& # 8211 ; Breast Implants Essay, Research Paper

The Moral and Legal Obligations of Breast Implants

I. Thesis

In a universe that revolves around feelings, many people that it is really of import to look your best at all times. We are invariably seeing images of the perfect organic structure. From Barbie to Baywatch, American adult females are invariably being shown images of misss with 18 inch waists, 30 two inch hips and a D cup thorax. Feeling as if they need to accomplish this image to be attractive, adult females flock to the exercising gym in big Numberss. They spend two hours a twenty-four hours exerting to accomplish that bantam waistline that they desire. They are non satisfied with the thorax that God gave them so they besides want to change this facet of their organic structure. In the yesteryear, adult females did chest exercisings to heighten their bustline. As they got smarter, they realized that all that they were making is enlarging the musculus and in fact minimising their bustline. In today s age of engineering, scientist have developed a manner to surgically inhance the size of adult females s bustlines. By surgically infixing silicone bags into the chest, adult females everyplace had the chance to accomplish the most desirable bustline. A surgery originally intended for rehabilitative intents, by 1990 80 per centum of all implants were for decorative grounds. This dream surgery rapidly turned into a incubus. With studies of leaky and ruptured bags, the figure of new surgeries began to drop. Women took it upon themselves to hold trials done to see if these ruptured bags were in any manner form or signifier unsafe to their wellness. Allegations were made that the implants were responsible for musculus and joint hurting, weight loss, and weariness along with several terrible autoimmune upsets. The patients were non happy with the unexpected side effects of his surgery and combined their legal resources and made several category action suits against Dow Chemical, the maker of the silicone implants. Is the maker responsible for the unwellness that their merchandise caused upon the patients? I feel that they are responsible for the side effects caused by the implants. The side effects caused terrible convulsion in the lives of many adult females ; person has to be responsible. Since the side effects were unknown to the adult females prior to the surgery, it should be Dow Chemicals duty to counterbalance the patients for their problems.

II. The Case For the Thesis

Many adult females have experienced legion wellness jobs as a consequence of their chest augmentation surgeries. From arthritic arthritis to severe weight loss, they have been through terrible hurting. It is even rumored that silicone from the ruptured implant will stay at bay inside the hempen capsule of the cicatrix tissue. The injury occurred by the patients with ruptured implants was really terrible, and person should be dependable for the hurting and agony of the patients. Due to the fact that the maker put their merchandise on the market without executing suffienct safety trials, I feel that it is the duty of the company to counterbalance the adult females for their hurting as a consequence of the inefficiency of the maker, Dow Chemical.

There are several moral duties that a company has to its clients. The one trades with safety and guarantees. The concern should give safety the precedence warranted by the merchandise. Many companies put cost above safety in their pursuit to fabricate a new merchandise. If the border of safety can be increased without badly diminishing the budget, so they take safety into consideration. If sing safety requires a big portion of their budget to be dilapidated, so the company will more than probably disregard safety considerations. This is the instance with Dow Chemical. There was an increasing market for an unreal human chest and Dow Chemical wanted to be the company who reaped the benefits of this demand. In a race to acquire the augmentation surgery on the market foremost, the company was lax in the preparative phases of the merchandise development. The did non care much for safety or efficiency, they merely wanted to get down selling their implants. Because of their haste, the company overlooked such variables as the consequence of silicone on the organic structure and the life-time of the bag that the silicone was stored in. Because these variables were overlooked, many people suffered and as a consequence they have to be compensated. It is merely logical that the maker be responsible for the amendss that were brought upon the patient as a consequence of the haste of the company.

III. Case Against the Thesis

The Dow Chemical Company feels that they are non responsible for the punitory amendss inflicted amongst the patients. First and first, when the merchandise appeared on the market 1978 it was classified by the FDA as a Class II device. This meant that they did non necessitate proving to remain on the market. They were lawfully able to sell their merchandise tungsten

ithout proving it for any known wellness concerns. With the addition of surgeries, in 1989, the implants were was upgraded to a Class III device, intending that all makers must subject safety and efficiency informations in order to go on utilizing the silicone implants in chest augmentation surgeries. Dow Chemical complied with this new ordinance and the FDA consultative panel concluded that they were non a major menace to human wellness. Since the FDA concluded that it could non bulk hurt any human so the maker should non be responsible for the amendss put upon the consumer.

Second, it has been complained that there is a deficiency of difficult nucleus scientific information. Without this information, it is about impossible to find the difference between happenstance and causing. How can it be determined that the side effects were the direct consequence of the silicone implants if there is no information to state that the implants are the lone possible beginning of the wellness jobs. Without this information, the fabricating company should non be responsible for the requital caused by the wellness jobs. Another expostulation by the maker is that they ne’er said that their merchandise was one hundred per centum fail free. There is ever a opportunity that the company could do a error and something could travel wong. If there should be an happening within thesis slender opportunity, it was an accident and was ne’er guaranteed that it wouldn t happen. This allows the duty load to be lifted off of the shoulders of the company and on to the shoulders to the consumers themselves. In short, the companies are stating that there is a disclaimer involved in the operation.

IV. Rebuttal

The company is incorrect in its theory of why it is non responsible for the amendss caused by the ruptured chest implants. Though the FDA classified implants as a Class II devise, non necessitating proving, it is still the duty of the company to do certain that they are non jeopardizing human lives by the usage of their merchandise. The FDA concluded that thie process is non a major menace. Major & # 8211 ; that is the cardinal word. It is a menace and as a consequence, the company should be responsible for the amendss. A human is a really particular creative activity from God and its life should non be taken lightly. The company was merely believing of themselves and their money when they put this merchandise on the market. They should inquire themselves if they would allow their girl put this in their organic structure. If they would hold done this, they would hold ne’er put their merchandise on the market. Sing the fact that the deficiency difficult nucleus grounds illeviates the company from all duty, that is an indefensible opinion. Hard nucleus facts are necessary but with such great Numberss of adult females who all have the same symptoms and who nil else in common except their chest implants, the lone logical account for their symptoms is the detonation of the implants. Silicone is in no manner good for the organic structure. Hard nucleus grounds or non, it is non right to do the patients suffer without compensation. It is the duty of the maker to supply merely compensation. Last, they are precisely right the implants were non one hundred per centum fail free. There is ever a border of mistake. Were the comanies went incorrect is that they did non state the consumer that they were non one hundred per centum fail free, hence they have a moral duty towards the patient. If they would hold told the patient that there was a wellness hazard involved in their process so they would hold been able to take the load of duty from their shoulders. It is obvious that the maker, Dow Chemical, is the 1 responsible for refunding patients for amendss caused by ruptured chest implants. It is non right that the patients were misinformed as to the possibility of failure and as a consequence the should be compensated.

V. Conclusion

The United States has late experienced a immense inflow in decorative surgery, the majority of the surgeries being preformed on the thorax. Many of these surgeries were successful but non all of them. Many resulted in ruptured bags and silicone escape. This escape caused several wellness jobs. The adult females who experienced these jobs deserve to be compensated. A job arises when it is clip to make up one’s mind who is responsible. Throughout this argument, the duty has been discussed. It has been concluded that it should be the duty of the implant maker to allow counterbalance the patient for her incommodiousness. Throughout the past old ages, several category action cases have arised. Though the consequences did non come out to be one hundred per centum on manner, the overpowering bulk of the juries say that the exclusive load of duty belongs on the fabrication company. Womans have come to recognize that it would be nice to hold the figure of Barbie. But is it worth the hazard of the possible side effects, I think non.