‘Frontline’ Examines Breast Implant Fight
Feel free to be confused and flummoxed by the end of “Frontline’s” provocative 90-minute report tonight, “Breast Implants on Trial.”
For those who have assumed that silicone breast implants have been proved to be medically harmful, be prepared for a surprise. For those who detect the Trojan horse of unrepentant corporate reaction behind the largely Republican-driven effort for tort reform, be prepared for a shock. For those who have faith in the jury system, be prepared to get depressed.
After reports surfaced in 1990 of women who had had silicone breast implant surgery complaining of ailments associated with lupus, a steady wave of publicity, horror stories and pressure groups forced a response from the Food and Drug Administration. Producer Jon Palfreman’s investigation, though, strongly indicates that the FDA’s January 1992 call for physicians to halt the use of silicone implants unleashed a welter of passions, disinformation--and lawsuits.
Cleverly comparing the sleek industrial process of Dow Corning, the major silicone implant manufacturer, with the law firm of tort lawyers John O’Quinn and Rick Laminack, Palfreman simply has to point his camera at the warehouses containing row after row of boxes holding lawsuit documents to make the point.
*
What goes unexplained here is what, if any, scientific studies were done before the marketing of silicone implants. Whatever was done satisfied the FDA, but the tort wave compelled a scientific full-court press to prove or disprove a link between silicone implants and breast tissue disease and lupus-like symptoms.
Even before numerous studies appeared in such journals of record as the New England Journal of Medicine, juries were deciding against Dow and awarding women rich settlements. But when the studies denied any silicone-disease link, the documentary says, juries kept deciding against Dow. Two jurors in the case of Gladys Laas tell Palfreman that her $5.2 million worth of winnings was based on her life circumstances, not on scientific evidence--there was none.
The report raises a key point that silicone implant critics never counter here: Even if some studies were aided with Dow’s funding, is it credible to believe that the entire set of studies was “bought off” by silicone-producing companies? Hard science is thus dismissed by unfounded claims, juries ignore evidence and some tort lawyers may be a lot richer, the program concludes.
“Breast Implants on Trial” raises the specter of a society overrun by cynical interests driven by fear and a naked hatred of science. Tort reform may not be the solution after all; try better science education.
* “Breast Implants on Trial” airs at 9 tonight on KCET-TV Channel 28.
