Posts Tagged ‘child safety’

Millions of children’s heath may be at risk because they do not live close to effective pediatric trauma care. According to a recent study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, more than 17 million children in the United States live further than an hour away from their nearest pediatric trauma center. This figure represents more than a quarter of the population under the age of 15. The problem is more pronounced in rural areas, where more than 75% of children are at least an hour away, compared to only 10% in urban areas. This matters to the children’s health because studies have shown that timely trauma care improves the chances that an injured patient will survive. Read more about child safety.

In what promises to be an issue subject to much debate and controversy, New York state legislators are considering a statute that would create a new one-year window for victims of childhood sexual abuse to seek redress in civil courts, regardless of when the abuse occurred.  Thus, although the statute of limitations to bring a criminal action against a child abuser might have expired, the new legislation would allow a claimant to bring a civil action against an alleged abuser many years later.  Not only that, but the claimant would also be able to bring a civil suit against schools, dioceses and other organizations, claiming negligence in supervising their employees or agents who may have committed the abuse in the performance of their duties.  This law provides potentially significant means of recovery for victims of sexual abuse.

Two states have already passed such legislation.  In 2002, California created a one-year statute to provide victims with expired claims an opportunity to file a civil lawsuit, and in 2007, Delaware allowed victims two years to bring their actions.  Many other states, including New York, are considering similar measures. 

While opponents voice concerns about using stale evidence in such cases, some states have felt compelled to consider these “window laws” due to the many high-profile sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests.  Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York and outspoken opponent of the bill, thinks that the Catholic Church is being unfairly targeted: “People believe we have deep pockets and are responsible for individuals that might have been representing the Catholic Church.”  Defense attorneys echo his sentiments, stating that the only purpose in these cases is to get money from the Catholic Church.  Some say that these lawsuits are almost impossible to defend, noting that many of the cases that were brought due to the California and Delaware statutes named perpetrators and religious superiors who are dead or retired. Also of concern is the huge financial burden it may cause on some of these organizations to settle cases from long ago.  More than 800 lawsuits were filed following the California legislation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles alone paid a settlement of more than $660 million in 2007 to people who were abused.

On the other hand, childhood sexual abuse is heinous and ought to be punished and deterred.  Because of the nature of sexual abuse, which may cause many child victims to feel too ashamed to report it, creating a window law gives victims an added opportunity to take action against their abusers.  Additionally, the availability of such lawsuits would be in the public interest to aid in deterrence, compelling schools, dioceses and other organizations to address abuse complaints more quickly and effectively, and take more care in screening applicants for certain positions.  While it may seem unfair if an organization may be found liable for the despicable acts of one of its agents, if a victim cannot recover directly from the abuser, doesn’t it make sense that the one who put the abuser in the position that enabled the harm to occur be responsible?  Can there be a price put on the cost of protecting children? 

Read more about child safety and diseases here.

On June 10, 2009, the Endocrine Society announced that bisphenol A (“BPA”), a chemical used to harden plastics and found in products ranging from CDs and sunglasses to plastic bottles and the lining of metal cans, may cause serious health problems. According to studies presented at the society’s recent meeting in Washington DC, exposure to BPA can lead to malformations, infertility, diabetes, and heart problems.

The studies indicate that BPA disrupts the normal function of hormones leading to heart arrhythmia, and exposure to the chemical in children may affect their future development and fertility. Exposure during pregnancy may lead to birth defects. BPA has been shown to changes in the DNA of laboratory mice, indicating that health problems may be passed on to future generations.

The Food and Drug Administration had previously found BPA to be safe in levels found in common products, but recently agreed to revisit its position, and last year the Canadian government declared BPA toxic. Two states, Minnesota and Connecticut, have banned the chemical and bills are pending in several others. In March, the six main manufacturers of baby bottles voluntarily stopped using BPA in their products.

To limit BPA exposure, experts recommend that individuals, especially pregnant women, refrain from eating food from metal cans and drinking from hard plastic bottles. However, it is very difficult to completely avoid exposure to BPA because most people are exposed through unknown sources. One Endocrine Society study found that 93% of Americans tested had been exposed to BPA, many in levels greater than what is considered safe by the FDA. Chemical companies have responded to these findings by claiming that there are no conclusive studies showing that BPA causes these health problems, and more research should be conducted. Read more about child safety and diseases.