home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
030292
/
0302130.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
78 lines
<text id=92TT0448>
<title>
Mar. 02, 1992: Not for Vanity's Sake
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992
Mar. 02, 1992 The Angry Voter
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
HEALTH, Page 36
Not for Vanity's Sake
</hdr><body>
<p>After much debate, an expert panel approves silicone breast
implants for reconstruction but not enhancement
</p>
<p> Since the Food and Drug Administration declared a moratorium
on silicone-gel implants last month, hundreds of thousands of
American women have struggled to make sense of the claims and
counterclaims being made about the little bag of gel in their
breasts. Outspoken patients and plaintiff lawyers have blamed
the implants for everything from rashes to cancer and deadly
neurological disorders. Implant manufacturers and most doctors,
on the other hand, have just as vigorously insisted that the
prostheses are safe.
</p>
<p> Last week an expert medical panel appointed by the FDA did
its best to close out the debate. The panel declared that
allegations of safety risks are inconclusive at best and
recommended that the implants remain on the market. However,
because so much uncertainty remains, the experts urged doctors
to use the devices only for reconstruction after surgery; tight
restrictions were placed on using them for breast augmentation.
That would exclude up to 80% of women who have historically
received the implants. The recommendations are subject to
approval by FDA Commissioner David Kessler, who typically
follows the advice of his expert panels.
</p>
<p> The new safety questions had emerged over the past several
months in lawsuits against silicone manufacturer Dow Corning
Corp., as well as in testimonials from several medical
specialists. The panel concluded that many allegations,
including the suggestion that the implants caused cancer or
neurological damage, were scientifically groundless. But it gave
more credence to reports of recipients suffering rheumatoid
arthritis and scleroderma, a rare connective-tissue disorder.
The experts also found that the silicone sacs could rupture 5%
to 10% of the time--far more frequently than Dow Corning had
previously conceded. "You can buy a tire with a 40,000-mile
guarantee," remarked a panel member, "but no one really knows
the useful life of a breast implant."
</p>
<p> These suspected problems, said the panel, justified
withholding the embattled devices from women whose need was less
pressing. The experts also noted that women who get the implants
for cosmetic reasons tend to be younger than other patients, and
therefore more susceptible to problems that may arise over a
longer period of time. A few women will be permitted silicone
for breast enhancement, but only if they agree to take part in
strictly monitored safety trials.
</p>
<p> The 500,000 to 2 million women who already have implants
ought to check their breasts regularly for any change in shape
or texture that might indicate rupture, the panel advised. Torn
sacs should be removed immediately. In the meantime, the FDA and
Dow Corning are planning intensive safety studies to resolve
lingering doubts. Unfortunately, preliminary data will not be
available for two to three years. That is a long wait for
assurances that should have been part of the package years ago.
</p>
<p>By Andrew Purvis. Reported by Dick Thompson/Washington.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>