Cruise Ship Rapes Spur New Legislation

Guest Post by Michale Ehline, Esq.

Cruise ship rapes caused new legislation to be enacted, the problem of passengers being assaulted is much more frequent than most passengers realize and it is not something that the cruise line puts in any of their literature. The legislation was voted in without any difficultly, because whether passengers realize it or not the ship they are on is not registered in the United Sates, even when it is one of the popular cruise lines that everyone does not even second guess that it is American. This throws a whole different light on a cruise ship rape, since the ship is carrying a flag from a different country and follows their laws.

Cruise ship rapes caused new legislation to be enacted and if passengers were aware of this prior to taking a cruise it could allow them to use the necessary caution onboard the vessel as they would use in their own Newport Beach, California neighborhood. The fact that they are not made aware of the dangers and not protected enough onboard the ship can mean that the cruise line can be held accountable. When the cruise ship rape involves a crew member, the cruise line is clearly at fault for not screening their employees properly before putting them on a vessel with unsuspecting passengers.

The American cruise ship passenger that becomes a rape victim will find it necessary to have the representation of a cruise ship rape attorney, because the laws can be confusing, the litigation complex and the time limits to file the legal claim can be rather short. The Newport Beach passenger that has been a victim of a cruise ship rape can and should hold the cruise line responsible, as their safety was in the hands of the cruise ship crew members.

The experience and the knowledge that the personal injury attorney Los Angeles or Newport Beach cruise ship rape attorney will be able to file the necessary paperwork on time and will be able to build a lawsuit that will hold the cruise line accountable for the assault that took place on their vessel. This can help to put some closure to the emotional trauma the cruise ship passenger has suffered and at the same time it will put the cruise line on notice that this lack of protection for cruise ship passengers will not be tolerated when they leave the ports of Southern California.

If you were injured in a cruise ship accident, or other serious case, contact Ehline Law Firm PC at 201 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401. 310.376.8488. Thanks for reading this great piece and be on the look out for more good stuff from our bloggers and friends.

Ehline Law Firm PC
From the desk of: Michael P. Ehline, Esq.
201 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 376-8488 Fax: (310) 301-8488
Web: EhlineLaw.com
Email: issuethewrit@gmail.com

What is Anti-Aging Medicine?

The three basic rules of anti-aging medicine are, respectively:

  • Don’t get sick
  • Don’t get old
  • Don’t die

The longer you live, the better your chances are for living even longer. By taking good care of your physical and mental self, you will be around to avail yourself of the latest biotechnological advancements to further optimize your life and achieve that triple-digit lifespan.

Engage in early detection and regular screenings. Engage in early detection and regular screenings, offering the very first opportunities to identify, prevent, and intervene effectively in disease. The alternative? Costly healthcare for the aging population which will bankrupt the nation’s public and private healthcare programs: Disease: Cost for care per person per day; Alzheimer’s Disease: over $100, Stroke: $ 37, Parkinson’s Disease: $10-$25, Osteoporosis: over $14, and Cancers (various types): $5 to $10.

From vanity to a vision of optimal health. Every day, consumers are flocking to doctors’ offices in search of ways to erase life’s little signs of age: weight gain, hair loss, skin that has lost its youthful suppleness and glow, the list goes on. About 77% of all Americans now living were born after 1939 and many of these people are noticing these signs of aging in their mirrors, on their bath scales, and in the job market.

While many anti-aging patients first see an anti-aging specialist for reasons of vanity, in many instances, how these patients look reflects on how their body’s systems, organs, tissues, and cells are functioning. The health and well-being of the majority of cosmetically-oriented patients often can be improved by a qualified anti-aging specialist, such as one certified by the American Board of Anti-Aging Medicine (ABAAM) or a health practitioner credentialed by the American Board of Anti-Aging Health Practitioners (ABAAHP Diplomat).

As specialists keenly interested in the long-term whole-body physical, mental, and spiritual health of patients, practitioners of anti-aging medicine employ innovative diagnostics and therapeutic interventions to detect, prevent, and treat aging-related diseases. Anti-aging medicine is NOT solely hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Anti-aging is a multidisciplinary approach to whole-body wellness and longevity, incorporating a variety of treatments as medically appropriate.

Hormone Replacement Therapy: If you do opt for hormone replacement therapy, make sure your doctor employs only natural, bio-identical hormones (BHRT). BHRTs have the same chemical structure as their counterparts that occur naturally in the human body. BHRT hormones are therefore able to fully replicate the original functions with little or no adverse side effect profile. Make sure your doctor first tests for your baseline levels, explains to you safe target increases to achieve youthful levels, and monitors you every 3-6 months.

Knowledge is power, and all consumers should have access to the latest science presented in a manner that non-scientists can understand.

The Hormone Replacement Therapy Debate

Bioidentical Hormones vs. Synthetic Hormones

Now that more and more women are becoming educated on preventative medicine and anti-aging, the debate is heating up and the very bioidentical hormones that have been used safely for decades across the world are coming under fire in the US. Proponents of bioidentical hormones claim that they are safer than comparable synthetic and non human versions of Hormone Replacement Therapy. Of special concern is the fact that the FDA, big Pharma, state medical boards, and the media claim there is little or no evidence to support claims that bioidentical hormones are safer or more effective.

The term “bioidentical HRT” refers to the use of hormones that are exact copies of endogenous human hormones, including estriol, estradiol, and progesterone, as opposed to synthetic versions with different chemical structures or nonhuman versions, such as Conjugated Equine Estrogens. Bioidentical hormones are also often referred to as “natural hormones,” which can be confusing because bioidentical hormones are synthesized, while some estrogens from a natural source, such as equine urine, are not considered bioidentical because many of their components are foreign to the human body.

Women who had lost their quality of life because of Tubal Ligation Syndrome, hysterectomies, or hormone imbalances associated with aging, report getting their lives back with the use of bioidentical hormones. Many who complained of insomnia, weight gain, depression, memory problems, low libido, aging skin, were able to resolve these issues without anti-depressants, benzodiazapines, or sleeping pills. Those who discovered BHRT described a light bulb going back on and getting their lives back. So, if America is a free country, and a woman can choose whether she wants to use synthetic chemicals such as Prempro or Birth Control Pills, have an abortion, or use bioidentical hormones, why is she being denied the right to choose the latter? Why are physicians being threatened not to prescribe BHRT in the state of Louisiana and being forced to send their patients to Texas for treatment? Why are natural forms of Estriol being banned in America? It would appear that our governing bodies and the media are willing to sacrifice women’s health in the interest of protecting big pharma.

Menopause

Just this morning, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the medical commentator on the Today Show, instructed all menopausal women not to take any Hormone Replacement Therapy. She cited the very negative outcomes that was seen with the Women’s Health Initiative. This was a vast clinical trial involving more than 100K women and looked at the effect of estrogen and progestin therapy. The study was stopped when it was recognized that women taking Prempro were at a 25% increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer and heart disease. Snyderman went on to express concerns about all forms of Hormone Replacement Therapy including bio-identical hormone replacement because according to her there was “no evidence” to support the claim that they are safer than commonly used synthetic hormones.

Studies Show Bioidentical HRT to be Safe

In actuality, there are hundreds of studies showing the safety of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy which would make one question the honesty of Dr. Snyderman and why she would purposely withhold the truth from women. Furthermore, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have ordered pharmacies to stop providing estriol, stating that it is a new, unapproved drug with unkown safety and effectiveness. This is the same FDA that has approved the use of synthetic birth control pills in 14 year olds to control acne and the use of the depo-provera shot for birth control in young women, which contains the same synthetic progestin as Prempro. Whose side are they on?

Nevertheless, estriol has been used for decades without reported safety concerns and is a component of medications approved for use worldwide. The FDA has acknowledged that it is unaware of any adverse events associated with the use of compounded medications containing estriol, and US Congress is considering a resolution (HR342) to reverse the FDA’s decision to restrict its use.

The definitive article on Bio-Identical Hormones versus Synthetic has been written by Kent Holtorf, MD published in Postgraduate Medicine, Volume 121, Issue 1, January 2009, which evaluates the evidence comparing bioidentical hormones, including progesterone, estradiol, and estriol, with the commonly used nonbioidentical versions of HRT for clinical efficacy, physiologic actions on breast tissue, and risks for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Holtorf in his work did an exhaustive literature search and reviewed an array of Journal articles and published papers documenting human clinical studies, animal studies, and in vitro experimental work that compared bio-identical and non-bioidentical hormones as well as focusing on the physiological and biochemical aspects of the hormones.

Results showed that patients reported greater satisfaction with HRT’s that contain progesterone compared with those that contain a synthetic progestin. Bioidentical hormones have some distinctly different, potentially opposite, physiological effects compared with their synthetic counterparts, which have different chemical structures. Both physiological and clinical data have indicated that progesterone is associated with a diminished risk for breast cancer, compared with the increased risk associated with synthetic progestins. Estriol has some unique physiological effects, which differentiate it from estradiol, estrone, and conjugated equine estrogens. Estriol would be expected to carry less risk for breast cancer, although no randomized controlled trials have been documented. Synthetic progestins have a variety of negative cardiovascular effects, which may be avoided with progesterone.

Progesterone

                                                  Natural Progesterone

The effect of progesterone compared with Progestin, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) included a 30% reduction in sleep problems, a 50% reduction in anxiety, a 60% reduction in depression, a 30% reduction in somatic symptoms, a 25% reduction in menstrual bleeding, a 40% reduction in cognitive difficulties, and a 30% improvement in sexual function. Overall, 65% of women felt that HRT combined with progesterone was better than the HRT combined with synthetic progestin, MPA.

In conclusion, physiological data and clinical outcomes demonstrate that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including lower risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more efficacious than their synthetic and animal derived counterparts. Until evidence is found to the contrary, bioidentical hormones remain the preferred method of HRT.

Pamela Egan, DNP, CDE
Doctor of Nursing Practice
MS, Metabolic & Nutritional Medicine
Fellow, Metabolic Medical Institute
MN, Gerontology Mental Health
Certified Diabetes Educator

She can be reached at 985-892-3031 or www.pamelaegan.com.