Garment workers, manufacturers and small-business owners gathered in front of Macy’s flagship store in New York Tuesday to protest a new anti-lead law they say will cut their jobs and devastate wide-spread retail profits.

The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires that all items sold for use by children under the age of twelve, including clothing, toys and other products, must be tested for lead. Congress passed the act after the U.S. recall of millions of lead-containing toys imported from China.

But this new act does not come without major concerns. Tuesday’s protest was organized by the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Childrenswear, which represents hundreds of manufacturers and family business workers. The coalition says the new rules would cost thousands of jobs and drive companies out of business.

Coalition members said manufacturing practices have already changed to comply with the new law, but they are asking Congress to ease a provision that will retroactively force them to pull $500 million worth of possible lead-containing products from shelves.
In passing the act, Congress had asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to come up with specific methods on how and by whom products should be tested and certified to be lead-free. But the coalition says up until now, there have been no definitive regulations set in place to execute this.

“Until regulations are set in place on how to do the testing and certify that something is lead-free, retailers won’t risk putting anything on their shelves that could contain lead, thereby halting the demand for thousands of products, and cutting manufacturing jobs in the process,” a spokesperson for the coalition said.

Steve Levy, of Star Ride Kids sportswear, said the coalition is not asking for special treatment or government bailouts. “All we are asking for is some common sense. At the exact moment when Congress is debating a $900 billion economic rescue bill, it should be looking for every opportunity to create jobs, not kill them.”

It is true that the economy is facing its worse financial crisis in history, and that every job this country can sustain is critically important. However, what is the lesser of two evils in this situation? Keeping jobs and businesses afloat, or keeping health regulations in check and making sure toxic products do not end up in the hands of our children? Although it is clear that the coalition, Congress, and the CPSC all want to arrive at a place where lead-containing products are not released into the marketplace and manufacturing jobs aren’t threatened in the process, until that time, whose side are you on?

For more information on the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008, visit the CPSC. To learn more about the Act’s predecessor, the Consumer Product Reform Act of 2007, click here, or visit LawInfo’s free legal resource center for more CPSC legal news.

For those of us here in San Diego, this is not good news.

Chargers wide receiver Vincent Jackson was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence 2 a.m. Tuesday morning in San Diego, authorities report. He was booked into county jail and was released by 6 a.m.

Jackson faces the misdemeanor DUI allegation as well as charges that he was driving on probation for a prior DUI. The results of his blood test are pending.

Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith issued the following statement on Jackson’s arrest:

“We’re aware of the off-the-field issue involving Vincent. Obviously we’re disappointed. We take these issues very seriously. Moving forward, we will monitor the situation and have no further comment.”

The Chargers face the Pittsburgh Steelers in a divisional playoff game on Sunday, January 11th, at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh. Jackson was at his career best in the 2008 season as the Chargers’ second-leading receiver with 59 catches and 1,098 yards. He also scored 7 touchdowns.

Driving under the influence (DUI) occurs when someone is operating, or is in actual physical control, of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other controlled substance, to the extent that their mental faculties are impaired and/or their blood alcohol content (BAC) is above the legal limit.

Even for a first offense, penalties can include license suspension, substantial fines, community service, mandatory attendance at a state or DMV approved alcohol program, mandatory overnight incarceration and the required installation of a car ignition locking device.

For more information on DUI, visit LawInfo’s free legal resource center.

Keep it together, Chargers!

A new study conducted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has found that half of U.S. doctors surveyed say they regularly give their patients placebo treatments—drugs and/or vitamins that they knowingly admit won’t help the patient’s condition. Placebos have traditionally been thought of as sugar pills, but placebos in this sense include any medication that is not designed to help or treat a patient.

“It’s a disturbing finding,” said Franklin G. Miller, director of the research ethics program at NIH. “There is an element of deception here which is contrary to the principle of informed consent.”

Researchers at NIH sent surveys to 1,200 random internists and rheumatologists, and they received 679 responses. Of those doctors, 62% believed that using a placebo treatment was ethically acceptable, 51% reported using placebos several times a month, and 70% of those doctors described the treatment to their patients as “a potentially beneficial medicine not typically used for your condition.”

Further, the doctors who use placebos have used actual medicines as the placebo treatment: 41% have used painkillers, 13% have used sedatives and 3% have given saline injections. Smaller studies done elsewhere, including Britain, Denmark and Sweden, have found similar results.

“I would feel very cheated if I was given a placebo,” said Ruth Schachter, an 86-year-old skin cancer patient. “I like to have my eyes wide open, even if it’s bad news. If I’m given something without being warned what it is, I certainly would not trust the doctor again.”

Improper treatment of a patient by a physician is the leading cause of medical malpractice. There can be a variety of circumstances in which a patient is misdiagnosed and subjected to improper treatment and preventable procedures, such as wrong limb amputation, wrong organ operation/transplant, inappropriate administration of chemotherapy, and/or medication errors.

The emotional impact felt by patients who discover that they have been a victim of improper treatment, such as being given placebos, can be serious. Like Ms. Schachter, a patient is likely to develop a lack of trust and apprehension towards physicians and further medical procedures following such a preventable, and arguably unnecessary, experience. And this situation can turn grave if medical treatment being avoided is critical to sustain life.

If you believe you have suffered from medical malpractice of any kind, or for more information about improper medical treatment, contact a qualified medical malpractice attorney in your area today to discuss the specifics of your case.