Breast Implants What Does the Breast Implant

Breast Implants

What does the breast implant controversy reveal about society's attitudes toward product safety, about the legal liability of manufacturers, and about the role of regulatory agencies like the FDA in protecting consumers?

The breast implant controversy is illustrating how the public will often disregard product safety. The reason why is because: celebrities, millionaires and other affluent individuals are having these procedures done. This means that consumers will begin following the trends that have been established by this group despite the possible dangers. As far as the legal liability is concerned, this is illustrating how manufacturers are responsible if their products are impacting the health of consumers. Where, they have a legal liability to ensure that there is proper testing and updates about possible dangers. In the case of regulators, this is illustrating how they are provided with greater amounts of control and power in the overall quality of products that are sold to the public. At the same time, they have the authority to restrict the sale of those products that are considered to be unsafe. ("Breast Implants," n.d., pp. 250 -- 252)

These different elements are important, because they are showing how the combination of them is what contributed to the rise in silicone breast implants. As, women tried to meet a standard that was set by society; yet they did not consider the risks to their health. This is because, they would see celebrities' (such as Cher) having these kinds of procedures completed. At which point, the public would begin to talk about the way she was a sex symbol and how voluptuous they made her look. This is the point that women around the country had to have this kind of surgery. As, they believed that it was safe and that offered them a way of being more attractive. While at the same time, Dow Corning pushed the surgery and how it can enhance women's looks to increase their profit margins. Then, there were the regulators who did not have the power or the authority to understand the problems. Over the course of time, these factors would lead to the crisis and the changing views about the hazards / areas of responsibility. ("Breast Implants," n.d., pp. 250 -- 252)

Is hot coffee so dangerous, as the jury thought? Should a reasonable consumer be expected to know that coffee can burn and to have assumed this risk? Is a warning label sufficient? Is our society too protective of consumers these days, or not protective enough?

Hot coffee is not as dangerous as the jury believed. The reason why, is because many different restaurant chains and coffee houses (i.e. Starbucks) are selling coffee at similar temperatures. The only difference is that they might be slightly lower and are using tighter lids. The fact that large numbers of people are not burned every year (who are consuming coffee from these locations) is an indication that these temperatures are safe. Therefore, the lawsuit and the decision are considered to be frivolous. ("Hot Coffee at McDonalds," n.d., pp. 252 -- 253)

Yes. A reasonable consumer should know that coffee can burn them. The reason why, is because there is an assumed risk, as coffee and other substances are considered to be hot. This means that when it is applied to the skin or it is consumed to fast there is the possibility that a person could burn themselves. As a result, the lawsuit is without merit, based on this basic assumption that everyone learns about this concept from the day that they are born. ("Hot Coffee at McDonalds," n.d., pp. 252 -- 253)

Our society is a combination of both: not protecting of consumers and overregulating businesses. As there are series of different laws that are enacted to safeguard the general public. The problem is that they are unevenly enforced. This is because many companies and individuals in positions of influence are often overlooked. As, they have considerably more resources to fight against any kind of possible investigations into their activities. This means that they can test the rules and go beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable under the law. The only time that many firms will often have problems from these actions is when they have clearly overstepped these boundaries.

This is troubling, because it means that the power and influence of these firms is increasing the risks that general public is facing. At which point, possible lawsuits (like the one with the coffee that was to hot) will become increasingly common. This is because many consumers feel that they have been cheated, which opens the door for a select class of lawyers to earn a living this way. Over the course of time, this creates a situation where consumers used this because they did not have any choice. The incident with the hot coffee is a sign that the entire procedure has become a frivolous legal solution. As a result, there needs to be greater amounts of regulation against the activities of large organizations. This can be accomplished by enforcing the law and ensuring that they are continually following its provisions. ("Hot Coffee at McDonalds," n.d., pp. 252 -- 253)