A Transvaginal Mesh Product Liability

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

A transvaginal mesh is a mesh device that is surgically placed to treat female gynecological and urogynecological problems, such as pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence under stress. The transvaginal mesh is made of a synthetic material, usually polypropylene, and is made of a porous or microporous material.

It is believed that these devices have become one of the worst in the medical device industry. They appeared about 20 years ago and were intended to treat weakened pelvic muscles. Women went to court claiming that these transvaginal meshes cause various complications, acute pain, autoimmune diseases, and organ damage.

Main body

Boston Scientific company is engaged in the production and sale of transvaginal nets for women. Women who received implants from this company began to complain about the deterioration of their health after they were installed. There were complaints of severe pelvic pain, bleeding, and urinary dysfunction.

Hundreds of thousands of lawsuits have been filed by women affected by Boston Scientific’s implants. The state Attorney General announced that, together with a medical device manufacturer, they had reached an agreement to pay $188.6 million to 47 states for fraudulent marketing activities in the field of surgical nets (Tucker). In addition to women, state governments have also filed lawsuits against this company and other companies that produce similar products.

Boston Scientific was accused by the state attorney general, who oversaw the multi-state lawsuit, of failing to warn about possible consequences and risks in the instructions for the transvaginal nets. The Attorney General also noted that Boston Scientific could not disclose the truth about possible scars and damage from the mesh used, chronic pain, the risk of infections, and other complications. This information was hidden because perhaps the company was quite intensely interested in making a profit rather than in ensuring the health of women.

For this case, two theories of liability can be applied: fraud and warranty. Fraud may consist of the desire to gain benefits without paying attention to the danger to human health. The companies also produced a defective products that harmed the individual (Twomey et al. 456). That is, the companies failed to give reasonable guarantees of the safety of the product they made. It is reasonable to assume that as a legal defense, most women wanted to get money.

Since the problem due to which the implants were initially installed did not find a solution, so even after the installation, women received additional health damage that can not be ignored. The jury sided with the plaintiffs and accused the manufacturing companies of failing to warn about possible complications and health risks, as well as developing unsafe defective products.

The number of lawsuits filed continues to grow as the consequences and results of using transvaginal meshes continue to be revealed over time. Injured women naturally win in court against the defendant companies. Sometimes the court decides manufacturers pay multimillion-dollar lawsuits to the victims.

Currently, some of the claims have already been satisfied, and some are under consideration. In 2019, sales of transvaginal nets were banned, as manufacturers did not find medical evidence of the use of this device. Since the production was mainly carried out by large companies, they pay for the damage caused but continue to produce other medical products.

I believe that in this case, the result, that is, the receipt of money by the victims, is correct. The women turned to a medical company for help, and their main goal was to improve their health. Unfortunately, many women have experienced a worsening of their health problems while using the purchased medical devices. The money they receive will most likely be used for re-treatment, as well as for medications and moral recovery.

As for my opinion on the deeper consideration of this case, I have two questions. The first one is how these transvaginal meshes were checked by medical commissions. After all, to release a product to the market, it must be verified and tested. Especially in the case of the release of medical products, a more thorough clinical examination should be carried out to avoid complex instances in the future.

The second question is direct to the women themselves because they probably could hear reviews and negative comments about using these products. Moreover, the manufacturing companies did not provide the women with instructions, descriptions of possible risks, and the results of clinical trials. What is the reason women still agreed to the installation of these implants? In the case when peoples’ health is at risk, it is necessary to check every device, especially if it is introduced into the body surgically.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that this case has not yet been closed, and numerous trials are being conducted on it. In general, the production of transvaginal meshes was closed, which is naturally the right decision since they caused a lot of harm to women who now have a large number of recovery procedures. Production companies continue to pay compensation to the victims, as in most cases, the court finds the companies guilty of causing harm to health.

Works Cited

Twomey, David P., Mrianne M. Jennigs, and Stephanie M. Greene. Business Law: Principles for Today’s Commercial Environment. Cengage Learning, 2017.

Tucker, Katheryn. “Del. Set to Receive $1.38M in Multistate Surgical Mesh Settlement.” Law. 2021. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

A Transvaginal Mesh Product Liability

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)