Cohen, Feeley, Altemose & Rambo
Call Us Today For A FREE Consultation 888-854-6895
Cohen, Feeley, Altemose & Rambo personal injury workers' compensation

March 2011 Archives

Children who receive anesthesia may be at risk for learning problems

Today the New York Times reported on a recent New England Journal of Medicine study citing research that seems to link possible learning disorders in young children who have been anesthetized for surgical procedures. The study involved rodents and monkeys who exhibited cognitive and behavioral disorders after receiving anesthesia. Studies conducted by the National Center for Toxicology Research have found that one of the drugs contained in anesthesia causes certain cells in the brain to die. One study of children who had received inguinal hernia repair during the first 3 years of life was compared against a group who had not received the surgery, and the results seemed to suggest that those who had the hernia repair were twice as likely to have developmental or behavior disorders. There is some suggestion that autism and attention deficit disorder may be related. There also are conflicting results between two studies regarding whether multiple doses of anesthesia versus a single dose could make a difference. The FDA has partnered with the International Anesthesia Society to do further testing. One of the doctors interviewed said they these studies could be very important in allowing doctors to decide whether or not to combine surgical procedures where more than one surgery may be needed to correct a particular problem. Parents with neonates and children born with birth problems are perhaps the most likely candidate for these problems. Dennis F Feeley

Parents of veteran lose Supreme Court case on first amendment issue

I am fresh back from Burma (now officially Myanmar by edict of the military junta) and over my jet-lag - ready to resume my writing duties. Not sure if I was missed but here goes anyway. The front page of yesterday's New York Times featured a story about The Supreme Court's ruling overturning a jury verdict awarded to the family of an Iraq veteran (Snyder v Phelps). The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas chose to demonstrate at this honored soldier's funeral. They carried signs and posters denouncing the military's policy on gays, saying such things as "God Hates Fags" and contending that God punished this young man because of the military's policy and - yes - the Catholic Church was also responsible. The ludicrousness and absurdity aside for the moment this case has become another flash point issue on the ongoing redefinition of the free speech doctrine by our current group of justices. Having just returned from a country that many say has the most repressed policies on civil rights in the world, and having served my country as a Vietnam naval veteran, this morning's news was a very clear reminder that this country sets the example for the rest of the world in human rights. During the Vietnam war protesters claimed that returning veterans were "baby killers". These protestors pale by comparison to a group of religious fanatics who would actually interfered with this proud family's right to grieve. The Citizens United case and the Mohave Cross case are examples of a conservative Supreme Court gone amuck (see my previous posts). Justice Roberts with the agreement of all of the other Justices with the exception of Alito got this one right. The parents had sued under tort law for intentional infliction of emotional distress which is a claim for personal injury. Justice Roberts writing for the court said that the first amendment can be used as a defense in a law suit for personal injury. The court said that speech which is of public concern ranks in the highest order of first amendment protection. It concluded that the signs and posters used by the church in its protest raised matters of public concern, i.e. the political and moral conduct of the United States. The context of the speech which was the funeral of Matthew Snyder does not change the fact that the underlying message was of broader public interest. Free speech does have limitations regarding the location of the protest, but apparently the court did not feel that in this case the location should limit the church's right to protest. Perhaps because the picketing was not directly in front of the church and did not obstruct or prevent the services in any way. In fact Matthew's father could not see the posters from the church itself. So, the court ruled that even in cases where the conduct is hurtful the Nations interest in free speech must take priority. As Americans we can abhor the conduct of these "wacky" people but take great pride that we still hold some things as sacred. This may be the only time I say it, but it must be said -  good work Justice Roberts and colleagues. Dennis F Feeley       

get your free consultation

Take The First Step To Protecting Your Rights Get Your FREE Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

map-image map-image map-image map-image

Bethlehem Office
2851 Baglyos Circle
Suite 200
Bethlehem, PA 18020

Toll Free: 888-854-6895
Phone: 610-295-5321
Fax: 610-332-2722
Bethlehem Law Office Map

Allentown Office
801 Hamilton Street
5th Floor
Allentown, PA 18101

Toll Free: 888-854-6895
Phone: 610-295-5321
Allentown Law Office Map

Whitehall Office
352 5th Street, Suite C
Whitehall, PA 18052

Toll Free: 888-854-6895
Phone: 610-295-5321
Whitehall Law Office Map

Stroudsburg Office
706 Monroe St.
Stroudsburg, PA 18360

Stroudsburg Law Office Map

Call Us Today For A
Free Consultation