a total of $60,939,847.00 for all damages.

Cerebral Palsy: Cord Blood Stem Cell Research and Treatment in Clinical Trials – Update

April 29, 2010

For those of  you who follow our blogs, you know well that this is a topic of interest for us.  It bears repeating – our job as lawyers is to properly investigate potential claims of malpractice in areas such as cerebral palsy and seek redress for our clients when the evidence demonstrates a connection between birth injuries and medical care, but the much more important topic for our clients and victims of cerebral palsy is in the field of medical research. It is through research efforts – including clinical trials – that this dreaded condition will be ameliorated and hopefully eradicated. Trust me, after practicing law for over 35 years, I’m not worried about job security – the frailties of the human condition will more than suffice to fill our file cabinets with people to help due to the negligence of others.

We have reported previously on various topics involving cord blood and stem cell research as they relate to a number of conditions, including cerebral palsy.  It seems that months have passed since there has been any significant news about two programs underway: one at the Medical College of Georgia and the other at Duke.  Earlier this month, an update came across the social media network via a post by Singularity Hub – Cord Blood Stem Cell Treatment for Cerebral Palsy in Clinical Trial | Singularity Hub.

Here’s our encapsulated version regarding the studies and Singularity Hub’s report.

Photo provided by MSNBC

Duke University

According to the website ClincalTrials.gov, Duke began a clinical therapeutic trial – identifier: NCT00593242 – in January 2008 (estimated completion date of January 2011) whose primary purpose is listed as treatment of newborns with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) – inadequate oxygenation in the perinatal period for purposes of this study – through the controlled “collection, preparation and infusion of a baby’s own (autologous) umbilical cord blood in the first 14 days after birth if the baby is born with signs of brain injury.” For information concerning the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation in this clinical trial, see the online posting. Essentially, the babies are then to be “followed for neurodevelopmental outcome at 4 – 6 and 9 – 12 months at Duke’s Special Infant Care Clinic. MRI’s will be obtained between postnatal weeks 1 and 4, and, for study purposes at 4 – 6 postnatal months.”

While other aspects of processing and administration are no doubt part of the key components of this project, it is readily apparent that the end-point goal is discovery of an effective treatment of cerebral palsy for the identified neonates in the study and then development of a second stage clinical trial to take such treatment modality to a greater number of potential beneficiaries.

Medical College of Georgia

For detailed information on this study, which began in February of this year, similar information is available through ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01072370.  This clinical trial investigation has a patient population consisting of children from ages of 2 to 12, “whose parents have saved their infant’s cord blood, who have non-progressive motor disability, and whose parents intend to have a cord blood infusion.”  Again – for full details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, see the full online posting.

For those parents who may be interested in determining if their child would qualify to participate, the study is still recruiting participants.  The contact information is also available at this link: Contact: James E Carroll, M.D.     706-721-3371     jcarroll@mcg.edu

Today’s report from Singularity Hub provides some encouraging – albeit anecdotal – news of potential progress.

The anecdotal evidence in support of treating cerebral palsy with cord blood stem cells is astounding. Much of it has actually been been performed at Duke University by one of the investigators in the pilot study: Joanne Kurtzberg. Among those that have been successfully treated at Duke include Ryan Schneider, Maia Friedlander, Chloe Levine, and Dallas Hextell. All had CP or CP-like symptoms and all made remarkable recoveries after cord blood stem cell treatments. Dallas Hextell, who showed improvements just 5 days after his therapy was featured on the Today show (the original report contains video compliments of MSNBC).

In addition to the early good news coming out of these projects, one other lesson is learned – for the time being, the storage of cord blood is an important component for those hoping to participate in such studies – particularly that being conducted at the Medical College of Georgia.  We have earlier reported on this topic as well.  You may want to refer to our early posting for some basic information if you are interested.

Obviously, the implications – if these projects prove to be successful – are far-reaching. The enthusiasm of the participants in these research projects is not limited to them alone. The words of the author, Aaron Saenz, from Singularity Hub somewhat tells it all:

So we have some exciting news for cerebral palsy, and some exciting news for those thinking about cord blood. What about the rest of us? Well the MCG and Duke work has some far reaching implications. Neurological damage, whether it’s caused by oxygen deprivation or some other injury, is one of the most difficult things to heal in the body. Work in animals (like that done by Carroll on rats) show that stem cells can not only help damaged brain cells recover, but they can also replace cells that have died. We may find that stem cells therapies have a wide range of applications for many different forms of brain damage. Kurtzberg is researching many different ways cord blood could be used (autologous or through donors) to treat a variety of conditions. In other words, today stem cells conquer cerebral palsy…tomorrow, the world.

Let’s all hope that Mr. Saenz is a prophet.

Fetal Pain and Suffering: New Nebraska Abortion Law Sparks Debate – When Does a Fetus Feel Pain?

April 17, 2010

An online article posted yesterday in NewScientist raises some interesting issues that will no doubt be the subject of much debate in days, months and years to come – does a fetus feel pain and if so, when? The true focus of this article was the recent (April 13, 2010) passage of new legislation in Nebraska, which essentially prohibits abortions after 20 weeks.  Ostensibly, Nebraska has become the first state to ban abortions on the basis that fetuses feel and appreciate pain.

The law, according to a report in LifeSiteNews.com, goes into effect on October 15, 2010, and has, at a minimum, the following legal implications:

Abortionists who break the law would face a Class IV felony charge, which carries a penalty of a five year maximum prison sentence, $10,000 fine, or both. Women who obtain abortions of their unborn children would face no criminal penalties.

The bill would allow women and even the fathers of aborted unborn children to sue and seek damages from abortionists who violate the law.    

I say “at a minimum” since there are other civil law implications arising from  the rationale behind this legislation. One of those issues often litigated throughout the various courts of the United States is a parent’s right to sue for conscious pain and suffering for fatal or non-fatal injuries to a fetus.  That analysis is beyond the scope of this blog. What is of present importance is the so-called ‘science’ behind this legislation and the response of the scientific community that may well have far-reaching implications in the field of civil litigation.

Before engaging in this discussion, note well: it is not my intention (or desire) to become embroiled in the abortion issue.  That is not what we do in our firm.  It is the state of  science that intrigues me in terms of how that may have relevance to what we do – litigate civil cases involving matters such as fetal death in utero or death or injuries sustained by fetuses due to the negligence of third persons (e.g. medical malpractice, catastrophic automobile accidents and the like).

Apparently, the ‘scientific basis’ for this Nebraska legislation is the research of Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.  Dr. Anand testified in 2004 on the federal partial birth abortion ban.  He provided his opinion testimony that after 20 weeks gestation, an unborn child would experience “severe and excruciating pain” from an abortion.

Dr. Anand’s opinions are not without numerous critics.  What is significant, however, is that even many scientists, who challenge Dr. Anand’s opinions that 20 weeks of gestation is the point at which a fetus can feel and appreciate pain, do accept the proposition that there is a point in the life of fetus where they can and do appreciate pain and suffering.

Dr. Mark A. Rosen, the Director of Obstetrical Anesthesia at UCSF’s Fetal Treatment Center, in 2005 co-authored an article in JAMA (abstract) that some refer to as the ‘seminal review on fetal pain.’

One of the opinions expressed in that paper defines what is at the center of this discussion – what is meant by ‘perception of pain’?

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by non-painful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.

In the NewScientist posting, Dr. Rosen provided rebuttal statements to the premise inherent in the Nebraska legislation that fetal pain occurs at 20 weeks of gestation.

Dr. Rosen states, “The first brain pathways associated with pain perception “are not complete before approximately 29 weeks of gestation”, so although fetuses develop brain wiring from about 23 weeks onwards, the connections are not there to enable them to experience pain.”

Whether it is at 20 weeks or 29 weeks, one common principle exists – according to a number of scientists, there is a point prior to birth that a fetus can appreciate pain from a medical-scientific standpoint – the ‘wiring’ is in place. If this is true scientifically, how does this affect the right of recovery by a parent or the estate of an injured fetus in those jurisdictions permitting conscious pain and suffering damages for injuries to a fetus?

For instance, if a fetus is at 35 weeks gestation and by all other accounts is totally viable with ‘the wiring in place,’ does that fetus and/or the parents have a claim for conscious pain and suffering should injury to the fetus occur?

Does any jurisdiction recognize the right of a fetus to recover for injuries sustained in utero?  Absolutely – it just depends which jursidiction(s) you are considering.  For example, the District of Columbia, in 1946, was the first jurisdiction to recognize the right of a fetus to bring a separate cause of action (Bonbrest v. Kotz). This was an action for damages being brought on behalf of a fetus allegedly injured ‘in the process of being removed from its mother’s womb.’ “Under the civil law and the law of property, a child en ventre sa mère is regarded as a human being from the moment of conception.”

In 1984, the D.C. Court of Appeals, relying in large part on Bonbrest, stated:

Although this court has never considered this question, we note that every jurisdiction in the United States has followed Bonbrest in recognizing a cause of action for prenatal injury, at least when the injury is to a viable infant later born alive.

Note the key conditions: “…when the injury is to a viable infant later born alive.

This posting is already perhaps too long – this topic is multi-faceted and more the subject of a treatise, white paper or a law review article, not a blog.  What is apparent (at least to me) is that this new Nebraska legislation will undoubtedly rekindle the fires of fascinating litigation about fetal rights, fetal and parental causes of action and fetal pain and suffering claims. Stay tuned – there will undoubtedly be much more to come.


CDC Features – Data Show 1 in 303 Children Have Cerebral Palsy

March 22, 2010

Cerebral palsy – how common is it? A recent “Features” posting by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) provides some answers and gives parents some ‘early signs’ of which to be aware.

While everyone knows that cerebral palsy (CP) can be a devastating condition, it is less well-known how common CP actually is. The Center for Disease Control recently released new data on the frequency of CP. In its study, it found that CP affects 3.3 per 1,000 eight-year-old children, or 1 in 303 children. This data was collected from select communities in Georgia, Alabama and Wisconsin, not the nation overall. Rates may differ slightly in other localities. However, the CDC pointed out that its most current findings on CP frequency were similar to previous studies which showed that CP affected 3.6 per 1,000, or 1 in 278 children.  

In reporting the data, the CDC also advised parents what to look out for in terms of signs of CP, based on the age of the child. Parents should consult a physician if they notice any of the following signs:

A child over 2 months with cerebral palsy might have difficulty controlling head when picked up, or have stiff legs that cross or “scissor” when picked up;

A child over 6 months with cerebral palsy might continue to have a hard time controlling head when picked up, or reach with only one hand while keeping the other in a fist;

A child over 10 months with cerebral palsy might crawl by pushing off with one hand and leg while dragging the opposite hand and leg, or not sit by himself or herself;

A child over 12 months with cerebral palsy might not crawl, or not be able to stand with support;

A child over 24 months with cerebral palsy might not be able to walk, or not be able to push a toy with wheels.`

Parents, be aware of these early signs!  If you are not sure what to do or to whom you can turn, the CDC offers the following information:

To find out who to speak to in your area, contact the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities by calling 1-800-695-0285 or visiting the Center’s Web site

Of course, you always have your child’s pediatrician as a starting point.

USA Today: UM Poll Shows That 25% of Parents Still Believe Vaccines Cause Autism.

March 1, 2010

A report just out in USA Today, reflects that 25% of parents are still concerned that vaccines cause autism.  You are no doubt aware by now that the genesis of this fear was a 1998 article in the leading British journal, The Lancet. The author of  that article,  Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was found earlier this year to have acted dishonestly and unethically by the General Medical Council, the body that regulates doctors in England.  The Lancet retracted the article on February 6, 2010.  Dr. Wakefield presently resides in Texas and is performing research into possible treatments for autism.  In an email to The Los Angeles Times, he has denied that he ever stated a link between vaccinations and autism.

In addition to a whole new body of litigation that arose as a result of this article, a more discouraging event took place –many parents, afraid that there were exposing their children to autism through receiving the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine, elected not to have their children vaccinated.  As one example, the USA Today article provides the following:

In 2008, unvaccinated school-age children contributed to measles outbreaks in California, Illinois, Washington, Arizona and New York, said Dr. Melinda Wharton of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Thirteen percent of the 140 who got sick that year were hospitalized.

USA Today’s report relates to an online survey of parents with children under the age of 17.  There were 1,552 responders.

Twenty-five% of the parents said they agreed “some vaccines cause autism in healthy children.” Among mothers, 29% agreed with that statement; among fathers, it was 17%.

Nearly 12% of the parents said they’d refused a vaccine for their children that a doctor recommended. Of those, 56% said they’d refused the relatively new vaccine against human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. Others refused vaccines against meningococcal disease (32%), chickenpox (32%) and measles-mumps-rubella (18%).

Now that Dr. Wakefield’s study has been retracted, physicians are hoping that as the word spreads, more parents will have their children vaccinated.  Some physicians, however,  are taking a more aggressive approach.  One practice group outside Philadelphia has written a ‘manifesto.’

[It] outlines its doctors’ adamant support for government recommended vaccines and their belief that “vaccines do not cause autism or other developmental disabilities.”

“Furthermore, by not vaccinating your child you are taking selfish advantage of thousands of other who do vaccinate their children … We feel such an attitude to be self-centered and unacceptable,” the statement says, urging those who “absolutely refuse” vaccines to find another physician.

“We call it the manifesto,” said Dr. Bradley Dyer of All Star Pediatrics in Lionville, Pa.

Even though it now appears that Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues are fighting back, it would appear that absent true scientific evidence of a link between autism and vaccinations, parents would be well-advised to be aware of the risks they run by not having their children vaccinated and would be further well-advised to familiarize themselves with the history of the so-called science, now held in disrepute throughout the world, that led to this dangerous avoidance of vaccinations.

Cerebral Palsy Verdict: $23.3 Million – Minnesota – birth injury – delay in performing C-Section

February 28, 2010

This is a report from AboutLawSuits.com:  

The family of a girl who was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of a birth injury has been awarded $23.3 million by a Minnesota jury after suing a hospital for waiting too long to perform a Cesarean section.

The Minnesota cerebral palsy lawsuit was filed against Rice Memorial Hospital and Affiliated Medical Community Center by Elise Rodgers, as a result of alleged negligence during the birth of her daughter, Kylie, in June 2007. According to a report by Minnesota Public Radio, Rodgers claimed that negligent medical care caused the girl to suffer severe brain damage because doctors failed to act quickly once the fetal monitor warned the child was being deprived of oxygen during labor.

The family argued that Kylie’s umbilical cord was compromised, and that doctors should have performed a Cesarean before she suffered permanent brain damage. Kylie, who now has cerebral palsy as a result of the negligent care, requires constant suctioning of her airway, sometimes as often as every three to five minutes, in order to survive, according to the lawsuit.

In a verdict handed down earlier this month by a Kandiyohi County jury, Rodgers was awarded $10 million for the child’s future medical expenses, $1.7 million for past medical expenses, $1.5 million for future lost earnings and $10 million for disability, emotional distress and pain.

Many research studies are underway and new therapies are being developed for infants with cerebral palsy.  Nevertheless, many children are still born with this condition and its spectrum of disabilities.  When these injuries are the result of medical negligence by physicians, hospitals and/or other health care providers, the civil litigation system is there to provide for these special needs children.  Contrary to politically-charged statements by those on the right, juries do understand when these life-altering injuries are caused by negligence.  When they do and the care needs are properly presented, verdicts such as this in Minnesota are the proper result.

New Research : Treadmill may help tots with neuromotor delays (such as cerebral palsy) walk

February 24, 2010

While the study group was a small one (15), researchers at the University of Michigan’s School of Kinesiology have reported supervised treadmill walking may help children with neuromotor delays.   This study was reported yesterday in an article published in The Hindu.

Rosa Angulo-Barroso, Associate Professor of movement science  at the School, and her colleagues followed 15 infants at risk for neuromotor delays over a period of two years.  They tested the changes in physical activity and treadmill-stepping performed with parental supervision in the children’s  homes.   Six of these children had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

“We found that in those with neuromotor delays, the pattern of development through time was parallel (but less) than normal kids.” said Angulo-Barroso. “We also found less toe-walking, so foot placement improved.” Angulo-Barroso added. The study also suggests a critical intervention window. Both children without a diagnosis and kids with cerebral palsy improved the most between 10 months and 18 months.

As The Hindu article notes, “The study, “Treadmill Responses and Physical Activity Levels of Infants at Risk for Neuromotor Delay” appears in the journal Pediatric Physical Therapy.

It would be most interesting to see if a larger, multi-center, double-blind  study could produce the same or similar results.  I haven’t personally seen the ‘tot’ version of a treadmill, but a quick search on Google images does show some interesting devices (see picture on left).  As researchers in the etiology and treatment of cerebral palsy keep working, the efforts of others such as reported here will potentially provide a wonderful interim measure toward helping these kids with special needs.  We’ll try to keep an eye on this story and will report should more information become available.

Announcement: Newborn Possibilities Program underway in AZ – stem cell research related to cerebral palsy

February 23, 2010

A posting yesterday in PRNewswire tells of a collaborative research effort called “Newborn Possibilities Program” in Tuscon, Arizona, for preservation of cord blood stem cells “so that if a child is diagnosed with the condition, he or she may be eligible to receive a new treatment being researched under approval from the FDA using the child’s own cord blood stem cells.”

This research initiative is being done as a collaborative effort by the Cord Blood Registry, the world’s largest stem cell bank; Save the Cord Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in Tucson; Tucson Medical Center, the region’s leading birthing hospital; and Watching Over Mothers and Babies Foundation (WOMB), a local non-profit research foundation.

A statement by the CEO of the Cord Blood Registry, Tom Moore, best describes the goal of this new program:

This program is a way for us to provide a safety net to children at-risk for cerebral palsy and other forms of neonatal brain injury while helping to advance the science of regenerative medicine.  CBR and our collaborators in this unique program share a commitment to advance cord blood stem cell research, expand education about the value of cord blood banking, and improve outcomes for children with neurological disabilities.

In a statement by the founders of one of the program’s collaborating members, Save the Cord Foundation, Anne Sarabia and Charis Ober,  we are provided further insight into the present and future goals of the program:

We believe that cord blood will play a very important role in future medicine and will benefit so many children in our community at risk for cerebral palsy.   Our dream is that this program will inspire other medical institutions to follow and make preserving cord blood the standard of care for all newborns.

Dr. Hugh Miller, head of WOMB and a specialist in Maternal-Fetal Medicine, who will be the program’s director at Tuscon Medical Center, said in the interview:  

The Newborn Possibilities Program is laying the groundwork for potential new treatment options for cerebral palsy and neurological disorders by connecting patients who may be at risk for these conditions and who have access to their cord blood stem cells with FDA-approved research studies. We believe this program will be instrumental in accelerating the pace of research and potentially helping many children.

As those of you who follow our blog postings and/or the recent news concerning stem cell research relating to cerebral palsy are aware, the Food and Drug Administration recently approved  a human clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of using a child’s own newborn blood stem cells to treat cerebral palsy.

Having been involved in handling cases of children with cerebral palsy for many years, I have seen the issues of preservation of tissue, blood and medical records (i.e. fetal monitor strips) go the full gamut.  For years, placental pathologists were begging medical institutions to preserve placentas for further research into perinatal  birth injuries (among other concerns).  There was a time when one institution, which shall remain nameless, had a suspected policy of discarding fetal monitor strips (gee – wonder why that was!) and so on and so on.  It is really heartening to see that this new collaborative program is putting the interests of science, children’s health and knowledge far ahead of any conjured concerns relating to fear of litigation.    Hopefully, this program, in conjunction with all the other research regarding cerebral palsy now going on, will get to the bottom of this horrible disorder and provide new meaningful care options for at least some of the victims of cerebral palsy.

New BPA Research – Is Your Plastic Water Bottle Toxic?

February 20, 2010

According to an article published in WebMD Health News, two recent studies suggest that the plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is not toxic to the brain and that it does not inhibit the development of the human reproductive system. One of the studies was funded by the plastics industry. Both studies were originally published in Toxicological Sciences.

BPA is an organic chemical compound, which is used as an additive or building block in several plastics. Its primary purpose is to harden plastic. For this reason, BPA is found in a wide variety of consumer products such as plastic bottles, cups, and even baby milk bottles.

“Some experts are concerned that exposure to BPA and its weak estrogen-like effects, especially during critical periods of development, may be linked to a range of health hazards, including behavioral effects, reproductive problems, cancers, heart disease, and diabetes.”

The two studies in question were designed to specifically study the impact of BPA on the brain and the reproductive system. Both studies used animal models.  The study that focused on neurotoxicity found that female rats and their litters did not develop neurological defects from exposure to BPA.  The study that focused on BPA’s impact on the reproductive system found that rats exposed to low doses of BPA in utero and throughout the breastfeeding period maintaind healthy reproductive systems.

Notwithstanding these new findings, many remain concerned about the toxicity of BPA. Even the FDA reversed its position regarding the safety of BPA in January 2010 and called for additional research on the subject. Previous studies appear to suggest that BPA is toxic. For example, in an article published in Reproductive Toxicology in 2007, 38 experts agreed that average levels of BPA in humans are above those that appear to cause harm in animals.  In 2009, an article publushed in Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, sumarized past BPA research and concluded that:

“The potential for BPA to influence body weight is suggested by in vitro studies demonstrating effects of BPA on adipocyte differentiation, lipid accumulation, glucose transport and adiponectin secretion. Data from in vivo studies have revealed dose-dependent and sex dependent effects on body weight in rodents exposed perinatally to BPA. The mechanisms through which perinatal BPA exposure acts to exert persistent effects on body weight and adiposity remain to be determined.”

Another study published in the Journal of American Medical Association specifically addressed the impact of BPA on humans.  The study concluded that there was a strong positive correlation between the amount of  BPA in a person’s urine and the incidence of heart disease, diabetes, and enzyme abnormalities.  These are just a few of the many research studies suggesting a link between BPA and varous medical complications.

Contributing Author:  Jon Stefanuca