THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, July 8, 1994 TAG: 9407080010
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 51 lines
As a lawyer who represents people injured by defective products, I respond to the misleading, incomplete and factually incorrect editorial regarding silicone breast implants (``Breast implant scam,'' June 20).
The editorial suggests that the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is the end-all, conclusive statement on whether women with silicone breast implants suffer from an increased incidence of connective-tissue disease and other diseases.
After a blatant effort to denigrate trial lawyers and engaging in name calling of Federal Drug Administration officials and others, the editorial casually recognizes that the study is not definitive. In fact, and I quote from the published study itself: ``Our study has several limitations. . . . Our results, therefore, cannot be considered definitive proof of the absence of an association between breast implants and connective-tissue disease.''
The study involved a retrospective analysis of women residing in the self-defined ``isolated'' area of Olmstead County, Minn. The authors recognized that the definitive answer should be derived from a more extensive prospective study involving many more women who could be followed for longer periods of time. Your editorial states that implant manufacturers have successfully defended most of the civil suits brought against them, ignoring the statement in the published study that ``judges and juries have awarded large settlements to women.
I would not characterize the multimillion-dollar verdicts, involving both compensatory and punitive damages, awarded to women injured by breast implants as a ``successful defense.'' These women sought no special treatment, nor did they or their lawyers ``bludgeon'' the implant manufacturers into establishing a settlement fund. Rather, they sought access to our courts in an efforts to pursue their rights, and they succeeded.
The clear implication of the editorial was that women who claim to be suffering from silicone related injury, as well as the doctors who treat them and support them, are lying, faking or just plain crazy. We've seen and heard this implication before as it applied to women who used the Dalkon Shield or DES.
Before passing judgment so harshly, speak with a few women who have suffered through surgery to remove their defective implants or who have been rendered disabled and can no longer enjoy their normal activities or continue their occupation.
LISA P. O'DONNELL
Virginia Beach, June 22, 1994 by CNB