The central issue facing federal regulation of breast implants is that while such devices are not functionally necessary or needed for survival, the side effects may be harmful and have not been proven unharmful. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 appear to require such evidence prior to the FDA permitting the unrestricted marketing of these devices. However, only recently have such requirements been imposed by the FDA. The author examines the FDA's decision-making process, particularly as applied to silicone breast implants, and the factors that appear to have affected such decisions. In pursuing this study, the activities of a number of interest-group actors, as well as congressional responses and the role of federal bureaucratic actors, were examined. In 1992 the FDA established a regulatory protocol that effectively withdrew most silicone breast implants from the market for the purpose of breast augmentation and allows for the monitoring of the impact of new implants on women's health. This increased concern for determining the safety of breast implants is due to a number of factors, which are examined in this article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CiglarA., and LoomisB.Interest Group Politics, Ed. 2. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, D.C., 1986.
2.
HecloH.Issue networks and the executive establishment. In The New American Political System, edited by KingA., pp. 88–103. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., 1978.
3.
SalisburyR. H.The paradox of interest groups in Washington: More group—less cohort. In The New American Political System, edited by KingA., pp. 87–124. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., 1990.
4.
WalkerJ. L.Jr.Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1991.
5.
BarringerF.Many surgeons reassure their patients on implants. New York Times, January 29, 1992, pp. C1, C12.
6.
U.S. Congress, House, Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. The FDA's Regulation of Silicone Breast Implants, Staff Report, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1993.
7.
KossovskyN.Pathophysiological basis of silicone bioreactivity. In Conference on Silicone and Medical Device Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 45–58. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Baltimore, February 18–20, 1992.
8.
WalshG. P.Jr.Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act with Amendments. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1981.
O'KeefeD. F.Jr., and SpiegelR. A.An Analytic Legislative History of the Medical Devices Amendments of 1976. The Food and Drug Law Institution, Washington, D.C., 1976.
11.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Federal Policies and the Medical Devices Industry. Pergamon Press, New York, 1984.
12.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Food and Drug Administration Annual Report, 1977. Washington, D.C., 1977.
13.
GoldbergM. Z.FDA panel recommends that breast implants stay on market. Trial27: 74–77, 1991.
14.
HiltsP. J.Maker of implants balks at test, its records show. New York Times, January 13, 1992, pp. A1, B10.
15.
MiyoshiK.ShiragamiH., and YoshidaK.Adjuvant disease of man. Clin. Immunol. (Tokyo)5: 785–794, 1973.
16.
ShiokawaY.NoshinoN., and ShimadaS.Cases of the so-called adjuvant diseases due to mammoplasty. Clin. Immunol. (Tokyo)4: 389–396, 1972.
17.
YoshidaK.Post mammaplasty disorder as an adjuvant disease of man. Shikaku Acta Med. 29: 318–322, 1973.
18.
WagnerM. F., and WagnerJ. C.Lymphomas in the wistar rat after intrapleural inoculation of silica. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 49: 81–91, 1972.
19.
PotterM.Induction of plasmacytomas with silicone gel in genetically susceptible strains of mice. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86: 1058–1065, 1994.
20.
U.S.Federal Register, 47(12), January 19, 1982.
21.
HeuperW. C.Experimental production of cancer by means of implanted polyurethane plastics. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 34: 328–333, 1960.
22.
HeuperW. C.Cancer induction by polyurethane and polysilicone plastics. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 33: 1005–1027, 1964.
23.
AikmanB., and SniderS.Polyurethane Foam-Covered Breast Implants. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Md., 1991.
24.
BatichC.WilliamsJ., and KingR.Toxic hydrolysis product from a biodegradable foam implant. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 23(A3 Suppl.): 311–319, 1989.
25.
GuidoinR.The polyurethane foam covering the Meme breast prosthesis: A biomedical breakthrough or a biomaterial tar baby?Ann. Plast. Surg. 29: 477–478, 1992.
26.
ChanS. C.GradeenC. Y., and BirdsellD.Detection of toluedianensis in the urine of a patient with polyurethane-covered breast implants. Clin. Chem. 37: 756–758, 1991.
27.
SittigM.Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemical and Carcinogens, Ed. 2. Noyes Publications, N.J., 1985.
28.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Update on Silicone Gel Filled Breast Implants. Press Release, May 27, 1992.
29.
JohnsonJ. A.Breast Implants: Safety and Federal Regulation. CRS Report to Congress 92–358 SPR, pp. 1–23. Congressional Reference Service, Washington, D.C., 1992.
30.
GoldbergM. Z.Silicone-gel breast implants: How safe are they?Trial27: 17–19, 1991.
31.
Panel Deliberations. In General and Plastics Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 3, pp. 251–323. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Gaithersburg, Md., November 14, 1991.
32.
HiltsP. J.Studies link breast implants and antibodies. New York Times, March 20, 1993, p. A8.
33.
NaimJ. O.LanzafameR. J., and Vann OssC. J.The adjuvant effect of silicone-gel on antibody formation in rats. Immunol. Invest. 2: 151–161, 1993.
34.
LewinT.As silicone issues grow, women take agony and anger to court. New York Times, January 19, 1992, pp. 1, 18.
35.
JohnsonR. M.Document review. In General and Plastics Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 40–53. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
36.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA requests moratorium on silicone breast implants. FDA Medical Alert (MDA 92–1), January 6, 1992.
37.
PattenB.Autoimmune symptoms in breast implant patients: Clinical experience. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 276–287. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
38.
VaseyF. B.Autoimmune symptoms in breast implant patients: Clinical experience. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 245–255. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
39.
CallahanT.Tensile strength and liquid silicone bleed. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 73–83. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
40.
LangoneJ. J.Survey of laboratory studies. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 370–384. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
41.
ShanklinD. R.Late tissue reactions to silicone and silica: The natural history of silicone-associated diseases with special reference to infections and immunological markers in tissue. In Conference on Silicone and Medical Devices, Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 103–126. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Baltimore, Md., February 1–2, 1991.
42.
LavierR.Questions and answers of manufacturers. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 2, pp. 262–265. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
43.
NightengaleS.Update on Japanese experience with injected silicone. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices and Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 307–314. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
44.
Panel deliberations. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 3, pp. 299–354. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
45.
KesslerD. A.The basis of the FDA's decision on breast implants. N. Engl. J. Med. 326: 1713–1715, 1992.
46.
AngellM.Breast implants—protection or paternalism. N. Engl. J. Med. 326: 1695–1696, 1992.
47.
BagleyG.Office of Health Affairs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Telephone interview, Washington, D.C., November 23, 1993.
48.
WalshM.Open public session. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 2, pp. 445–448. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
49.
LloydM.Testimony. In General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 84–90. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md., February 18–20, 1992.
50.
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Silicone breast implants. JAMA270: 2602–2606, 1993.
51.
KesslerD. A.MerkatzR. B., and ShapiroR.A call for higher standards of breast implants. JAMA270: 2607–2608, 1993.
52.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS News, January 5, 1993.
53.
Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corporation (ND Cal 1992).
54.
KolataG.Fund proposed for settling disputes over breast implants. New York Times, September 10, 1993, p. A16.
55.
KolataG.Study finds no implant disease links. New York Times, June 16, 1994, p. A18.
56.
Firms must pay $12.9 million. Philadelphia Inquirer, March 3, 1994, p. A12.
57.
DragoM.Punitive award is $15 million for implants. Philadelphia Inquirer, March 4, 1994, p. A12.
58.
GrantN. J.The Selling of Contraception: The Dalkon Shield Case, Sexuality and Women's Autonomy. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, 1992.
59.
PerryS.Nightmare: Women and the Dalkon Shield. Macmillan, New York, 1985.
60.
GabrielS. E.Risks of connective-tissue diseases and other disorders after breast augmentation. N. Engl. J. Med. 330: 1697–1702, 1994.
61.
HochbergM. C.The Association of Augmentation Mammoplasty with Systemic Sclerosis: Results from a Multicenter Case-Control Study. Abstract. 58th Annual Scientific Meeting, American College of Rheumatology, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 25, 1994.
