The US Government is outlawing drop-side cribs after the deaths of more than 30 infants and toddlers in the past decade, the Associated Press reports.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has voted unanimously to ban the manufacture, sale and re-sale of the cribs, which have a side rail that moves up and down, allowing parents to more easily lift their child from the crib.
YWN will post further details shortly.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
17 Responses
Nanny state strikes again. That is 30 infants and toddlers our of over 50,000,000 during the ten year period they are talking about.
The numbers mean that the chances of a child being injured by a defective crib is less than one in a million. Any product is dangerous if misused, and any product is dangerous if made in a defective manner with shoddy materials (and we have tort lawyers for this).
One in a million constitute very small odds. The government shouldn’t really be involved. At that rate, they would have to ban virtually everything.
M’zul nisht visin fin di tzuris but these have been sold for 100 years & NOW its a problem?
For those of us with drop down cribs, do we get a refund?
I agree with #1. Nothing is perfectly safe. By this logic, cars should have been banned a long time ago.
To put the numbers in perspective, during the past 30 years, lightning has killed an average of 58 Americans per year, which would be 580 per decade. So, almost 20 times as many people are killed by lightning than by these cribs.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/overview.htm
What could you do. The world is getting dumber and dumber, and you gatta take all risk away…
akuperma, there are easier ways to check your internet connection than to make comments like that. 30 infant deaths is more than enough reason to ban these cribs. Is it better to have a new recall every six months?
The problem with those dangerous cribs is that they were poorly manufactured, not because of the drop sides. I raised many children and I wouldn’t have been able to manage without my dropside cribs.I think the regulations should be made on making sturdier cribs that won’t malfunction WITH dropsides. When a baby falls asleep in your arms and you have to lower him gently into the crib so he won’t wake up, try doing that in a deep crib without dropsides. My cribs have strong METAL brackets, well screwed into the frame, with heavy metal springs under the mattress and will outlast any of the new junk on the market today.
Obviously none of the 30 were #1’s child.
You need to have more Chashivus for human life, pal
I’m not sure why your analysis doesn’t account for this, but it would seem that the argument in this case is that there is no loss and only benefit.
It is everyone’s interest to have the government limit production. If they disallow potentially dangerous cribs, no matter the statistical probability, and replace them with cribs that do not have that risk whatsoever, they are helping ensure children’s safety (and so we can certify this discussion as connected to yidishkeit, the value of even one life is equivalent to that of the entire world!).
Referencing a tort analysis, as you mentioned, this would make perfect sense. The burden on the hotels and childcare facilities is greatly limited by both the loss allocation theory (that they can simply raise their cost a small fraction to recoup the cost) and the loss allocation theory is even more greatly augmented by the fact that they can start their increases now, in a steady succession, and not have to bear any loss for up to a year.This burden on the companies is compared to the potential loss of life. Consider the Hand formula for negligence theory and see how this would come out.
Furthermore, for the consumers this is a fantastic law because the market will only have the safer cribs and they will be available at affordable prices. As opposed to financially challenged families having to settle for the drop-side crib. Why would anyone want to ever choose any amount of risk to their child’s (newborn!) life if unnecessary, no matter the probability?
It is very infrequent that I will defend akuperma but I have to do so in this case. As I noted above in comment 2, these cribs have been around for 100 years & NOW its a problem?!?!?!?
#2 and #5 — We should pass a law against lightning (heh – if they regulate the climate by statute…)
Seriously, the number of infants and toddlers comes from the census figures – the US has roughly four million kids born per year, which is how I came up with the number of 50,000,000 people who have been in the study group over the last decade. I then divided 30 by 50,000,000.
If we recalled a project for a one in a million accident, nothing would be safe. If consumers thought this was a problem, they would have stopped buying the model long ago. It is a mistake to allow some bureaucrats, many of whom have never had children, to ban products that the public wants, can afford, and that have only a one in a million chance of not working – and then only if misused or incmpetently manufactured.
#5, “30 infant deaths is more than enough reason to ban these cribs”. That may be true if it were in the span of 1 day but this is in the span of 10 YEARS!!!
I agree with mark levin. I have been blessed with six children ranging in age from 16 to 26 and I never had a problem. Why now!?
@ MarkLevin (x2) and Your Sister
That is possibly the most ludicrous, selfish, deplorable argument made yet. Because YOU have children that have been fine, and because YOU haven’t experienced a need, the protection of even just ONE child per CENTURY isn’t worth the unfortunately LATE advancement of our archaic ways in our society?
Each year, almost 250,000 children are injured in car crashes, meaning nearly 700 kids are harmed every day.
I propose the government bans children from riding in cars.
Emes VeYashrus – based on your logic, the above proposal would make sense. I agree the life of every human is extremely precious and one cannot assign a dollar value to it. However, you need to weigh the risk with the consequences. The issue with these cribs is more of an issue with manufacturers making the side drop function properly and parents being vigilant to make sure the side of the crib is properly secured after putting the baby in.
Our job is to take proper precautions to protect ourselves and our children, but these precautions need to be reasonable and logical, otherwise, we are demonstrating a lack of trust in G-d.
@ MisterG
Your hypothetical situation is absolutely incomparable to the case at hand. In your hypothetical there is either option of having a utility, the likes of which there is no replacement available, and eliminating it from the society.
In the case at hand there is an equally sufficient replacement available that would completely eliminate the entire risk, with minimal burden as a consequence (harder to get the baby is while sleeping). There is a perfectly similar situation related to cars, since you used that analogy, that can be drawn of something that the government imposes (and SHOULD) the production of materials in a particular fashion (car makers MUST conform to the regulations) and safety procedures that Americans must follow event though it will add burden. We call them seat-belts.
This extremely small risk would not be considered a Sakana al pi Halacha. For example, you would not be allowed to be Mechallel Shabbos to “rescue” a baby sleeping in one of these cribs! We take far greater risks every day, such as driving a car, because we have no other realistic option. Who knows how much back pain will be caused to parents who are unable to lower the railing before putting in their babies?
I’ve just been informed of another type of crib that may not be included in this ban. There is a crib where the side has hinges across the middle and it folds down, instead of dropping down. This may be a cost effective alternative to the drop side cribs.