Product Liability, Victim Health and "Real" Science
Written by Myrl Jeffcoat
for: "In the Know" and "Command Trust"
http://www.beautyandthebreast.org
January 14, 2008
For more than a decade now, I have watched women who harmed by
silicone breast implants try to sort out the illness and symptoms they
experienced post-implantation, try to separate real dragons from the
paper ones. What disease and symptomatic conditions really do come
from silicone and breast implants? Since 1995, I have been a conduit
of scientific studies and evidential material that fall into my hands,
distributing the information among women made ill by implants. More
than one doctor or scientist has appeared on the scene heeding the
call for help figure it out, but they have mostly been beaten down or
back by an army of defendant-sup****ted doctors and scientists. So, who
is right and who is wrong?
Looking back (and for many years, I have) has allowed me some clarity.
I would like to share a little of it here, for the benefit of those
who find themselves corralled in monstrous product-liability class
action suits, which are not so different from those breast implant
victims have endured for so many years.
In the breast implant litigation =96 and, I think, in all product-
liability litigation centered on health =96 the science brought into
judicial process had an agenda. Scientists brought their knowledge and
expertise into the courtroom either for the benefit of the defendants
or the plaintiffs. Those agendas presented an overwhelming barrier for
the victims who needed to know what their real health issues were or
were not. And the competing agendas obscured accuracy and truth,
preventing the identification of meaningful paths to wellness for the
victims.
The silicone breast litigation also showed that the best evidence of
disease is likely found in the evidence files, the actual medical
records of the victims themselves, and the =93discovery=94 material that
comes out during trial and litigation. For instance, in the case of
breast implants, more often than not the most damning scientific
material came from the manufacturers themselves. And just as often,
there was evidence of their acting to stop studies that were not
heading towards the findings they wished for or that were in fact
demonstrating very real harm to study subjects. Among the litigation
do***ents were actual memos between manufacturer entities
demonstrating such attempts even as they were continuing to push for
the marketing of their harmful products.
The global settlement for breast-implanted women was set up to apply
only to a special moment in time. It=92s available to the implanted
women who received breast implants and became ill from them during
that critical window before the deadline to sign-up, and only covered
the medical conditions they had in that moment. It did not clearly
address what to do with women who received their implants before the
class action and/or didn=92t become ill until considerably later. More
than once, I have seen women who were significantly ill at the time of
settlement return to decent health after a few years. Yet others, who
weren=92t so ill at the time of settlement later become significantly
more ill, but received nothing from the settlement to help them
weather their plight.
The lesson from the breast implant litigation is that given the
murkiness of agenda-driven science, the case should not have focused
on the victims=92 health. Rather, it should have focused on the evidence
that laid a clear path to manufacturers committing fraud and showing
reckless disregard for the safety, health and lives of their
customers. Not only would this have helped the breast-implant victims
better understand their medical conditions to help them seek proper
treatment, it would have put all breast-implant victims on a more
equal footing, and helped more women over a longer period of time.
|
