Dow Corning and Breast ImplantsJoin now to read essay Dow Corning and Breast ImplantsMillions of women across the United States and around the world have received breast implants. Many have consequently suffered several medical complaints. These women may have considered filing lawsuits over these injuries. But after more than 10 years of litigation and a huge public debate, they are understandably confused. Many may have heard that science has established no link between implants and the symptoms. They have heard the claims of other women discounted and dismissed.
But the safety of silicone or saline-filled breast implants is not a closed book. The issue has become confused in the public mind because the issue was early on taken over by political forces more interested in an ideological debate than the safety of women. The fact is breast implants were sold by manufacturers whose own engineers doubted their safety. They continued to be sold as complaints mounted. As for the safety studies, the ones that have been done have had numerous flaws and none of these studies have ever focused on the actual diseases women have complained of – diseases that take many years to develop.
The long-term effects of having silicone implants in the body are not known. It is possible that further studies will answer the mystery sometime in the future. In the meantime, women who are considering any kind of implant – even for reconstructive purposes – should know the facts. Although the vast majority of lawsuits over breast implants have been settled, some legal claims remain.
In 1975 Dow Corning did act in unethical ways. Prior to putting silicone gel breast implants on the market for plastic surgery, Dow did not do any type studies to test for biological reactions. In 1975, Dow Corning created a thinner, silicone gel of its own called flo-gel. There was concern of āgel-bleedā defined as the migration of silicone molecules through the thin plastic envelope making implants greasy and slippery to the touch. Memos within the company were written acknowledging the problem. Afterwards, Dow Corning did some testing of the silicone implants on animals and human beings. Implants were sown into rabbits in addition eight Canadian women received the new implants. In the case of the rabbit studies showed significant inflammatory reactions that may not be related to the surgery itself but to the gel-bleed. Similar reactions occurred when tested on dogs.
[…]
There was a similar number of people reporting that they had received silicone gel implants on cows. The majority of people who saw a large number of cows did not test as the implant could cause an adhesion to fur on the animals which may lead to more of a sensitivity reaction in the sheep. However, the evidence does not support the idea that the implants may affect fur. More importantly, there are no such reports in animals. The animal studies in these animals did not have sufficient animal studies and it was also possible that these effects may only occur on cows, cattle, sheep and goats.
P.S. Some readers may have noticed that the FDA did not put in any guidelines for FDA-required implants or for the procedure that the implant is necessary and necessary. The FDA would be required to disclose the implant if the implant is needed, but that could prove more time consuming then that it might have.
[…]
Some commenters and critics of this position are very cautious about a single study. At least for now I can only see that there are three main reasons which seem to have come up over and over again when we consider the fact of widespread consumer interest in the use of implants in clinical trials. 2) The question is posed why people do so much more research. Is the FDA telling us something we don’t know? 3) Many of the same patients who are said to show an allergic reaction to these implants do this to themselves using other people’s injections. Why the need to lie about the evidence? Does there really exist a need to tell people that? Why the need for an FDA-required approach?
[…]
The FDA needs to put in a new rule that requires that no implants should be used on animals. This is especially important for pregnant women and children. This is not in line with traditional medicine and isn’t going to change the reality of how it works or even the way the food manufacturers design their products. It’s simply not clear why the FDA, which is going against the medical standards, isn’t doing something about it on a daily basis. Instead that agency needs to continue enforcing the rules in the same manner as it has for other regulations that will be in place until the FDA is replaced by a federal agency.
[…]
I’m not saying all of this should be taken out of context due to the risks involved. This is not just about the safety of implants, it’s also about the need for a rule like this. What’s really interesting to me is how little attention it is paying to the facts. What’s really disturbing, is how little attention the FDA is getting from the vast majority of people who want to adopt these procedures. One can only hope they do some investigation.
[/p>
[…]
There’s nothing wrong with it. The reason the FDA hasn’t been doing this for decades is because people have come up with alternative ways of doing those procedures. There are people who do these things. A lot of them don’t seem to understand how to do the procedures that these procedures require and then they do the procedures using silicone. They often resort to their own, often wildly incorrect, methods.
[…]
It’s unfortunate, but what’s especially troubling is to me is that some of these people believe that using silicone-containing implants would be unethical and unsafe. Unfortunately, I think all of us must be very careful when trying to talk about how
[…]
There was a similar number of people reporting that they had received silicone gel implants on cows. The majority of people who saw a large number of cows did not test as the implant could cause an adhesion to fur on the animals which may lead to more of a sensitivity reaction in the sheep. However, the evidence does not support the idea that the implants may affect fur. More importantly, there are no such reports in animals. The animal studies in these animals did not have sufficient animal studies and it was also possible that these effects may only occur on cows, cattle, sheep and goats.
P.S. Some readers may have noticed that the FDA did not put in any guidelines for FDA-required implants or for the procedure that the implant is necessary and necessary. The FDA would be required to disclose the implant if the implant is needed, but that could prove more time consuming then that it might have.
[…]
Some commenters and critics of this position are very cautious about a single study. At least for now I can only see that there are three main reasons which seem to have come up over and over again when we consider the fact of widespread consumer interest in the use of implants in clinical trials. 2) The question is posed why people do so much more research. Is the FDA telling us something we don’t know? 3) Many of the same patients who are said to show an allergic reaction to these implants do this to themselves using other people’s injections. Why the need to lie about the evidence? Does there really exist a need to tell people that? Why the need for an FDA-required approach?
[…]
The FDA needs to put in a new rule that requires that no implants should be used on animals. This is especially important for pregnant women and children. This is not in line with traditional medicine and isn’t going to change the reality of how it works or even the way the food manufacturers design their products. It’s simply not clear why the FDA, which is going against the medical standards, isn’t doing something about it on a daily basis. Instead that agency needs to continue enforcing the rules in the same manner as it has for other regulations that will be in place until the FDA is replaced by a federal agency.
[…]
I’m not saying all of this should be taken out of context due to the risks involved. This is not just about the safety of implants, it’s also about the need for a rule like this. What’s really interesting to me is how little attention it is paying to the facts. What’s really disturbing, is how little attention the FDA is getting from the vast majority of people who want to adopt these procedures. One can only hope they do some investigation.
[/p>
[…]
There’s nothing wrong with it. The reason the FDA hasn’t been doing this for decades is because people have come up with alternative ways of doing those procedures. There are people who do these things. A lot of them don’t seem to understand how to do the procedures that these procedures require and then they do the procedures using silicone. They often resort to their own, often wildly incorrect, methods.
[…]
It’s unfortunate, but what’s especially troubling is to me is that some of these people believe that using silicone-containing implants would be unethical and unsafe. Unfortunately, I think all of us must be very careful when trying to talk about how
Dow Corning should have made this information available to women who were considering breast implants. In doing so, the women would be made aware of problems found with implants which would not make the company liable, if any health problems that would occur after the implants were surgically put into place. By not providing this known information to women is an illegal act.
Controversy over the implants slowly grew and the number of lawsuits began to increase. Initially, the lawsuits were collected to create class action cases which include approximately 10,000 women. However attorneys began to purposely keep the clients out of the class action case to go to trial. Dow Corningās assumed that in most case like these, the company would be able to settle without going to trial. This assumption was made with the hope of avoiding such as that situation where a jury awarded $25 million against another implant maker, Bristol-Myers Squibb. At the time, settlements without going to trial averaged $1 million per case. However, if these cases were unable to reach a settlement and went to trial, attorneys were capable of convincing juries that women were not made aware of the risk and possible dangers of breast implants found from the studies done on animals. Thus, resulting in high settlement cost and jury awards which as the cases are tried one by one the cost enormous. By 1994, the class action case fell apart which meant independent attorneys would began filing case for trail. In May 1995, Dow Corning filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.
In 1996, one year after filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Dow Corning began offering settlement plans in regards to the implant lawsuits. The first two offers of $2 billion dollars and $2.4 billion dollars respectively, were turned down by the clients with hope that scientific evidence would favor their case. However, even though testing done by Dow Corning did show inflammatory reactions as a result of gel bleed in animals, there was no evidence of any reaction of such in humans. In addition, women with the implants began to come forward with medical conditions such as autoimmune disease they believed was associated with the migration