PIP Scandal Not Over

13 July 2012

In autumn 2011 news broke that the French company Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) had been using unapproved in-house manufactured industrial-grade instead of medical-grade silicone in the majority of its implants.

This impure gel releases toxic substances into the body and can also cause implant rupture as well as inflammation and irritation. It is believed that over 1,500 Irish women received the defective implants and may now face alarming health risks including Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma.

The PIP implants were recalled in Ireland in March 2010. This caused an overwhelming amount of panic for those affected, especially amongst pregnant women who cannot have the implants removed during their pregnancies, despite the fact that they are leaking industrial grade silicone into their bodies.

On 3 May, the Health Committee discussed the PIP silicone breast implants issue with the state’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr Tony Holohan. Dr Holohan received a written commitment from Harley Medical Group to provide a care package for their patients, but the clinic in question has not fulfilled this commitment.

Cold comfort

The Department of Health will now take the lead on delivering this care package to PIP patients. The National Treatment Purchase Fund will pay for 1,550 women affected to undergo a surgical consultation. If the consultant deems it clinically necessary then the implants will be removed. The CMO stated that only 10-15 per cent of women affected are expected to have the implants removed. The women whose implants have already ruptured will have priority.

However, the women whose implants have not yet ruptured may have to wait until they rupture in order to have them removed. This is a cold comfort. These women are simply waiting for their faulty implants to rupture and leak industrial grade silicone into their lymph nodes and breast tissue. These women face alarming health risks.

The vast majority of procedures, were carried out in the Harley Medical Clinic in Dublin. Many women affected have not yet sought legal advice as they are still figuring out their medical advice and are unsure if they even have a case.

Legally, this is an unusual situation as a defective product case does not apply – the women cannot go directly to the manufacturer as it has shut down. However, they could have a medical negligence case against the clinic or a breach of contract case under consumer legislation.

Women nationwide have been reluctant to come forward due to the negative public attitude regarding their situation. This is adding to the difficulty of the scenario.

It is believed the companies should be footing the bill, not the state. PIP was known within the industry as a poor quality compan and these women paid a substantial amount of money for surgery in good faith that they were receiving a product which was of merchantable quality.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...