Illinois schools currently do have a policy in place regarding concussions. At this point, school policy prohibits students suffering from concussions to return to their sport if there is any physical sign that they are still injured. Safety advocates in Chicago want their area schools to be required to protect students' health and future development even further.
]]> Not all coaches, school employees and parents can effectively recognize when a student is suffering from a brain injury. Medical professionals are best equipped to give kids the green light regarding their health and whether it's safe to return to athletic activities. The safety proposal, therefore, would require students to provide written approval from a doctor in order to participate in any school-sponsored sports, including practices.In order for that requirement to actually effect change and keep kids safe, coaches and other school staff would have to respect that policy. To deter violations, schools that fail to adhere to the proposed policy would lose out on their water and sewage fee exemptions.
The desire to win, please student athletes or their parents should not outweigh a school employee's responsibility to protect the well-being of students. Allowing children to play a sport when they are still suffering from a brain injury puts them at risk for even more severe, permanent disabilities.
We will post an update as this proposal moves through the legislative process.
Source
Chicago Tribune: "Aldermen seek tougher rules on concussions for high school athletes," 10 Nov. 2010
]]>With any treatment, it is important to ask questions and learn about the potential risks involved. Recent warning pieces regarding a relatively newer cerebral palsy treatment prove that point and how it's necessary to weigh potential benefits against potential risks when deciding on medical treatment.
Most people think that Botox is used only for aesthetic purposes, but the drug is also being used on cerebral palsy patients. According to experts, the injections have proven effective in making cerebral palsy patients' movements easier and smoother. Experts report that Botox injections also reduce the amount of drooling that results from the neurological disorder. Sources report that the benefits of Botox for cerebral palsy patients last for an estimated 22 weeks after the injection.
]]> But not all news is good, and the fact that there are various lawsuits regarding the side effects suffered due to Botox shows that the decision to elect Botox as a cerebral palsy treatment should not be taken lightly. The FDA issued a warning in 2008 that the injections had led to "life-threatening" damage among cerebral palsy patients, and some patients' injuries were fatal.The dangerous and sometimes fatal side effects of Botox reportedly occur when the drug spreads to areas of the patients' bodies beyond the specific injection sites. Botox packaging now includes a warning to patients and medical professionals about the drug's potential risks, a likely result of the FDA's involvement, along with the above-mentioned lawsuits that accuse the makers of Botox of selling the drug without disclosing the risks associated with it.
Resources
aboutlawsuits.com: Botox May Help With Drooling and Other Cerebral Palsy Symptoms: Study (9/23/2010)
Current debate surrounds the ethics behind the common use of cesarean sections in U.S. hospitals versus the option for a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).
Illinois follows suit with this dangerous trend in the increased rate of C-Sections. While the Center for Disease Control's goal is to get the VBAC rate up to 37%, only one hospital in Illinois currently succeeds in hitting that target.
]]> The surgical procedure is generally not ideal for a woman delivering her first child, unless an emergency or special circumstance calls for it. What is controversial, however, is the general status quo saying that if a woman delivers via C-section once, she should do so in subsequent deliveries.Proponents for women's and child health and choice are challenging this norm suggesting that VBAC should not be avoided and can be a safe, ethical option.
Nearly one-third of hospitals and half of physicians do not perform VBAC. The reason behind the decision is based on the fear that VBAC leads to more personal injuries in the form of uterine ruptures.
To avoid charges of medical malpractice and expensive litigation, therefore, VBACs are widely prohibited. Unfortunately, this needlessly limits many families' medical options when, according to experts, many mothers successfully deliver vaginally after having a past C-section.
Uterine ruptures as a personal injury resulting from VBAC is rare, and proponents for choice and change note that C-sections are not injury-proof, either. The procedure brings its own list of potential risks, including birth injury.
Infants delivered via C-section are more likely to be born with breathing problems, have difficulty breast-feeding and run the risk, though rare, of being cut during surgery. Also important to keep in mind is the more intensive care mothers need post-surgery.
In fact, a recent study by Amnesty International investigating the U.S. mortality rate associated with childbirth and pregnancy lists inattention to women's health post C-section as a significant cause of avoidable maternal deaths.
Patients need to be informed and empowered to question medical practices. Currently, not enough women are truly educated about their delivery options, and they deserve to make an educated decision regarding the birth of their child. Procedure done simply as status quo is not necessarily best practice, and it's a patient's right to have a say in their medical treatment and that of their child, starting from birth.
Related Resources
Women Need Chance to Avoid Repeat C-Section
]]>