Academic journal article et Cetera

Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case

Academic journal article et Cetera

Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case

Article excerpt

Marcia Angell. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York: Norton, 1996.

In 1992 the FDA banned silicone-gel-filled breast implants from the market because they had not been proven safe. Many rejoiced including advocates of tough government regulations, women who believed breast implants caused them to be sick, and feminists who thought it was time to put a stop to women being pressured to conform to male fantasies. The ban caused widespread alarm among the 1 to 2 million women who already had implants. In 1994 the Mayo Clinic, in the first epidemiologic study of implants and disease, reported no significant linkage. By that time, because of a plethora of lawsuits, breast implant manufacturers had agreed to set aside 4.25 billion dollars to meet the claims of all women with implants. It was the largest class action settlement in American history.

The author of this book, a doctor and the executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, criticizes plaintiffs' attorneys, unscrupulous doctors, media-hype, and avaricious clients for trying to cash-in on the situation before the scientific evidence was presented. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.