An Old, Yet Troublesome Case

This isn’t much of a blog post, but this is an old case that seems to identify so many of the problems that we currently encounter.  The pathologist who diagnosed SBS was “in training.”  The prosecution obviously didn’t have much of a case.  The sentence was ridiculous in relation to the original charge, not to mention being ridiculous in a general sense.

Talk show host Bill O’Reilly was right to be upset, although I suspect he was getting everyone upset for the wrong reasons.  What should have happened, was that the prosecution should have dropped the case.  It never should have gone as far as it did.  Instead, they felt that it was necessary to continue with the prosecution in spite of a mountain of doubt, and in the end, they got a “conviction” which bares no resemblance to the crime they allege took place.

What’s in a name?

“A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches” (Proverbs 22:1)

When I was younger, I used to think that scripture meant that when you were naming your baby, you needed to choose a really good name.  Nicholas always seemed like a fine name for a boy, and Alexandra always seemed like a great name for a girl.  Many other names, especially trendy names, never appealed to me.

But, of course, that’s not at all what that scripture was about.  “A good name” essentially means “a good reputation.”

However, there would certainly be some names that could make make life difficult for your child.  Perhaps some of you are familiar with the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue.”  In essence, his father named him “Sue” because he figured his boy would grow up tough, constantly having to defend himself.  What would you expect “Nigel” to look like?  I would expect Nigel to have a British accent and would be surprised if he didn’t.  Wouldn’t you?

If a name alone can change our perceptions, what about the name “Shaken Baby Syndrome”?

What can we learn from adverse reactions to vaccines?

If you showed up here either hoping for or dreading a post about the link between vaccines and shaken baby syndrome, that’s not what this is about.  Rather, I want to discuss how we have set up certain protections within the vaccine industry for the greater good, and how we have arguably created a balanced system, with the intention of providing a fair outcome for everyone.  But what have we done in the child abuse arena?  Does it provide fair outcomes?

Let’s say that you have a child, whose name is Timmy.  If you actually have a child named Timmy, no I didn’t read your mind.  But wow!  What a coincidence!  What are the odds?!

Anyway, Timmy is your little baby and at 2 months of age, you take Timmy to the doctor for his routine checkup where he is injected with the XYZ amalgamation of various vaccines.  But first, the doctor warns you of the risks and maybe you sign a paper or something stating that you understand.  Well, hopefully you were at least informed that there are risks.  The doctor warns you of possible reactions to the vaccine and to be alert if you see anything out of the ordinary that seems like a possible reaction.

Timmy goes home from the doctor, but within a couple of hours he begins having a seizure.  I am sorry.  I am especially sorry if you actually have a boy named Timmy who actually had a seizure.  But the good news is that Timmy gets better.  Whew.  But before that happened, he was in really rough shape.  He was in and out of the hospital for a couple weeks, and there may be some long term damage that you simply don’t know about.

You spent a boatload of money in hospital bills for Timmy.  Certainly, he was worth the expense, but now you’re trying to get out from under the debt.  Perhaps you’re wondering exactly who you can sue.  Can we sue the doctor?  Well, if we did that, we might get a good malpractice settlement, but since we actually like the family doctor, we put our sites on the huge multinational vaccine corporation.  We can get millions, right?!  Actually, no.