Nothing But Love :: golf blogger

Kristina

I’m a lawyer, and I’m proud of that. There are bad apples in every barrel, but I firmly believe that the law is a noble profession. I’m not bragging, but I don’t lose very many; however, this is the story of a case I did lose.

In 1987, a young mother came to me. Her infant child, nine months old, had suffered a devastating illness, one that strikes fear into the heart of every parent, bacterial meningitis, less than a week after her little daughter, Kristina, arrived at their happy home.

She described her frantic phone calls to her pediatrician’s office, describing the classic symptoms of fever, screeching cries when touched, and a refusal to drink her formula, which I thought should require a quick look-see at the pediatrician’s office; but the pediatrician’s office put her off, telling her to give her distressed infant Tylenol, try to get her to drink Pedialyte, and try not to stop handling her so much, advice this mother and her equally young and inexperienced husband, who had come home from his job as a laborer, tried to follow. Finally, worried that their daughter was becoming more and more ill and after a sleepless night, they took their first-born to the local emergency room the following morning. MRIs of her infant daughter’s head were shocking – most of the area inside her tiny skull was dark with cobwebs, and very few, of light-colored brain matter.

Nine years later, I got a call at my office from the child’s mother. She called to let me know that her daughter had passed away. Kristina died in her sleep at home, never having learned to walk, speak, eat, or do any of the normal things in life, and having given her mother much joy and happiness, but also much grief and frustration. This child had been loved.

Kristina’s parents were always grateful and supportive of me, which I felt that maybe I didn’t deserve, for I had failed to convince a jury that their devastation could have been avoided by a simple instruction to get the child to the E.R.

In the course of preparing this case for trial, in immersing myself in the science and medicine I needed to know and understand to converse fluently with experts in pediatrics, infectious diseases, neurology, physical and vocational rehabilitation, and economics, I learned that the bacteria that attacked Kristina was relatively unknown at that time and called Enterobacter sakazakii. I ran across a medical journal article in my research which described testing done on powdered baby formula and reported that a significant amount of the powdered infant formula on the market was contaminated with different forms of bacteria, which, in infants, could cause bacterial infection and, if left untreated, meningitis. I would have liked to have tested the formula that Kristina was fed both in the hospital and at home, but none was available at that late date, and, hence, no evidence that the baby formula was the cause.

I lost at trial against the pediatricians, but had spent much time researching the subject. I spoke to pre-school groups, pediatricians, and the parenting network (no blogs back in the day). A very well-respected pediatrician in the area took to heart the body of evidence I had accumulated about contaminated powdered formula and he recommended that powdered formula not be fed to babies under a year old and instituted that regimen in the hospitals with which he was affiliated. I think a lot of parents listened, but I will always regret not having been able to reach more parents of infants with this advice.

Over the past 15 years, some guidelines have been established; however, there is no requirement that powdered infant formula be sterile when produced, manufacturers claiming that it is impossible to accomplish. Tests for the bacteria that dissolved Kristina’s brain and the possibility of a somewhat normal life are not done. Most parents still remain uninformed about the dangers associated with powdered infant formula, especially so in third world countries, and particularly those in Africa, where HIV-positive mothers are instructed not to breast feed their children and instructed to use powdered formula as one substitute for breast milk.

This week, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued a joint report of a meeting of experts concerning E. sakazakii and other bacteria found in powdered baby formula. My first reaction was gratitude that, finally, “officials” were taking this threat seriously. My second reaction, and this is the one I seem to be left with, was anger.

What the hell took you “experts” so long? How many babies have died, been irreparably damaged, or have suffered unknowable pain and distress in the many long years since this danger has been known? How many more children and their parents will suffer consequences before guarantees of sterility of the product can be made?

The makers of powdered baby formula have certainly known about this significant health risk for longer than I have known about it. Have these multi-national corporations voluntarily revised their manufacturing processes to allow for sterilization of powdered formula in the last 15 years? Will they do so? The answer is plain and simple: NO.

Why won’t the bastions of infant nutrition take the steps necessary? Because the “experts” recommend that caregivers of high-risk infants “should be regularly alerted that powdered infant formula is not a sterile product.” The “experts” recommend that caregivers use sterile liquid formula. The “experts” recommend that caregivers use boiling water to mix powdered formula (which has been found to be ineffective in destroying E. sakazakii in other studies, by the way).

The makers of powdered formula will listen to the “experts.” They will lay the blame on the caregivers, the young and inexperienced mothers, like Kristina’s mother.

And they will only be forced to be responsible by a lawyer, a lawyer who will lay the blame upon those who are responsible for destroying young lives and young families. Next time someone talks about tort reform, about limiting the amount of money that can be awarded by juries composed of individuals, who but for the grace of god might be in the same position, I suggest that you take a long, hard look at who benefits from tort reform, who benefits from limiting the amount of money that must be paid out, who benefits from eliminating or restricting awards of punitive damages designed to punish the wrongdoer for intentional or egregious disregard for the safety of people and designed to make the wrongdoer an example for others to change.

Who benefits?

Posted by Bill at February 20, 2004 08:09 PM