The Discussion Surrounding Health Care & Breast Implant Leaks - Essay Example

Running Head: The Discussion Surrounding Healthcare & Breast Implant Leaks The Discussion Surrounding Health Care & Breast Implant Leaks Institution Instructor’s Name Course Date The debate over health care has been an issue that many have taken on, especially in the months since the Inauguration of US President Barack Obama. The position of this presidency would be that all Americans should have the right to health care coverage that would not only be affordable but also, maintain accessibility in terms of services needed by those insured. For many individuals, the issue of healthcare would be personal as it also would be essential. Many Americans are faced, on a daily basis, with the question of how to cover their medical expenses, once whatever coverage they would have runs out, or if the individual(s) in question would lack insurance, the greater question would become how to pay for the subsequent bill(s) in their entirety. There are countless health conditions that may require an individual to seek the assistance of a doctor at any point in their life. One such instance would be for those patients seeking to initiate the procedure of breast augmentation. While for some, the procedure of breast work would be for cosmetic reasons, for others, such work would come after the presence of a health condition, such as breast cancer that in turn, would require the reconstruction of the breast. With the introduction of the material added during such a procedure, there are risks that may result from the procedure being performed. Such as, the rupture of the material within the breast and as such, results in other health consequences as a result for the patient. For this very reason, there would exist laws state and nation wide, to serve as an education tool that would ideally, stave off any potential negative ramifications that may occur. From a legal standpoint, one such example of a case that would have been filed, due to issues surrounding breast implants, would involve a woman from San Diego, California. In this case, “A woman who claimed a design flaw in her silicone breast implants caused them to rupture and leak has lost her lawsuit against the manufacturer, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing,” (“Woman”, 1999-2010, para. 1). By the action taken through the court system, the verdict rendered, would illustrate the apparent feeling on the part of the court that, in terms of rendering guilt, they would feel that the manufacturer of the implants in question, would not have been liable for what would have occurred to the patient in question. With this case, “Marva L Smith, 43, had sought damages against 3M for the cost of surgeries to remove the implants, to correct disfigurement caused by the removal, and emotional distress. The trial lasted nine days,” (“Woman”, 1999-2010, para. 3). For many women that are faced with the ramifications of breast implant procedures, they are often faced with the rigorous process of going about litigation in court that, ideally, would win some form of vindication for themselves and aid them in the process of healing from their pain and suffering that they would have endured as a result of the incidents. As this would not be the only case to consider, “In lawsuits brought throughout the nation, women have contended their implants are the source of severe illnesses, including lupus and multiple sclerosis,” (“Woman”, 1999-2010, para. 5). With the initiation of legal action, the women at the heart of the lawsuits, would often times be seeking compensation for what they would claim as being the faulty nature of the implants that they would have had and that such faults would have resulted in the health concerns that they would have been forced to face. In terms of the history of breast implant litigation, the first example of legal action taken in such an instance would have been in 1997, in terms of legal action taken within the United States. In the action taken against a company named Dow Chemical, the company would have been accused of failing to disburse the necessary information to the general public that would have clearly outlined the risks present within the material in question. In this case, “The suit, brought by Marilyn Spitzfaden, was declared a class action representing about 1,800 women who claimed that silicone from ruptured implants was directly responsible for causing various diseases in implant recipients. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified damages,” (“Dow Chemical”, 1997, para. 10). For these individuals that would have been seeking to initiate legal action on this matter, they would wish to do so for the purpose of making known the faulty aspects of the product that all would have encountered and with such attention being paid, hopefully cause an alteration to existing corporate policy within the region that would, ideally, prevent other unfortunate incidents from occurring in the future. In this case, unlike the one previously mentioned, the company in question, would in fact be considered liable after the verdict would have been rendered by the jury responsible for the case. A clear distinction in this instance that, for those seeking vindication for the harm they would have suffered at the hands of the lack of information provided to them from the company, in regard to the product they would have been producing, the verdict in favor for the plaintiffs, would go a strong step toward providing them with the vindication that they would have desired. As for the resolution, “A jury in a Louisiana court has found Dow Chemical Co., parent company of silicone-gel breast implant maker Dow Corning, "negligent" in the nations first class-action lawsuit involving the devices,” (“Dow Chemical”, 1997, para. 1). As far as the jury in this case would have been concerned, the company would have been responsible for the withholding of information pertinent to the safety concerns of the product itself and also, would have in fact engaged in questionable activities in conjunction with its sibling company, as a means of further hiding the information that would have been utilized to further discovery the health risks present. To understand the nature of breast implants, it would be crucial to assess the history of the product. In this case, their history would be described in the following manner, “Silicone gel-filled breast implants were first introduced in the United States in 1962 by Cronin and Gerow. Implant failure, complications, and illness soon followed and in 1988 the USFDA announced that all breast implants would be relabeled as class III medical devices,” (“Defective”, 2010, para. 1). As the governing body in question, the USFDA, or US Food & Drug Administration, would step in and seek to minimize the cases against breast implants, with the re-classification of them being something that was used for medical purposes. In further explanation, a major breakthrough would occur in terms of regulation when, “Finally, in November 2006, the FDA approved a new type of silicone gel-filled breast implant made by two manufacturers for cosmetic breast augmentation and breast reconstruction,” (“Defective”, 2010, para. 3). Such cosmetic procedures that would, in many cases, occur for those who would have suffered from breast cancer or breast related issues at one point. One condition though, would have been the following condition: The approval was given with a requirement to complete a ten year study on women who have already received the implants and a study involving the safety of implants in 40,000 women. The study was conducted to ensure that the breast implants were not defective. (“Defective”, 2010, para. 3). Damage to breast implants can be very painful for those who experience them and for some; such a result may not occur instantly but rather, would occur over a period of time. As for the leaks themselves, “Breast implants deflate when the saline solution leaks either through an unsealed or damaged valve, or through a break in the implant shell,” (“breast implant”, 2005, para. 1). The description provided in terms of how the leak itself would occur, would further solidify the concerns present, in terms of the safety of such materials being introduced into the human body in the first place. As for treatment once a leak(s) would occur, “Deflated implants necessitate additional surgery to remove and to possibly replace the implant,” (“breast implant”, 2005, para. 1). If replacement would not be considered by the patient, at the very least, removal would need to be considered at the occurrence of a leak in the respective breast tissue area. From the legal examples utilized, not every company is deemed liable, or innocent, of the effects surrounding the utilization of breast implants. On the one hand, plaintiffs may result victorious in their quest to seek retribution from the company at the center of the issue, as the case would have been for the individuals who filed legal action against the Dow Chemical Company. For those not as lucky, such as the woman who proceeded with litigation against the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, the end result would not be as positive. With the countless information available, in terms of the risks involved with breast implant introduction in the body, the ability to achieve victory in the courtroom for instances of faulty material and concerns over company wrongdoing, the end result, would not be a sure thing but would be anything but. Clear and concise research must be done, in order to truly comprehend the elements surrounding the issue of breast implants in their entirety. According to Dr. Diana Zuckerman, in terms of statistical data involving the number of patients seeking such procedures, “The number of women and teenage girls who chose implants to augment their breast size more than doubled between 1997 and 2000,” (Zuckerman, 2001, para. 1). As an investigator during the congressional hearings on the matter of breast implant surgery in the early 90’s, Dr. Zuckerman would become intimately aware with the issues surrounding the discussion. References “breast implant leak, deflate and rupture”. (2005). Mentor Corporation. Para 1. Retrieved From http://www.mentorcorp.com/breastsurgery/reconstruction/FAQ/cs_ba_aa _faq_17.htm “Defective Breast Implants”. (2010). Para. 1 & 3. Retrieved from http://www.whocanisue.com /product-liability/defective-breast-implants/ “Dow Chemical ‘negligent’”. (1997). CNN Money. Section- News> Companies. Para. 1 & 10. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/1997/08/18/companies/implants/ “Woman loses breast implant lawsuit”. (1999-2010). Para. 1, 3 & 5. Retrieved from http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw941775061214B623 Zuckerman, Diana Dr. (2001). “Are Breast Implants Safe?” National Research Center for Women & Families. Section- Breast Implants. Para. 1. Retrieved from http:// www.center4research.org/medscape.html Read More