Fw: Letter to the editor on implants

[Guest guest]

Martha Murdock, DirectorNational Silicone Implant FoundationDallas, Texas Headquarters

----- Original Message ----- From: CPR4WandF@...

cpr4wf@...

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:07 AM

Subject: Letter to the editor on implants

Dear Friends, Here is a letter to the editor that was published in the Palm Beach Post in response to their article on implants (also printed below). Zuckerman ------------------------------ Letter: Women's right to information The Palm Beach Post Thursday, February 22, 2001 Carolyn Susman's Feb. 7 column "Are patients' rights being ignored on implant issue?" can be easily answered: Yes, they are -- but not in the way she suggests. Silicone gel implants were restricted in 1992 because the implant manufacturers never had conducted safety studies on women who had implants for more than a few months. Since implants were meant to last a lifetime, the question was, what would happen to these women after five or 10 or 20 or 40 years? These studies do not prove that silicone implants are safe for long-term use. On the contrary, a recent study conducted by FDA scientists and independent researchers found that most silicone gel implants have broken after only 10-15 years, often without symptoms, and that the silicone can then leak to vital organs such as the lungs and liver (available online at www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/175/4/1057 ). The health risks of these leaks never have been studied, but there is research evidence that they can be fatal. Despite the current restrictions on silicone breast implants, thousands of women continue to buy them. In a recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, Dubler, a respected biomedical ethicist, pointed out that patients' rights to informed consent are not being met for breast implant patients (available online at www.jamwa.org/vol55/55_5_ed.htm). She pointed out that they are not adequately warned about the dangers. The American Council on Science and Health is financed by industry and has defended industry on a range of concerns. Its report on breast implants is written by plastic surgeons, not by epidemiologists. Yes, implant patients' rights are being ignored: The research they have a right to has never been conducted. DIANA ZUCKERMAN, executive director, National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families Washington Editor's note: The center is a new not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and families. The Palm Beach Post February 7, 2001 Wednesday ACCENT, Pg. 3D On Health ARE PATIENT'S RIGHTS BEING IGNORED ON IMPLANT ISSUE? BYLINE: Carolyn Susman Not again, I thought. Yet another report had dropped on my desk attesting to the safety of silicone-gel breast implants, and I wondered what all the fuss was about. I, like many women, had focused my attention on the numerous lawsuits over the past 10 years or so, alleging these implants cause all kinds of illness, from rheumatoid arthritis to lupus to cancer. When Dow Corning Corp. filed for bankruptcy, claiming litigation was overwhelming the company after it agreed to pay $3 billion in settlements, the icing was on the cake. Hadn't the Food and Drug Administration banned silicone-gel implants? The only gel I thought was safe was the stuff they made Jell-O from. Exactly, says the latest report trumpeting the safety of silicone gel. The American Council on Science and Health, a nonprofit association of more than 350 doctors and scientists, states flatly, "The science has been ignored." In its report, the Council recounts studies conducted by organizations from the National Academy of Sciences to the Mayo Clinic that put the kabosh on the theory these implants cause disease. One major note here: There is an implant that's approved: saline solution, although doctors say it's not as natural looking as the silicone implants were. And all implants are subject to rupturing, scarring, and other possibly painful complications. But why should I care if the FDA wants to keep silicone gel off the market? (It does allow silicone implants in women who are undergoing reconstructive surgery or whose implants have ruptured.) "It's really a shame. Is this a patient's rights issue? I don't know," says Dr. Rosenberg, a Delray Beach plastic surgeon who claims the demand for breast augmentation has decreased since the silicone gel was banned. Rosenberg finds it particularly ironic the FDA will allow silicone implants in women who have had breast cancer and are seeking reconstruction, but won't permit it for women who want cosmetic surgery. "When a few very outspoken people with the right pseudo-scientists behind them can (sue and) affect your freedom of choice, it's very sad. "There's never been documentation to verify that silicone breast implants are dangerous." This, says the American Council on Science and Health, is the real reason I should be concerned. "The resoundingly unscientific - and, until recently, successful - crusade against silicone implants portends problems for many other products that may be destroyed by . . . waves of hysteria." Meanwhile, the FDA hasn't changed its position. Silicone implants can't be used for routine cosmetic surgery. Speaking through its web site - www.fda.gov - the government agency says the manufacturer was unable to provide safety information in 1991 when approval of the silicone gel implants was sought. To date, that safety is being evaluated in government-monitored studies. So, for now, women who want bigger breasts will have reduced options. On health is a weekly column on health issues. If you have questions or comments, write Carolyn Susman at The Palm Beach Post, P.O Box 24700, West Palm Beach, Fla. 33416, call 820-4433 or e-mail carolyn_susman£pbpost.com <>

[Guest guest]

From: CPR4WandF@...

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:06 PM

Subject: Letter to the editor on implants

Dear Friends, Here is a letter to the editor that was published in the Palm Beach Post in response to their article on implants (also printed below). Zuckerman ------------------------------ Letter: Women's right to information The Palm Beach Post Thursday, February 22, 2001 Carolyn Susman's Feb. 7 column "Are patients' rights being ignored on implant issue?" can be easily answered: Yes, they are -- but not in the way she suggests. Silicone gel implants were restricted in 1992 because the implant manufacturers never had conducted safety studies on women who had implants for more than a few months. Since implants were meant to last a lifetime, the question was, what would happen to these women after five or 10 or 20 or 40 years? These studies do not prove that silicone implants are safe for long-term use. On the contrary, a recent study conducted by FDA scientists and independent researchers found that most silicone gel implants have broken after only 10-15 years, often without symptoms, and that the silicone can then leak to vital organs such as the lungs and liver (available online at www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/175/4/1057 ). The health risks of these leaks never have been studied, but there is research evidence that they can be fatal. Despite the current restrictions on silicone breast implants, thousands of women continue to buy them. In a recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, Dubler, a respected biomedical ethicist, pointed out that patients' rights to informed consent are not being met for breast implant patients (available online at www.jamwa.org/vol55/55_5_ed.htm). She pointed out that they are not adequately warned about the dangers. The American Council on Science and Health is financed by industry and has defended industry on a range of concerns. Its report on breast implants is written by plastic surgeons, not by epidemiologists. Yes, implant patients' rights are being ignored: The research they have a right to has never been conducted. DIANA ZUCKERMAN, executive director, National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families Washington Editor's note: The center is a new not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and families. The Palm Beach Post February 7, 2001 Wednesday ACCENT, Pg. 3D On Health ARE PATIENT'S RIGHTS BEING IGNORED ON IMPLANT ISSUE? BYLINE: Carolyn Susman Not again, I thought. Yet another report had dropped on my desk attesting to the safety of silicone-gel breast implants, and I wondered what all the fuss was about. I, like many women, had focused my attention on the numerous lawsuits over the past 10 years or so, alleging these implants cause all kinds of illness, from rheumatoid arthritis to lupus to cancer. When Dow Corning Corp. filed for bankruptcy, claiming litigation was overwhelming the company after it agreed to pay $3 billion in settlements, the icing was on the cake. Hadn't the Food and Drug Administration banned silicone-gel implants? The only gel I thought was safe was the stuff they made Jell-O from. Exactly, says the latest report trumpeting the safety of silicone gel. The American Council on Science and Health, a nonprofit association of more than 350 doctors and scientists, states flatly, "The science has been ignored." In its report, the Council recounts studies conducted by organizations from the National Academy of Sciences to the Mayo Clinic that put the kabosh on the theory these implants cause disease. One major note here: There is an implant that's approved: saline solution, although doctors say it's not as natural looking as the silicone implants were. And all implants are subject to rupturing, scarring, and other possibly painful complications. But why should I care if the FDA wants to keep silicone gel off the market? (It does allow silicone implants in women who are undergoing reconstructive surgery or whose implants have ruptured.) "It's really a shame. Is this a patient's rights issue? I don't know," says Dr. Rosenberg, a Delray Beach plastic surgeon who claims the demand for breast augmentation has decreased since the silicone gel was banned. Rosenberg finds it particularly ironic the FDA will allow silicone implants in women who have had breast cancer and are seeking reconstruction, but won't permit it for women who want cosmetic surgery. "When a few very outspoken people with the right pseudo-scientists behind them can (sue and) affect your freedom of choice, it's very sad. "There's never been documentation to verify that silicone breast implants are dangerous." This, says the American Council on Science and Health, is the real reason I should be concerned. "The resoundingly unscientific - and, until recently, successful - crusade against silicone implants portends problems for many other products that may be destroyed by . . . waves of hysteria." Meanwhile, the FDA hasn't changed its position. Silicone implants can't be used for routine cosmetic surgery. Speaking through its web site - www.fda.gov - the government agency says the manufacturer was unable to provide safety information in 1991 when approval of the silicone gel implants was sought. To date, that safety is being evaluated in government-monitored studies. So, for now, women who want bigger breasts will have reduced options. On health is a weekly column on health issues. If you have questions or comments, write Carolyn Susman at The Palm Beach Post, P.O Box 24700, West Palm Beach, Fla. 33416, call 820-4433 or e-mail carolyn_susman£pbpost.com <>