| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Nursing Forum » Women's Health: A red-flag warning
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ilena Rose |
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Friday, January 12, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/299388_implanted.html
Women's Health: A red-flag warning
We've never had much faith in the FDA, but its approval of silicone
gel-filled breast implants marks an all-time low for the agency.
Restricted since 1992, the implants were deemed unsafe because of the
health risks associated with them, such as cancer. The FDA currently
recommends that only women over the age of 22 get the implants. It
also asks the makers of the implants (which can rupture during a
mammogram), Allergan Corp. and Mentor Corp., to carry out a 10-year,
80,000-patient study in order to "fully answer important questions"
regarding the products safety. Say what? The approval of the implants
is completely backasswards. Clearly, (lobbying) money talks, and in
this case, it jiggles for a few years before it hardens and leaks
toxins into your lymph nodes, joints, uterus and liver.
Roughly 5 percent of U.S. women likely will get the implants in the
next decade.
We spoke to two experts on the matter: Diana Zuckerman, president of
the National Research Center for Women and Families at the University
of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, and Susan Wood, a research
professor at George Washington University's School of Public Health.
The two scientists want you to know a few things:
# Post-approval studies are common, but the sheer scope of this one
should be a red flag. Also, neither the age of breast-implant
recipients nor the collection of data by the two companies can be
enforced.
# Although you can pay for the implants in installments, you can't do
so for their removal -- and they will need to be removed or replaced.
Health insurance seldom covers those additional surgeries.
# You'll need to get pricey MRIs regularly. And no, your insurance
probably won't cover them.
# By no means should you take the FDA's approval of the implants to
mean that they're safe. For example, their effect on breast milk, says
Zuckerman, has "never, ever, ever been tested" by the FDA.
How's that for looking after public safety?
~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantInfo.org Dr. Zuckerman's site
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ Humantics Foundation |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Mammarian Dept.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/208092,CST-NWS-stein12.article
This column doesn't address the subject of women's breasts very much
-- a lapse I am at a loss to explain. I suppose because people so
rarely phone wanting to talk about ladies' breasts.
But Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for
Women & Families in Washington, D.C., did just that the other day.
She said the Food and Drug Administration, bowing to political
pressure, had unwisely approved silicon breast implants, which were
banned for 14 years, and for good reason.
"They break, they leak and that makes them dangerous," she said. "They
probably have the highest complication rate of any plastic surgery."
She said the FDA, in approving the implants, recommended periodic
breast MRIs, which can cost $2,000 apiece, if you can find them, and
are not covered by insurance.
Another problem is that women stretch themselves, financially, to pay
for the implants and then have no money to remove them when they leak
or break.
"I would certainly say don't do it unless you have a lot of money,"
Zuckerman said.
This is where the witty closing line would go, and given the subject,
there is no dearth of candidates. But as this is a serious matter, and
having performed my public service, I will draw the veil.
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ Humantics Foundation |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:09 pm
|
|