France is experiencing a massive tort scandal after it was discovered thousands of women were given breast implants containing industrial silicone rather than medical silicone. We have seen <a href="In Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 696 N.E.2d 909 (Mass.1998), a court looked at the liability of one such company under an implied warranty of merchantability for failure to warn or provide instructions about risks. The appellate court Defendant did have actual or constructive knowledge.”>such cases in the United States of faux doctors using industrial silicone purchased from auto and home repair stores. Nothing, however, comes close to the French scandal. Over 30,000 women in France (as well as some in Spain and the UK) may have had the defective products from Poly Implant Prosthesis (PIP).
The women are generally low income individuals, who (like the women in the United States) were attracted by the cheap cost of the cosmetic surgery.
PIP is one of the world’s leading producers of the implants and reportedly saved €1 billion a year by using industrial silicone instead of medical-grade fillers. The company has now closed after women developed cancer and other illnesses.
One surprising fact is that between 400,000 and 500,000 women in France have breast implants.
The cancer allegations raise a familiar question for American lawyers. For decades, courts have grappled with allegations that even medical-grade implants cause injuries. Recently, new questions were raised about U.S. companies failing to follow up on treatments. However, they have not been found to be dangerous or defective by the FDA, which has decided to keep them on the market. The matter remains remarkably muddled after decades with the risks still in heated debate. In Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 696 N.E.2d 909 (Mass.1998), a court looked at the liability of one such company under an implied warranty of merchantability for failure to warn or provide instructions about risks. The appellate court ruled the defendant did have actual or constructive knowledge of risks.
For the French, any lawsuit would raise the same factual causation question. There is no question that the implants are defective, but there remains the question of whether the company be held liable for the cancer based on currently available evidence.
It would seem that this is a case that should cross over into criminal liability as well as civil liability. In the horrific tainted blood scandal in France, a health minister was convicted after allowing companies to use known tainted supplies rather than discarding them — killing or injuring thousands.
Source: Guardian
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
Mike Spindell
1, December 16, 2011 at 10:54 am
“I’d have some sympathy for reconstructive surgery”
I agree with Frankly. Reconstructive surgery has done wonders for individuals disfigured by injury or genetics. This boom in “cosmetic surgery” though I find stupid and distasteful. It is an outgrowth of corporate consumerism
————————————–
While I’m generally with you on the sentiment, I take a couple of issues.
Body modification is nothing new. Think about the long history of lip disks, skull reshaping, foot binding and neck-stretching with hoops. The fact that we can do more weird things (arguably) safely with contemporary surgical techniques and prostheses like (high quality) silicone just means that a bigger slice of the population can put into action what their subconscious and insecurities can dream up. There seems to be something hard-wired into us crazy humans to do this sort of stuff to ourselves.
Don’t forget that men have cosmetic surgery also – lipo, facial, pec/calf implants, etc. (Also, how much do women get breast implants to attract men versus how much are they seeking to compete for status within the ranks of their fellow women?)
In the end, though, it’s mind-boggling that any company would sell any sort of implants that weren’t all medical-grade material. It’s not like these were dissolving sutures – they knew that these implants would be around for years and could be extracted and examined. (actually “must have known that they WOULD be extracted in the future”)
“I’d have some sympathy for reconstructive surgery”
I agree with Frankly. Reconstructive surgery has done wonders for individuals disfigured by injury or genetics. This boom in “cosmetic surgery” though I find stupid and distasteful. It is an outgrowth of corporate consumerism, whose mission at base is to keep people dissatisfied with their lives and offers purchase of services and goods as a means to end this dissatisfaction. I’ll say this knowing there are a great many who disagree with me, if you think your self confidence is enhanced by making your breasts larger via implants, you are in a state of delusion and denial.
As for men whose libido’s would be enhanced by a woman with larger breasts, you may have sex, but you have it only as a contact sport and I pity the women who you would wind up with.
How do you think the Chinese gov’t would handle this scenario? Maybe we can take similar measures to regain some balance with capitalism.
Who will regulate the regulators?
I imagine …..
This could be tits up for that practice.
Someone needs to go to prison.
WAIT! You mean it might not be a great idea to stuff chemical sludge under your skin?
I’d have some sympathy for reconstructive surgery by its a lot harder when the work is done simply to make someone meet some imposed standard of beauty.
But if the company knowingly used the wrong material the management needs to be held accountable, and for a lot more than just money.