Moral - Breast Implants
The Moral and Legal Obligations of Breast Implants In a world that revolves around impressions, many people that it is very important to look your best at all times. We are constantly seeing images of the "perfect body". From Barbie to Baywatch, American women are constantly being shown images of girls with eighteen inch waists, thirty two inch hips and a D cup chest. Feeling as if they need to achieve this image to be attractive, women flock to the exercise gym in large numbers. They spend two hours a day exercising to achieve that tiny waistline that they desire. They are not satisfied with the chest that God gave them so they also want to alter this aspect of their body. In the past, women did chest exercises to enhance their bustline. As they got smarter, they realized that all that they were doing is enlarging the muscle and in fact minimizing their bustline. In today's age of technology, scientist have developed a way to surgically inhance the size of women's bustlines. By surgically inserting silicone bags into the breast, women everywhere had the opportunity to achieve the most desirable bustline. A surgery originally intended for reconstructive purposes, by 1990 eighty percent of all implants
Were the comanies went wrong is that they did not tell the consumer that they were not one hundred percent fail free, therefore they have a moral obligation towards the patient. Though the results did not come out to be one hundred percent on way, the overwhelming majority of the juries say that the sole burden of responsibility belongs on the manufacturing company. Silicone is in no way good for the body. Hard core evidence or not, it is not right to make the patients suffer without compensation. If they would have told the patient that there was a health risk involved in their procedure then they would have been able to remove the burden of responsibility from their shoulders. The patients were not happy with the unexpected side effects of his surgery and combined their legal resources and made several class action suits against Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of the silicone implants. Rebuttal The company is wrong in its theory of why it is not responsible for the damages caused by the ruptured breast implants. It is obvious that the manufacturer, Dow Chemical, is the one responsible for repaying patients for damages caused by ruptured breast implants. First and foremost, when the product appeared on the market 1978 it was classified by the FDA as a "Class II" device. If they would have done this, they would have never put their product on the market. Since the FDA concluded that it could not majority hurt any human then the manufacturer should not be responsible for the damages put upon the consumer. The business should give safety the priority warranted by the product. Is the manufacturer responsible for the illness that their product caused upon the patients? I feel that they are responsible for the side effects caused by the implants.
Common topics in this essay:
Dow Chemical,
Class II,
Baywatch American,
Conclusion United,
II Thesis,
Class III,
Chemical Company,
IV Rebuttal,
Implants Thesis,
dow chemical,
Dow Chemicals,
responsible damages,
hundred percent,
breast implants,
hard core,
hundred percent fail,
fail free,
ruptured bags,
product market,
silicone implants,
manufacturer responsible,
percent fail free,
manufacturer responsible damages,
dow chemical company,
ruptured breast implants,
|
Acceptance Essays
