This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Brian D. Kent, MD
Orange, Calif

JAMA. 1994;272(4):272.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Dr Kessler and colleagues label the recommendation for patient choice of breast implants by the CSA "insupportable" and call the practice of implanting silicone gel implants "an abrogation of responsibility on the part of physicians."¹

Kessler et al cite recent studies to support their concern for systemic adverse health effects of silicone. What they do not mention is that another recent animal study demonstrated no adjuvant effect of silicone on the immune system.² Furthermore, many human studies from around the world have failed to show a connection between silicone gel implants and clinical evidence of rheumatic disease.^3,4

Kessler et al repeatedly explain the FDA's legal responsibility to demonstrate a medical device is "safe." Safety is subjective, a weighing of the balance of risks and benefits. The FDA's "adjunct study" allows silicone gel implants to be used in women after mastectomy, with congenital or traumatic . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?