Posts Tagged ‘safety’

Can Copper Surfaces and Duct Tape Reduce Hospital Infections and Deaths?

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

Image from medgadget.com

How many times have you heard about someone entering the hospital healthy, or relatively so, and developing a dangerous infection while hospitalized? What about the number of times that you may have visited your own doctor’s office or your child’s pediatrician’s office and wondered whether the cold you got a few days later was coincidence or the result of having been in the waiting and exam rooms following other sick patients? Have you ever considered what cleaning procedures are done in hospital rooms when one patient is discharged before another takes their place?

In the past, Brian Nash and the other legal bloggers here at Eye Opener have written posts and made mention of the importance of hospital cleanliness and sterility, see the related posts below. We have been involved in cases involving the devastating results of infections. However, everyone knows that there are going to be germs in hospitals. Even the best hospitals have to work to keep the patients, rooms and visitors clean and safe.

Well, there is news that may make keeping hospitals and other health care environments less germy in the future. Two recent articles have focused on seemingly simple solutions, copper and duct tape, that may have major impacts on infection control.

Copper Surfaces Dramatically Reduce Infections by Killing Bacteria

A Reuters’ article reports that a recent study “presented at the World Health Organization’s 1st International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC) in Geneva, Switzerland” shows that “replacing the most heavily contaminated touch surfaces in ICUs with antimicrobial copper will control bacteria growth and cut down on infection rates.” According to the Reuters’ article:

[a]ntimicrobial copper surfaces in intensive care units (ICU) kill 97 percent of bacteria that can cause hospital-acquired infections, according to preliminary results of a multisite clinical trial in the United States. The results also showed a 40 percent reduction in the risk of acquiring an infection.

This news could have a profound impact on health-care costs, disease spread, and most importantly lives lost. If hospitals are able to replace some of their current surfaces with copper surfaces, at least in the parts of the hospital that are most frequently the source of infections, there could be a dramatic improvement in hospital-acquired infections.

Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States behind heart disease, strokes and cancer.

According to estimates provided by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in every 20 hospitalized U.S. patients acquires an HAI, resulting in 100,000 lives lost each year.

From Reuters

Perhaps even more infections could be prevented if these changes could be made outside of just ICUs. For instance, perhaps copper surfaces could replace highly touched surfaces on sink handles, the doors to hospital rooms, hospital bed rails, or in out-patient surgery centers and long-term care facilities that are not housed within hospitals.

Duct Tape Warnings Keep Others Far Enough Away from Infected Patients

Image from ducttapesales.com

An article from Medicalnewstoday reports that some hospitals are using plain duct tape – just colored red – to achieve a reduction in infection rates from highly infectious patients without having to deal with the hassle and expense of all visitors or hospital personnel who enter the room having to rescrub and use new gowns every time they enter the room of an infected patient. The study looked at highly infectious diseases like C. diff that require isolation of patients and very careful hand washing to avoid spreading the infection. So how does duct tape help?

The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) commissioned a study to corner off a three foot perimeter around the bed of patients in isolation. Medical personnel could enter the room unprotected if they stayed outside the perimeter. Direct patient contact or presence inside the perimeter meant a redo of the cleansing process. The concept, called “Red Box” employs red duct tape, a color used as it provides a strong visual reminder to those who enter the room to be aware.

The study found that 33% of all who entered the rooms could do so without the addition of gowns and gloves, saving the environment, hospital and patient costs, and time without compromising the patient or the medical personnel.

From Medicalnewstoday

How Else Can We Reduce Infections?

What ideas do you have for the use of copper surfaces? Do you think that copper surfaces or duct tape could make a dramatic difference in the safety of hospital admission? What about the cost? Do you think that hospitals would pay the upfront costs of replacing surfaces with copper to be able to dramatically cut infection rates? What about other low cost solutions like duct-tape around the perimeter of the bed? Can you think of other low-cost solutions that could minimize infections and maximize safety?

Related Posts:

New federal study finds ‘lax infection control’ at same-day surgery centers

FDA warning to healthcare professionals: use sterile prep pads!

Home Births – Increasingly Popular But Are They Safe?

Saturday, June 4th, 2011

image from hobomama.com

Many little girls grow up fantasizing about what they want to be when they grow up; perhaps they want to be the President, or an artist, or a doctor, or an architect. Others might be daydreaming about being a princess or an astronaut. However, I do not know of many little girls who grow up dreaming about how they would like to bring a child into this world. Yet once these girls grow up into adults, many of them feel strongly about having a birth plan that is just as magical as all of their other dreams. Images of a comfortable labor or a display of womanly strength may play a role; perhaps they want music or a particular image available to them. Some want as few interventions as possible, while others would prefer an epidural at the hospital door. No matter what vision of childbirth a woman has, the desired end result is almost universally a healthy child.

Home Birth Rates Decreasing for Years…Now Dramatically Increase

It is no wonder that women often have strong feelings about what they want for their birth experience and how to best accomplish their goals. Historically, women gave birth at home. That practice changed and by the early 1950s, almost all women in the United States gave birth in a hospital setting. According to an NPR article about a recent study published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, “the percentage of home births in the U.S. had been dropping slowly but steadily every year” from 1989 to 2004. Surprisingly, the trends reversed dramatically in the four-year period between 2004 and 2008. The study found a 20 percent increase in the number of women in the United States who gave birth at home between 2004 and 2008. Despite this increase, we are still talking about a small percentage of total births – less than 1 percent.

Increase is Mostly in Non-Hispanic White Women

A twenty percent increase is still a very large amount in a 4-year period. I was interested in the implications of this change. First, one of the most surprising (to me) findings in the study was that the change was not seen across the board. The article explained that “[m]ost of the rise was due to an increase in home births among non-Hispanic white women.” A New York Times article said that:

[t]he turnabout was driven by an increase of 28 percent in home births among non-Hispanic white women, for whom one in 100 births occurred at home in 2008. That rate was three to six times higher than for any other race or ethnic group.

I did not find any explanation or hypothesis for why this particular segment of the population was increasingly choosing home births over hospital births. Though the study does suggest that it was a change by choice as the article explained that “[r]esearchers found among the 25 states that tracked planning status in 2008, 87 percent of births that occurred at home were planned.”

Are Home Births Advisable? Are they Safe?

So, is the increase in home births a good thing? Certainly, I support a woman being comfortable and happy in her choice for a birth plan. I have given birth twice and know that it can be both one of the more uncomfortable and simultaneously one of the most overwhelmingly joyous moments of a woman’s life. A home birth affords a mother a setting that is likely more comfortable and certainly more familiar than most hospitals. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, women really just want a healthy outcome for both them and their baby. Can a home birth accomplish this goal?

Most of the medical community, certainly most associated with hospitals, say that home births are not the safest option for babies; however, neither are all hospital births.

Leading members of the medical community respond that hospitals — where 99 percent of all U.S. births take place, according to the CDC — are the safest places to have a baby, with modern medical interventions available.

The newborn death rate is two to three times higher for planned home births than for those that take place in hospitals, said George Macones, chairman of the committee on obstetrical practice at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has long opposed home births. Some home-birth advocates say such studies are flawed.

“There’s no question that if you come to a hospital, there’s a one in three chance you end up with a C-section, and it’s certainly true that some of them aren’t medically indicated,” Macones said. But at home, where there is less monitoring of the baby, there is more chance of a bad outcome, he said. “Obstetrics can be a risky business. Things can go wrong.”

From a Washington Post article

Home births, even those attended by a certified nurse midwife, do not provide the medical technology and care that can be present at in a hospital setting. Perhaps this is what many women may be trying to escape when choosing to give birth at home. I know that normally I would rather stay out of a hospital at all costs since hospitals may raise the risks associated with medical interventions and infections. Additionally, the high C-section rate at hospitals may also subject women to unnecessary risks. This is one of the concerns mentioned in the New York Times article:

Other research has suggested many women choose home birth because of concern about high rates of Caesarean sections and other interventions at hospitals, said the new study’s lead author, Marian F. MacDorman, a statistician with the National Center for Health Statistics. “The two trends are not unrelated,” Dr. MacDorman said.

Additionally, the NPR article reports that the new study published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care found that birth outcomes are improving for babies born at home:

Researchers … found a statistically significant improvement in birth outcomes for babies born in the home. Infants who were born preterm fell by 16 percent. The percentage of home births that resulted in infants with a low birth weight also fell by 17 percent…One reason for the better outcomes could be that more women are planning to give birth at home. Researchers found among the 25 states that tracked planning status in 2008, 87 percent of births that occurred at home were planned. MacDorman also suggested that midwives could be getting better at choosing low-risk women to be candidates for home birth.

Are Birth Outcomes at Home Improving Because Lower Risk Mothers Are Delivering at Home?

Now this idea is one that resonated with me. Perhaps the key to the safety of home births is which women are giving birth at home. I remembered reading a story in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago about a local midwife who was convicted in a baby’s death. What stuck with me about this tragic story was that the mother did not seem (at least to me) to be a good candidate for a home birth. A couple of small paragraphs late in the article explain:

It was a case most obstetricians would call high-risk: The first-time mother in Alexandria was 43, and the baby was breech, which essentially means upside-down from the normal head-first position.

The baby’s position wasn’t the problem, Carr said; the problem was that the baby’s head became stuck.

Two women who supported the mother during the September delivery said in interviews that both Carr and the mother knew the risks involved in such a delivery. They both said everything was going well, until it wasn’t.

This sounds like a horrible accident that could have happened even with the best of intentions. However, another Washington Post article explained the details surrounding how the midwife, Karen Carr, came to be working with this mother:

[Law enforcement officials] said Carr was unlicensed in Virginia, agreed to perform a high-risk breech delivery in a woman’s home after other care providers refused, and ignored warning signs that the delivery was not going well.

Ultimately, prosecutors said, Carr allowed the baby to remain with his head stuck in the birth canal for 20 minutes and then, after delivery, tried to resuscitate him for 13 minutes before calling for emergency medical help. The boy never gained consciousness or displayed brain activity, and he died two days later at Children’s National Medical Center in the District when life support was removed.

The parents sought out Carr in August after nurses at a licensed birthing center in Alexandria said they could not deliver at home because of the fetus’s position in the womb; breech births are most often delivered by Caesarean section because the risk of complications from a breech delivery — in which the baby is positioned feet-first — are high, according to medical officials.

Carr agreed to do a home delivery and, prosecutors said, declined to call for help when things got out of control. A medical examiner ruled that the death was due to complications from a breech birth at home.

While the midwife might have been performing outside the standard of care, my question in reading these articles is whether it is reasonable for a midwife to agree to a home delivery for a high risk mother, who is of advanced maternal age, whose child is breech, and who has already been turned down for delivery by a licensed birthing center based on the risks. It seems to me that the midwife and the family were taking a grave risk with this child’s life – a risk that the parents must have at least somewhat acknowledged since they sought out the home birth after being turned away by the birthing center. To what degree is it the midwife’s responsibility to assist a woman who insists on a home birth despite the risks? To what degree is it her responsibility to refuse to participate if the risks to the child are unacceptably high?

Does Insurance Matter?

Finally, I wonder what role insurance will play in the increasing number of mothers choosing to give birth at home. Vermont’s governor just signed a bill into law that will require private health insurance companies to pay for midwives during home births.  According to the Forbes article about the new bill, Vermont joins New York, New Hampshire and New Mexico in this requirement. Vermont’s rate of home birth is the highest in the country at 3 percent. The bill is expected to lower costs for low-risk births for women who choose to birth at home. I wonder, however, whether the choice to have a home birth that is reimbursed by insurance will open the door to additional mothers choosing to birth at home even if the risks are high.

What Do You Think?

At the end of the day, it seems that home births may be a good option for some low-risk women who have the support of a well trained midwife and accessible medical back-up in case of problems. That being said, for those at higher risk, perhaps there need to be other safeguards in place.

What do you think? Are you or have you been involved in home births? How are woman normally empowered to have the birth they want if they are high risk? What can be done to make the choice safer for the baby?

Related Posts:

The Grief of Losing an Unborn Child

Laughing Gas Making Its Way Back into the Labor and Delivery Department

Week in Review (April 18 – 22, 2011) The Eye Opener Health and Law Blog

Saturday, April 23rd, 2011

From the Editor:

This past week, our blawgers (guess I’ll use this term now since we are legal bloggers) were busy on their keyboards once again. They covered a number of topics relating to law, medicine, health and patient safety. This week we posted a primer on aortic aneurysms and how they can present as back pain, a blog about “robot” anesthesiology, a disturbing post about how the recent threat of a federal government shutdown was averted but at a cost to those who are in dire need of healthcare, an interesting piece about laughing gas making its way back into the American medical scene for labor and delivery and finally, and a highly read piece on a not-to-often discussed topic but one of potential grave concern – shift switching by nurses and how this might impact patient safety.

Here’s our usual “quick summaries” for you to peruse, click on, read and comment:

Aneurysms – a deadly condition you need to know about!

Our in-house medical specialist, Theresa Neumann, wrote another highly educational and need-to-know piece about a condition that can present as back pain but which has deadly consequences for those who have this condition.

As Theresa’s research made us aware – “1 in every 50 males over the age of 55 have an abdominal aneurysm, this is a more common pathologic diagnosis than some others.  Men also corner the market at an 8-to-1 ratio as compared to women with abdominal aneurysms.”

As is the case with all of Theresa’s writings, we offer through her valuable information from someone who’s “been there” and “done that” in the clinical setting. Don’t miss her post entitled Aneurysms: A Potential Deadly Condition That May Present as Back Pain.

Who’s using remote control and a joy stick to put a breathing tube down your throat?

Mike Sanders brought to our attention a new practice of anesthesiologists – in Canada – that may soon be part of anesthesia management in the United States as well – using robotics to intubate patients. While you can certainly learn about the concept of intubation by reading Mike’s blog, basically, this is placing a small tube down a patient’s airway so that the anesthesiologist can control the airway and provide ventilation to a patient undergoing surgery.

Here’s an except -

Medical News Today is reporting that Dr. Thomas Hemmerling of McGill University and his team have developed a robotic system for intubation that can be operated via remote control.

For more on this fascinating new project by Dr. Hammerling and his team, read Mike’s post entitled Robot Anesthesiologists?

Government Shutdown Avoided – but who will pay the price for the “deals” that were cut?

The newest member of our blogging team, Jason Penn (fast approaching veteran blawger status) did a fascinating piece of the story-behind-the-story of the recent crisis our country faced when the federal government was on the verge of a shutdown. We all know about deals being cut in the back rooms of congress. We all know that the government avoided a shutdown this time around when the senate and house worked out a compromise that resulted in millions of dollars being earmarked for cuts in the budget.

Jason tells us what programs relating to healthcare will suffer as a result of these negotiated cuts. As some wise person once said, “why is it always those who are least represented who bear the burden of budget cuts?” Maybe it’s because they can’t afford lobbyists to protect them like those who need protection the least can.

Read Jason’s eye opening and no-punches-pulled report on just who will be the victims of the deals in his post of this past week Budget Crisis Avoided, But What About the Babies? Can They Live With $504 Million Less in Funding?

Will moms-to-be now be “laughing” their way through labor and delivery?

One of our seasoned blawgers, who every now and then is driven to report on the off-beat issues of law, medicine and healthcare, Jon Stefanuca, stepped up to the plate once again and took a swing at the return of an old-timer to the arsenal of pain relief for mothers-to-be undergoing labor and delivery – laughing gas!

As Jon’s piece in Eye Opener this past week tells us -

It appears that a number of hospitals are now considering making laughing gas available as a pain relief measure for women in labor. A hospital in San Francisco and another in Seattle have been using laughing gas in their labor and delivery units for a while. Hospitals like Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center plan to offer laughing gas to laboring mothers in the immediate future.

For more about this return of laughing gas to our obstetrical units, read Jon’s piece Laughing Gas Making Its Way Back Into the Labor and Delivery Department.

Nursing and Sleep Deprivation: Is it a risk factor for patient safety?

I suspect somewhere along the line you have done “an all-nighter” – whether it was getting ready for a big test, a social event, or for some other reason. Remember how you felt as you made it through that night or the next day? Have you ever done it several nights in the same week? How about doing it a few times one week and then do the same thing the next week and the next…. Well you no doubt get the idea. You’ve been exhausted, right? Well what about nurses, who have to do this for a living?

Nurses have lives too. They have children, home responsibilities and obligations, and some form of social life. What happens when they swap shifts or are asked to do “a double”?

Sarah Keogh was back blogging this past week and wrote a fascinating (and concerning) post entitled Nurses Switching Shifts: Does a Lack of Sleep Put Patients at Risk? We invite you to read Sarah’s piece and share your comments. Are you a nurse who lives this lifestyle? What are your thoughts about nurses being allowed to work multiple shifts or back-to-back shifts in terms of patient safety? Should there be restrictions on nurses’ shifts just as there (finally) are work restrictions on doctors-in-training?

A “Sneak Peak” of the week ahead

As part of our continuing effort to “get the word out there” on issues relating to health, medicine, patient safety and the law, we post from time to time more extensive research pieces called White Papers. Well, the time has arrived for another White Paper to be posted on our website. Marian Hogan has completed her piece on a very important topic – Patient Controlled Analgesia in today’s hospital environment. She examines how some hospitals are now heavily marketing a spa-like environment so you choose them over the competition. Yet lurking in the shadows of these facilities which promote flat screen TV’s, valet parking, in-room safes and the like is a very dangerous practice: placing patients on patient-controlled-analgesia (for pain relief) without vital monitoring devices and patient safety practices. It’s at the “printer” now; we hope to have it online this week.

From our blawgers you can expect reports on a disturbing fight between manufacturers and child safety experts over – blinds! After decades of controversy, you’ll find out where the battle lines are now drawn, who’s winning and who the real losers are in this war. Wonder how healthcare safety is doing since the report To Err is Human was published by the Institute of Medicine over a decade ago? Jason Penn will be providing an updated report card, which you should not miss. Alcohol and surgery – not a good combination! Jon Stefanuca plans on posting a piece that looks deeper in the obvious problems with this potentially deadly combination.

This is just a taste of what’s to come. I better wrap-up now. I’m working on finishing the third installment on Medical Technology and Patient Safety. Oh yeah, if time permits, I might even get to post a piece I’ve been working on this past week – a lawyer’s rant about our modern day love affair with mediation practices and trends.

As always, don’t forget - subscribe to the Eye Opener and tell your friends about us too! …and… don’t forget to join our social networking communities on Facebook and Twitter.

Hope you have a great weekend!

Week in Review: If you missed this past week’s blogs – catch up!

Sunday, April 10th, 2011

This past week was a busy one for our bloggers. It was also a very busy week in our law practice. Over the last two months, we have also had two new lawyers join us – Sarah Keogh and Jason Penn. Sarah has contributed a number of posts already. Jason , who just started this past Monday, will soon be sharing his contributions, thoughts and comments with you as well. We’re very happy to have both of them. I’m sure you join us in wishing them a very warm welcome.

Last week our writers covered a number of topics related to health, medicine, child safety, medical technology and patient safety. We started the week off with a piece by Brian Nash on some key facts women need to be aware of when having an epidural for labor, delivery and post-partum pain relief.

Epidurals

There can be no doubt that thousands of epidurals are administered to women every day throughout this country. This form of analgesia (pain relief) has become probably the most popular form of anesthetic management and apparently is generally believed to be essentially risk free. As this week’s piece, Having an epidural when you have your baby? 3 questions to ask the doctor, reports, some literature gives the figure of complications from epidurals as high as 23% - ranging in severity from minor inconveniences, to life-long major disabilities and even death.

This particular piece was written as a result of several cases in which we have been involved when women, who had undergone an epidural, became essentially paralyzed from the waist down. We raise some questions for women to ask the doctor and suggest they just might want to ask those questions before they find themselves in the process of labor or when they are going through the recovery phase of having given birth to their baby. We believe it’s an important piece for women – and frankly for all – to read so that they have a much better idea of what they should expect with an epidural and what the risks and benefits are of this wonderful yet potentially life-altering anesthetic technique.

Shaken-Baby-Syndrome

On Wednesday, Jon Stefanuca again brought to the public’s attention a problem that is probably as old as childbirth. Everyone who has had the experience of taking care of a child – particularly a baby – knows that along with the joy of parenting comes the physical and emotional toll on parents and care-givers. The human condition makes us all susceptible to being less than completely tolerant, forgiving and gentle with little ones when we are under stress, frustrated or just plain exhausted. The response to the persistent crying can simply not be “a good shake.”

Medicine and science (and unfortunately the courtroom) have given a name to a syndrome of injury babies can suffer when that “just a good shake” approach is used. While a parent or care-giver may think it unimaginable to strike a child, they may not realize just now much harm they can do with “just a good shake.” Jon brings this information and some expert tips and tricks on how to deal with these difficult times parents and care-givers face in their everyday lives in his piece Shaken Baby Syndrome – What we all should know to prevent child abuse.

Makena: New Anti-Prematurity Drug

Thursday, Sarah Keogh reported on a relatively new drug called Makena, which has been found to help pregnant women, who have previously had a premature infant. I say “relatively” since according to Sarah’s piece, a compounding pharmacy could and was making this medication prior to the FDA giving K-V Pharmaceutical Company the exclusive rights to manufacture this drug for a period of 7 years.

Read Sarah’s piece, Makena: Drug to fight prematurity leads to major firestorm, and see what the controversy is all about. How could people possible be upset with a drug that can fight premature birth? Prematurity is one of the major causes of significant childbirth injuries such as cerebral palsy. Sarah’s blog makes it all too clear why people are upset and why the March of Dimes withdrew its sponsorship for Makena.

Medical Technology and Patient Safety

The week ended with Part II of my series on medical technology and whether all the new toys, bells and whistles of our modern healthcare system are truly advancing safe, efficient and effective delivery of healthcare. The week’s piece focuses on perhaps one of the largest advances in the healthcare industry – electronic medical records (EMR).

The blog, Medical Technology and Patient Safety – Part II – EMR’s (electronic medical records), brings a lawyer’s perspective to this topic. Much has already been written – and frankly will continue to be written – about EMR’s by the medical profession. Controversy has filed the pages of journals and at times probably slowed traffic on the internet (okay – maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration) since this new marvelous technological advance was rolled-out in our medical institutions.  Those writing and fighting about it have been the end-users themselves – the medical professionals, who have to deal with the issues and flaws that have surfaced with this wonderful new technology. I thought it was about time to tell you how this plays out by another end-user – the lawyer who now deals with EMR’s. This piece is also intended as the foundation for what we as lawyer have seen play-out in terms of patient safety and health as a result of EMR implementation.

Sneak Peak of the Week Ahead

I anticipate that next week we’ll be seeing Jason Penn with his first blog on a recent report about numerous safety violations by hospitals in our practice jurisdictions – Maryland and Washington, D.C. Mike Sanders will be bringing to our readers aN old but back-in-the-news report on super infections, which still seem to be – unfortunately – thriving in our nation’s hospitals. We’ll start off this coming week with a piece by Theresa Neumann, our highly acclaimed in-house physician’s assistant expert, on spinal stroke. We all know about strokes that can damage the brain. Theresa will be sharing her insights on an equally devastating stroke of the spinal cord. I also suspect – shhh – that we’ll be reading more from Sarah Keogh this coming week. If the practice of law doesn’t get too much in the way, I am also hoping to share with you some real life examples – from a lawyer’s perspective – of just how EMR’s may not be advancing the causes of patient safety and health.

As with all our blogs, we sincerely invite you to not only read our thoughts and comments but to also share yours with us and our readers. Our latest stats show that around 10,000 pages are viewed by our readers and visitors every month! We sincerely thank all of you, who have taken the time out of your busy lives to read our offerings in The Eye Opener – Views and Opinions from the Nash Community. We invite you to share our posts with your friends and colleagues. Don’t forget to sign-up for easy delivery to your email inbox. Last – but certainly not least – come join our social media communities on Facebook and Twitter.

Seat belt law not ‘clicking’ with House

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

A House subcommittee has killed a bill in Virginia, that would have made the failure to wear a seatbelt a primary offense.  Although there is another version of the bill that has cleared the Virginia Senate, it has been referred back to the same subcommittee that killed the first bill.  Some believe this bill will suffer the same fate:

Last week, the subcommittee voted to table House Bill 901, sponsored by Delegate William K. Barlow, D-Smithfield.

“This is the second year I’ve tried it. It never passes in the subcommittee,” Barlow said. “The bill gets killed at the lowest level.”

Now the subcommittee has been assigned Senate Bill 9, proposed by Sen. Harry B. Blevins, R-Chesapeake. It passed 24-16 in the Senate last month.

Blevins said he is not optimistic about the reception SB 9 will receive in the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee.

“The bill doesn’t have much of a chance,” Blevins said. “I’m a realist.”

Opponents of the bill cite government intrusion as a justification for rejecting such a law.

An article, as published through the online site of The Gainesville Times, briefly outlined the current law:

Currently, Virginia law states that “occupants of front seats who are 16 years or older are required to use safety lap belts and shoulder harnesses.” However, breaking that law is a secondary offense: Police may cite you for a seat-belt violation only if they see you committing another offense, such as speeding or running a red light.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, ask yourself:  ”What is the risk of having my seatbelt on, vs. not wearing one at all?”  Are there children in the car with you?  What kind of a message does it send to them if we do not buckle up?  Would you tell your child that they do not have to wear their seatbelt, or be ‘ok with it’ if they didn’t?  Remember, as much as we can control our vehicle, we can never control anyone else’s.  Be safe out there, please!