RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Oops, Maybe silicone implants are O.K., sorry Dow Corning(18 posts)

Oops, Maybe silicone implants are O.K., sorry Dow CorningContinental
Oct 15, 2003 5:49 PM
So, a company gets bankrupted by lawsuits that turn out to be meritless. Stockholders get screwed, and not by big- titted bimbos full of silicone, but by judges with no knowledge of medical science and no wisdom for jurisprudence. The bad news is that any business runs the same risk. The worse news is that the Democrats will block any effort to fix the problem.
its always been a "maybe" issuefiltersweep
Oct 16, 2003 5:37 AM
there never has been overwhelming evidence either way-

The trick is to convince a jury either way-

It really isn't a partisan issue- and besides, I doubt this really has much to do with medical malpractice- it is a consumer product issue, since these things are really not "medically necessary"
not "medically necessary"moneyman
Oct 16, 2003 7:10 AM
Tell that to a woman who has had a mastectomy. I'd be interested to hear her response to you after making that statement.

$$
moneyman ..will differ with ya...ClydeTri
Oct 16, 2003 7:55 AM
even to a woman who has a mastecomy..it is not a "necessary" surgery. However, one might aruge it is necessary psychologically. I will grant you the motivations and reasons behind a woman who has had mastectomy and the woman who just wants bigger hooters is like night and day.
Like I said -moneyman
Oct 16, 2003 8:03 AM
Tell a woman who has had a mastectomy that implants are not medically necessary. I would be interested in her response.

$$
Like I said -filtersweep
Oct 16, 2003 8:19 AM
What percentage of these were used for post-mastecomy "reconstructive" purposes?

How many insurance plans provided coverage for these types of implants post-mastectomy?
I have no ideamoneyman
Oct 16, 2003 8:34 AM
Nor do I have any intention of finding the data.

You said "...it is a consumer product issue, since these things are really not "medically necessary"'

I raised the question of silicone implants having medical necessity for women who have had their breasts removed because of, typically, breast cancer.

If you have the time to do some research, ask a woman who has undergone a mastectomy if breast implants are "medically necessary."

$$
huh?mohair_chair
Oct 16, 2003 6:25 AM
I'm not sure why you blamed judges--juries are the ones who did the damage. And lawyers are the ones who convinced them.

And why would Democrats block any effort to fix the problem? That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long, long time. Is there actually any effort to fix the problem that can be blocked??? That would seem to be a prerequisite.

I don't know why we expect a small set of ordinary people, the ones who can serve long term jury duty, to make decisions that go deep into areas of science and knowledge that they can't possibly understand. That's just idiotic. People are generally stupid, and they'll believe any junk science you can come up with, if you sell it hard enough. I guess it probably helps if the people are Democrats, too, because everyone knows Democrats are trying to block efforts to fix the problem.
Judges & Democrats don't set penalties--juries do.Silverback
Oct 16, 2003 7:41 AM
That's just dumb, man. The judge makes sure the trail goes according to law, and the jury evaluates the evidence and makes the award. Democrats/Republicans don't have anything to do with it. But there are liberals hiding under your bed....
however..there is a point to be made...ClydeTri
Oct 16, 2003 7:44 AM
Democrats, in general, with backing from the trial lawyer juries do not support putting limits on punitive damages in civil cases. Republicans, in general, do support limiting punitive damages.
Hey Silverback ever hear of ...Live Steam
Oct 16, 2003 8:16 AM
torte reform? Why don't you look that up! And while you're at it, why don't you check to see who and who does not support it. Why call the guy dumb when you have no clue yourself?
judges and legislators make a huge differenceDougSloan
Oct 16, 2003 8:35 AM
Sure, the juries ultimately decide, and are largely to "blame" for large verdicts. However, juries decide only those cases that make it that far, based only upon evidence allowed them, and based upon instructions on the law given them by the judge, which largely are designed by higher courts and legislators.

There are many legal judgments at critical junctures in litigation where a judge could limit or dismiss a case. Even if wrong, the chances of being reversed are remote.

The legislators decide what the rules of evidence are in most areas. What the jury is allowed to consider is vitally important.

Legislators largely decide what measure of damages are allowed for certain claims. Some states limit pain and suffering; some limit or deny punitive damages. Some require higher standards of proof for some claims or forms of damage.

Sorry, Silverback, I think you are wrong on this one. Legislators (and thus Democrats and Republicans) and judges make a huge difference in the outcomes of cases.

Doug
Juriesfiltersweep
Oct 16, 2003 10:40 AM
Why is it so hard to find a bunch of pro-big business juries?

Frankly, I think there is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest it may be better to have a system of "professional jurors" rather than of "peers" (who presumably are all Jerry Springer fans) ;)

Tort reform really is a double-edged sword- I don't think Dow Corning was malacious in their marketing or development of the product.

There are plenty of business and medical practices that are truly reprehensible, and I would hate to weaken a victim's recourse in those cases. (ie. an intoxicated surgeon botching an operation, some cigarette marketing, etc...).
It's not just dumb man, think Torte ReformContinental
Oct 16, 2003 8:57 AM
Product liability cases are a royal scam, and this was a Classic. There was and is no scientific evidence that silicone causes health problems. Judges were to ignorant or afraid to dismiss the case or the jury award. Democrats and their trial lawyer buddies perpetuate the absurd system.

I always wore Asics running shoes until 3 years ago, then I switched to New Balance. I never had any dental problems until I switched to New Balance, but since the switch I've had three root canals. I'm sure I could find thousands of other people who needed root canals after buying New Balance shoes. We have a legal right to sue New Balance for unlimited damages. This case has all the merit that the suit against Dow Corning had. Since the Dow corning case was emotional and complex, it succeeded in bankrupting the company. Doug, do I have a chance against New Balance?
maybeDougSloan
Oct 16, 2003 9:25 AM
All you have to do is find some "expert" to come up with some plausible causal connection. That will likely get you to a jury.

Doug
its simple...ClydeTri
Oct 16, 2003 9:27 AM
inadequate padding and design cause excessive jarring of the teeth and jaw causing damage to your teeth
oh, and I like my Torte fluffy ;-) nmDougSloan
Oct 16, 2003 9:26 AM
Lunchtime typing nmContinental
Oct 16, 2003 3:54 PM