The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/04/laws...+al.com%29

So, as Blazer fans are we supposed to defend UAB in this and take a stand against pre mature babies and their money grubbing parents? Or do we ignore it since it has nothing to do with athletics?

growing a fan base, we're doing it wrong.

As someone who works downtown I will say this: There are lawyers downtown who spend their day and make their living looking for ways and reasons to sue the City of Birmingham, the Birmingham School Board, Jefferson County, and their affiliated entities, and any other deep-pocketed public organization. Not saying that's the case here but just stating fact. The city of Birmingham alone pays close to $5M/year in lawsuits most of which never see a courtroom.

This type of lawsuit could have merit, but then again, it is not surprising that someone involved in a study would sue. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened more. I feel for the parents, but a lawyer who is trying to get class-action status this early in the process sounds kinda fishy. And basing your case on what a government official says may sound good but, I suspect, the individuals that come out on UAB's side will be more impressive. But then again the goal my not be to go to trial...

I have been on cases before where what I believed initially wasn't what I believed after hearing the facts.

With that said, if the study was done over several years, you would think that they would have more families that experienced issues as a result of the studies.

There's not much of a claim to damages here. It sounds bad, but both oxygen levels in the study were accepted as standard of care, so whether they were in the study or not, the preemies would have been either at slightly elevated risk for eye damage or death. There was no way to know which was better in absence of a study like this one.

The issue is people feel like the consent forms didn't outline the risks clearly enough, but that's because there weren't any risks. And consent forms are legal gibberish anyway. No one reads them carefully, especially in the throws of an at-risk pregnancy. Having someone explain it to you in English is much more helpful, and they should have provided the doctors with a standardized script to read to brief and debrief the participants.

And, as it turns out, for the time being, the results are contradictory. As one risk increases, the other decreases. So there is some golden oxygen level between 85% and 95% wherein the risk of eye disease and death are balanced out. We won't know what it is unless we have another study though.

It's interesting to note that the people who elected not to participate in the study had a higher infant mortality rate than either experimental group in the study. But this is misleading. There was selection bias involved. The mothers who elected not to participate tended to be much sicker or more at risk for complications than those that were open to participating in the study.

The study was designed to fix a problem. When you enroll in a study like this you assume some risk. Interestingly, most preterm births are caused by poor decisions made by the mother (ie drug use, smoking, etc). I would be interested in seeing the medical file for each kid. The fact that this is a multi-institute study shows that there was good scientific merit to involve multiple hospitals. I want to see the facts.

The sample sizes for the preexisting data were really, really small, so the fact that this had over 1,000 participants makes it much more useful.

I thought I was going to have explain something about clinical studies and the statistics of health risks. Instead, we have the smartest and most knowledgeable fanbase in America outside of Rice and Northwestern.

I'll wait for the facts to come out before making a judgement, but I'll just add that UAB's Institutional Review Board for research ethics is exceptionally thorough.

Doesn't seem like they have a good claim.

1. No increased risk-- participants in the study weren't exposed to increased risk. The study randomly assigned a sat level, or their doctor would have just picked one. No one was exposed to an unreasonable treatment.

2. No damages. These weren't healthy babies, and no complications can be attributed to the fact that they were in the study. The complications are a fact that they were premature births. And as thebernreuter pointed out, nonparticipants faired worse. While it's not scientific evidence, no way you could stand in court and claim the study caused damages.

I think you have a few families who were not blessed with the completely healthy babies they imagined. In the course of looking for someone to blame, some lawyer out there saw the possibility of putting together a large class for a class-action. Right now they're looking for 5,000 dollars per child. That's nothing to everyone except for the lawyer, who's imagining a nice cut of the 5 mil total.

Knowing nothing specific other than what I read here (but knowing plenty about the research/IRB process), I can't imagine this case has a chance.

Ive said it a million times...if there's one area of medicine in which you can do everything right and still get sued, it's when dealing with labor&delivery/neonates. Sometimes things go poorly...when they do, folks have a need to find somebody to blame

But man does it sound bad until you actually read the story. "UAB HARMED PREMATURE BABIES!!!"

Good luck suing an agency of the state. Sovereign immunity is a thing that exists.

(04-19-2013 07:55 AM)thebernreuter Wrote:  But man does it sound bad until you actually read the story. "UAB HARMED PREMATURE BABIES!!!"

No, UAB was one of 23 hospitals involved in a nationwide study. The babies were given oxygen at the upper and lower range of the guidelines for 02 in preemies. They then watched to see which group responded better so that the standard of care could be refined. If you have two groups, almost by definition one is going to do better than the other one.

I don't doubt that there were some tragic cases here, but this was an at-risk population to start with. It's not like the researchers were acting to deliberately harm them.

(04-19-2013 02:13 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:55 AM)thebernreuter Wrote:  But man does it sound bad until you actually read the story. "UAB HARMED PREMATURE BABIES!!!"

No, UAB was one of 23 hospitals involved in a nationwide study. The babies were given oxygen at the upper and lower range of the guidelines for 02 in preemies. They then watched to see which group responded better so that the standard of care could be refined. If you have two groups, almost by definition one is going to do better than the other one.

I don't doubt that there were some tragic cases here, but this was an at-risk population to start with. It's not like the researchers were acting to deliberately harm them.

i think you may have missed bernreuters point

(04-19-2013 02:18 PM)LairDweller Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:13 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:55 AM)thebernreuter Wrote:  But man does it sound bad until you actually read the story. "UAB HARMED PREMATURE BABIES!!!"

No, UAB was one of 23 hospitals involved in a nationwide study. The babies were given oxygen at the upper and lower range of the guidelines for 02 in preemies. They then watched to see which group responded better so that the standard of care could be refined. If you have two groups, almost by definition one is going to do better than the other one.

I don't doubt that there were some tragic cases here, but this was an at-risk population to start with. It's not like the researchers were acting to deliberately harm them.

i think you may have missed bernreuters point

Not may have. Did.

Shrug. If anything I agree with his point - the headline writer made is sound like this was a UAB decision on a UAB study.

What I meant was " UAB HARMS PREMATURE BABIES"!!! followed by "No, UAB was one of..."

I don't think UAB was even the lead university like the article implied.