Response to Breast Implant Pirouette

[Guest guest]

To the Editors of the Washington Times:

When I first read industry voice, Sullum's " Why can't NOW keep

its hands off women's breasts? " in Reason Magazine, I noticed

his 'titillating' title.

To me, he epitomizes " if they can get you asking the wrong

questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. "

To the corporate world it appears, the health and protection of

women and their breasts is not an issue for a national woman's

organization.

Odd that.

" Breast implant pirouette " indeed 'spins' the real question

regarding breast implants before the FDA right now.

" Are silicone breast implants 'safe?' "

The FDA was not given dominion over providing unsafe and

unproven 'choices' to women.

Nor do they have any obligation to provide a selection (choice) of

questionable breast enhancements to the public.

It's domain is over 'safety' ... not choice.

Although Mr. Sullum credits NOW's Ms Gandy for 'raising the specter'

on various cancers, in fact, it was the National Cancer Institute. I

quote: " when they compared the risks for the implant patients with

the general population, they found that the implant patients were

two to three times more likely to develop stomach cancer, leukemia,

and cancers of the cervix, vulva and brain.

Eleven cases of brain tumors among the implant patients were

identified on death certificates as the cause of death compared to

one case in the plastic surgery control group. "

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/silicone-othercancers

Unfortunately, the high percentage of suicides occuring after

ruptured breast implants has now been widely reported in the British

Medical Journal and others.

How can these facts be ignored or minimized?

There is no 'oops factor' or 'recall' if down the road we 'nay

sayers' are indeed correct in our safety concerns. Inamed has

already been involved in one fiasco that requiring removing

thousands of soybean filled implants in Britain that had been

marketed from the United States.

http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/000918.MBX

And what is the rush?

Every woman post mastectomy already has the 'choice' of silicone

breast implants as do women who are replacing their failed implants.

There are on-going studies for those that agree to be followed up

and tested later. No promise of " FDA safety approval " are required

for these.

The FDA has a duty to maintain it's 'gold standard' of safety ...

not provide a golden goose for the plastic surgeons and

manufacturers.

Please don't ask the FDA to tell " sweet little lies " -- that simply

isn't their job.

Ilena Rosenthal

Director, Humantics Foundation

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

See below if anyone else wants to respond ... this has been

published two places I've found so far ... Reason and the Wash Times

with differing titles.

To write Editors of Reason:

Gillespie@... ,cpf@...

The author: jsullum@...

http://www.reason.com/sullum/041505.shtml

Pro-Choice No More

Why can't NOW keep its hands off women's breasts?

Sullum

Gillespie@... ,cpf@...

Breast implant pirouette

To respond: http://washingtontimes.com/contact-us/

Then click " letters to the editor "

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050417-114026-2064r.htm

By Sullum

For decades, members of the National Organization for Women and

other groups that support abortion rights urged politicians to " keep

your hands off our bodies. " Today, women who want to enhance their

appearance with silicone breast implants can justly turn this slogan

against NOW, which is pro-choice on abortion but anti-choice on

cosmetic surgery.

NOW President Kim Gandy says the controversy over whether the

Food and Drug Administration should allow wider use of silicone

breast implants, currently limited mainly to reconstructive surgery

following mastectomies, is about " science and medicine. " But while

science can tell us (in theory) what risks implants pose, it cannot

tell us if they are justified.

Different women will answer that question differently, depending

upon their values, tastes and circumstances. In sharp contrast with

its position on abortion, however, NOW argues women should not be

allowed to do that.

Ms. Gandy says women who want augmentation surgery cannot make

an informed choice between silicone and saline implants until there

is more research. This wait-and-see stance may seem reasonable. It

was clear from the deliberations of the FDA's advisory committee,

which recently recommended approval of one manufacturer's implants

for general use but called for more information about the long-term

performance of another's, that legitimate questions remain about how

well the current models hold up after the first few years.

But the determination of how much information women need to make

a choice is itself a value judgment. Mentor, the company whose

implant found favor with the advisory committee, reported a

cumulative rupture rate of 0.8 percent among about 1,000 patients

over three years. Based on longer-term studies by other researchers,

it estimated 9 percent to 15 percent would experience ruptures after

12 years.

NOW says Mentor should wait until the company's own 10-year

study is completed. But that would mean women willing to accept the

risk and uncertainty in exchange for the superior look and feel of

silicone implants (preferred by 9 in 10 patients in countries where

silicone implants are widely available) could not make that

tradeoff.

In any case, NOW's objections to silicone implants extend far

beyond well-established local complications such as implant rupture,

infection, inflammation and collapse of the scar-tissue capsule

surrounding the implant. The group continues lending credence to the

unsubstantiated fears of systemic illness that led to FDA's 1992

decision to limit sales of silicone implants.

" Hundreds of thousands of women have been injured and become

seriously ill after receiving silicone gel breast implants, " says

Ms. Gandy in a December 2004 article on NOW's Web site. The article

explains " breast implant patients report a variety of immune

disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, fibromyalgia,

Sjogren's disease and lupus. "

Ms. Gandy brags of being " informed by the personal stories of

these survivors. " The problem is such stories don't prove anything,

relying on emotion and post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning instead

of scientific evidence.

In a comprehensive 2000 report on the safety of silicone breast

implants, the National Academy of Sciences concluded " silicone

implants do not cause major disease. " As the New York Times

notes, " Nearly all studies have found no link between silicone

implants and serious disease. "

Yet NOW encourages the belief research will one

day " conclusively demonstrate that silicone gel should never be

introduced into the human body, " as Ms. Gandy said in 2003. In

addition to immune disorders, NOW raises the specter of lung cancer,

brain cancer, suicide and harm to fetuses and nursing children. It

throws in " rashes, hair loss, open sores, aching muscles and joints,

mental confusion and memory loss " for good measure.

Given the many charges and the difficulty teasing out small

risks from epidemiological research, NOW's demand for " complete

information " on silicone implants will never be met. In practice, it

is the same as a demand for a permanent ban.

Why doesn't NOW apply the same impossible standard to abortion,

which has its share of complications and side effects, both known

and hypothesized? I hesitate to suggest a nonscientific explanation,

but perhaps it's because NOW -- which complains of " slick

advertising campaigns " that manipulate women into getting boob jobs

and dresses its activists in T-shirts declaring their breasts " 100

percent all natural " -- would prefer certain choices not be made at

all.

Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine, and his work

appears in the new Reason anthology " Choice " (BenBella Books).