Children in the U.S., Britain and many other Western countries are usually given the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine at age 1. But when researchers, led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published a report linking that vaccine to autism in 1998, it unleashed an anti-vaccine movement in the U.S. and in Britain.

After years of investigation, a British medical panel concluded that Dr. Wakefield had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules and showed a “callous disregard” for the suffering of children involved in his research. With that decision, Dr. Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, retracted the 1998 paper. Dr. Horton described the panel’s ruling as, “a damning indictment of Andrew Wakefield and his research.”

The retraction is the result of a thorough reassessment of the scientific methods and financial conflicts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The General Medical Council in Britain concluded that Dr. Wakefield had subjected 11 children to invasive tests like lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need and for which he did not receive ethical approval. Dr. Wakefield was also found to have patented a measles vaccine in 1997 that could prosper if the combined vaccine were withdrawn or discredited.

The paper has been a bane to Dr. Paul Offit, co-inventor of the M.M.R. vaccine. In a recent radio interview, he stated, “It should have never been allowed to be published. I mean, we really shouldn’t be able to publish hypotheses. I could, for example, argue that I think peanut butter sandwiches cause leukemia. I’m sure I can find five children with leukemia who had eaten peanut butter sandwiches in the last month.”

But the retraction has done little to deteriorate Dr. Wakefield’s status among parents’ groups in the United States. Despite numerous scientific studies that have found no link between vaccines and autism, parents continue to believe that vaccinations are related to their children’s mental health problems.

For more information about whether you can sue a vaccine maker for an injury caused by a vaccine, view this Florida child injury lawyer video blog.

The world of preteen and teen sexual exploration has changed dramatically since today’s parents were that age. Since our culture pushes our kids to be ’sexy’ before puberty begins, it’s more important than ever that we give our children the best “owner’s manual” that we can to their newly developing bodies.

The Talk helps parents explain the power of sexuality in a way that promotes healthy, age-appropriate behavior and draws connections between sexual biology and the portrayal of sex as seen in this techno-erotic culture of ours.

Much earlier than we imagine, our daughters especially begin noticing the new power that comes with developing a tween or teen female body. They are bombarded with marketing messages insisting that being ’sexy’ is critical to social acceptance.

If you as their parents do not step in to shape your children’s beliefs and character and provide some sane and trustworthy guidance, then they will learn it from their friends or worse, the television and other media where sex is a commodity to be traded and bartered in the pursuit of other desirable things like social status, affection or otherwise.

The Talk helps parents explain the social power that comes from looking sexy, and the personal responsibility each of us has to use that power appropriately.

I was impressed by the connections that Maxwell draws between biology and culture. She argues that tweens and teens don’t understand why Victoria’s Secret is such a powerful draw. Maxwell says that tweens and teens can benefit greatly from learning about the sexual drive in a context that describes it as part of the miracle of procreation.

Maxwell argues that if we properly explain the biology of sexuality, intercourse and pregnancy, then our youth will be less confused by our hyper-sexual culture and will be more apt to behave responsibly.

Since then, the blogosphere has erupted in debate about whether drinking while breastfeeding is harmful or whether the police were right. Only one thing is clear – that there are no clear answers. In fact, we can’t really be sure the woman was drunk at the time. While she pleaded guilty to child neglect, police did not administer a blood-alcohol test because they aren’t necessary for child neglect charges. Police said they knew she was drunk from the way she was behaving, but reports say no more than that.

Some bloggers think the police abused their authority even if Anvarinia had been drunk. “Since when is breast-feeding while drunk a crime?” said Dr. Amy Tuteur, a retired obstetrician and gynecologist who writes the Skeptical OB. If Anvarinia had been feeding her baby formula, “no one would have bothered to check what was in the bottle,” Tuteur opined. “You can do a lot more damage by mixing formula wrong.”

The thing is that no one can know what effect drunken breast feeding has on babies. No one has ever studied it directly because of the eithical implications of conducting studies whereby researchers induce intoxication in breast feeding mothers. The only evidence we have on the subject is anecdotal, which does not allow conclusions to be drawn one way or the other.

Most interest groups advise against drinking and breastfeeding but others see no harm in limited alcohol consumption among breast feeding mothers. It has also been said that alcohol assists a woman with making milk. Doctors report that alcohol remains in the body for two to three hours after consumption. Other interesting posts can be found at http://ecochildsplay.com

Commentators who feel the police came down too hard on the mother argue that the child’s best interests were harmed when its mother was put in jail for 5 years. They argue that drunken breast feeding is the lesser of the two evils. Police, however, argue that Anvarinia was arrested for more than just drunken breast feeding. Police say nothing more than that it was the totality of the circumstances and that they would have arrested the woman on child neglect charges even if she had not been nursing her infant drunk.

Meynhart doctored his financial records and never gave the boy the money he was awarded in a 2006 lawsuit. Authorities do not know where the money is at this time.

The Florida Bar revoked Meynhart’s license to practice law in March. He is currently in jail with a $15,000 bail.

For the most part, lawyers are ethical, honest and trustworthy. However, there are always the rotten few who behave outrageously and attract a lot of media attention. There are ways to protect yourself from being the victim of an unethical lawyer. Doing just a little bit of lawyer shopping before you consult with an attorney can go a long way.

The Florida Child Injury Lawyer and personal injury law firm Zimmet & Quarles are sick of hearing about unethical lawyers just as much as you are so we’ve authored two books to help you navigate the unfamiliar world of lawsuits and lawyers.

As I wrote, most lawyers are ethical, honest and trustworthy and most will tell you that in their advertisements. However, that’s all they’ll tell you. None of the lawyer advertising I’ve seen gives any helpful information about how to decide which lawyer is the one best suited for your case.

If you or a loved one have been injured, do yourself a favor. Before you sign any forms, before you talk to an adjuster, before you hire a lawyer, get our free books that reveal how to decide which lawyer is right for you. Get them free at zqlawyers.com. we’re confident you won’t be disapointed.

In Rodriguez v. Favalora, the court ruled that Florida law does not allow victims who remember their childhood abuse later in life to file suit against those who negligently allowed the abuse if the statute of limitation has already run.

Now, Florida Statute section 95.11(7) does allow victims who recall their childhood abuse later in life to sue their abusers even if the statute of limitation has already run.

The intense trauma that results from childhood molestation can cause substantial psychological damage including the loss of all memories associated with the events. Demands of secrecy by an adult authority figure alone may cause a child to suppress his or her abuse.

To combat this effect and bring abusers to justice, Florida’s “delayed discovery doctrine” allows victims of childhood abuse to sue their abusers in civil court within four years from the time the victim discovers an injury that was caused by the past abuse. Normally, a victim must file suit before they turn 26 or within four years after they become independent of the abuser (whichever comes first).

Without the delayed discovery doctrine, victims of childhood abuse who only remembered their abuse after the standard statute of limitation had run would not be able to sue their abusers. Now, Florida’s Third Circuit has ruled that the delayed discovery doctrine is only available to victims who sue abusers who act with intent and not those who act only negligently.

The case involved a man who was molested while in a foster home operated by the Catholic Church. His claim against the church was that it acted negligently in not providing a safe foster home where he would be free of abuse. However, his claim was denied because he alleged the church acted negligently and not intentionally.

The effect of this ruling is that those organizations and institutions that fail to protect our children against molesters and abusers when the organizations and institutions had a legal duty to do so (as in this case) will often go unpunished in civil court in cases of delayed discovery.

The delayed discovery doctrine will not allow people who intentionally abuse children to escape liability in situations of delayed discovery because those abusers acted with intent. However, if the abuser’s employer shares in the fault through their negligence, then the Third Circuit just gave them a free pass in cases of delayed discovery.

This ruling defeates the purpose of tort law. Civil liability for wrongful behaviour is designed to serve two purposes: make the victim whole to the greatest extent that the law can, and to deter the harmful behaviour in the future.

If organizations and institutions are allowed to escape liability for their negligence just because they are lucky enough to have harmed a victim who does not remember his or her abuse until after the statute of limitations has run, then the institutions are not deterred as much as they should be.

Florida law should subject negligent child abusers to the same liability and deterrent effect that we subject intentional abusers to. That way, the businesses, churches and other organizations charged with protecting our children have the greatest number of incentives possible to act responsibly.

The Vermont Legislature is the first among the states to do the right thing and update its child pornography laws to bring them in line with the changing technological times.

At the time most child pornography laws were written, no one could have imagined that teens would be using cell phone cameras to take naked pictures of themselves and sending them via text message to friends.

That’s the reason overzealous police were able to charge teen girls with violating laws against distributing child pornography. The laws just weren’t written with that kind of behavior in mind.

The laws were written to protect teens from being exploited. They weren’t written to punish the victimless behavior of the teens, no matter how tasteless and immature it was.

I’ve written about the hypocrisy of charging people with violating the very law that was written to protect them elsewhere in this child injury blog. In this post, I just wish to recognize Vermont as a thought leader and applaud the speed with which the state acted to prevent the stupid, unnecessary and even tragic consequences of punishing these girls as sex offenders.

These parents, and the overzealous coaches and sports leagues that enable them, are partly to blame for a significant increase in children’s overuse injuries. Such injuries prime the injured child for further complications as they mature.

For example, children who are injured are much more likely to develop chronic back pain and arthritis in their 20s and 30s, not 50s or 60s like the rest of us. In addition, a child’s overuse injury can lead to permanent abnormalities.

Pediatric orthopedic surgeons are now reporting that many young athletes are pushing themselves too hard or are being pushed too hard. The unfortunate result is increasingly severe overuse injuries that can affect the children many years into their future.

Every year, 3.5 million children  under the age of 14 get hurt playing sports, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Overuse injuries typically occur in competitive sports, most commonly baseball, basketball, running, gymnastics and swimming.

The number of American children 5 to 14 years old who get injured playing sports each year resulting in emergency room treatment:

*     Bicycling: 285,000
*     Basketball: 205,400
*     Football: 185,700
*     Baseball/softball: 117,000
*     Soccer: 75,000

However, the Senate Judiciary Committee has refused to hear the bill in two weeks of meetings which means that it can not advance to the Senate floor for a full vote yet. For some reason, the House of Representatives has already OK’d the bill for a full vote.

Of course, a bill needs to be passed by both houses to become a law and fortunately that’s a long way off for now. The bill the tourist industry wants so badly would overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision and allow parents to waive their children’s right to sue businesses if the children are injured.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that such waivers are against public policy because they shield businesses whose negligence leads to a child’s injury. The justices said that allowing parents to waive their children’s right to sue eliminates an important incentive for businesses to protect their customers from faulty rides and other potentially dangerous activities.

When are we going to stop allowing powerful businesses to shed responsibility for their actions? This country champions personal responsibility and I hope we can continue that tradition by not passing this bill.

Stay tuned in the coming weeks to see how this bill fares. The legislative session doesn’t end until May 1.

The cooling method has been used successfully since the 1950s in to reduce damage to the brain and other organs caused by heart attacks. More recently it has been used on neurological patients, and about two years ago, doctors began treating newborn infants who have suffered brain injuries.

Babies can suffer brain damage during childbirth for any number of reasons but it almost always stems from a lack of oxygen to the brain. Often, the child does not get enough oxygen because the umbilical cord becomes pinched.

Every year, about 2 to 4 of every 1,000 babies suffer oxygen deprivation at birth. However, doctors will not currently treat their brain injuries with hypothermia therapy unless the infants have reached 36 weeks gestation because premature babies are too fragile for the procedure.

The treatment reduces the infant’s body temperature to 92 degrees. After doctors feel the appropriate amount of time has passed, they gradually warm the infant to a normal body temperature over the course of six hours. As of yet, there are no significant, known side effects to infant cooling.

One hospital has used the therapy on eight oxygen deprived babies to date and only one has died. That infant died not from the cooling itself, but because his birth injuries were so severe. Of course, the full measure of the children’s brain injuries cannot be known until they grow out of the newborn phase.

MRIs can reveal some damage, but not the full extent. Some of the babies who have been treated so far have partial brain injury, and some do not.

The treatment works because cooling reduces swelling, slowing the injury and preventing a cascade of events that causes cell death. The technique saved the life of a newborn that had too little oxygen for almost 15 minutes. That is almost three times longer than it takes for brain damage to occur.

In 2005, an 18-year-old who was cooled amazingly maintained normal brain function after he lost his leg in a boating accident and his heart stopped for 45 minutes.

David Martin, a 40-year-old Rockledge man, was arrested and charged with sexual battery. Because the boys are 12 or older but less than 18 and Martin was a person in a position of authority, Martin will be charged with a first degree felony. Martin was also charged with lewd or lascivious molestation.

Two boys, ages 11 and 13, said that Martin molested them inside a cabin at the Life for Youth Church Camp in Vero Beach. The boys were visiting the camp as part of a church group from the Faith Fellowship Church in Melbourne.

Of course the perpetrator was “very well liked and someone who was very active with the kids and just had great relationships with the adults and children” the news report reads.

Martin attracted several hundred children to his congregation. At the time this blog was published, no other victims had come forward.

I would be quite surprised if a civil lawsuit did not arise from this in addition to the criminal charges. This type of behavior is dispicable. I wonder if there were warning signs from previous boys at previous camps.

This type of behavior is usually habitual and a 40-year-old has likely left signs that he had committed these acts previously. That is why I am going to lobby the Florida Legislature to enact a law providing for civil remedies against people who fail to report suspected child abuse of any kind,  sexual or otherwise.

Now, istitutions have no incentive to train employees to look for telltail signs of abuse and investigate them appropriately because the only punishment for remaining silent while a child is abused is criminal. The institutions can not be held liable under today’s law.

They should be liable. We entrust our children to them and they should be trained to detect abuse and required to report it. Stay tuned to this blog for further news on my lobbying efforts.