By 
Multi-district litigation has been filed against Boston Scientific, the makers of gynecological mesh, a medical device that allegedly caused more than 100,000 women horrifying injuries.
This is the largest multi-district litigation since mesothelioma and asbestos.
What is gynecological mesh and why is it used?
More than 2 million women have had the medical device implanted in them. Gynecological mesh is a small plastic strip with a loosely woven sheet above it and it’s used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgically inserted through the abdomen or the vagina and implanted to reinforce a weakened vaginal wall. Gynecological mesh is also used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) which is when a women loses control of her bladder and has an unintentional loss of urine as a result of doing light physical movement like sneezing or jogging. Most commonly, it is implanted to treat urinary incontinence that resulted from organs that shifted around during pregnancy. It works like a sling to hold the organs up. The implants may have been recommended to stay in for the life of the patient.
Why are more than 100,000 women forming a class action and suing the makers of gynecological mesh?
Millions of women were told by manufacturers and healthcare professionals that gynecological mesh was safe. They were told this medical device could treat their POP or SUI, but after doing so, many faced horrifying results, including injury, death or malfunction.
Complications listed by the MAYO Clinic
POP complications include:
Erosion
Pain
Infection
Bleeding
Pain during sex
Organ perforation
Urinary problems
More surgeries required
SUI complications include:
Mesh erosion
Infection
Pain
Complications as presented by CBS News
Complications:
Chronic inflammatory reaction
Mesh shrunk and became encased in scar tissue causing problems
How is this effecting women?
Some women lose feeling in their bladder or other organs and end up visiting the hospital. Some women are in constant shooting pain and cannot move or take care of their families. According to two patients who spoke to CBS News, the pain felt like a “cheese grater” and “sandpaper” on their insides. Their ability to live their lives, take care of their kids, or perform their work duties are hindered as a result of this medical device.
What is Boston Scientific saying?
According to CBS News, Boston Scientific is arguing that gynecological mesh is “safe and effective.”
The product may contain materials that are not only unsafe for the human body but potentially deadly.
The gynecological mesh is made from a plastic called polypropylene, a material commonly used in packaging. According to CBS News, Boston Scientific received FDA approval to use a brand of polypropylene created by a subsidiary of Chevron Phillips, but Chevron Phillips issued a warning stating that it should not be used for, “permanent implantation in the human body.” In fact, in 2005, Chevron Phillips stopped supplying Boston Scientific the plastic needed to create the gynecological mesh.
CBS News added statements from Duane Priddy, a leading plastic engineer, who stated, “I can’t, in my wildest imagination, imagine anybody that’s knowledgeable in the science of plastics ever deciding that it was appropriate to use polypropylene in the human body. It’s well known that its oxidatively unstable.” What this means is that oxygen breaks down the plastic causing it to disintegrate. Even with additives, it will disintegrat, causing it to be extremely dangerous if implanted in a human body.
Despite the issues, Boston Scientific continued its search to find the FDA approved plastic, called Marlex, from other suppliers around the world!
They found and bought a large supply of the plastic from a supplier in China despite concerns that the material was counterfeit, there was a lack of documentary evidence as to where the product came from or what was in it, and that the tests they ran on the material showed it to be of extremely inferior quality.
Yet, they were still being implanted in women! The alleged negligence may mean millions of women may be entitled to compensation for their injuries, pain and suffering.
Comments