The editorial from today's Chicago Tribune , reflecting on the treatment of breast implants here in the USA.
The whole episode was a case study in the folly of policymaking by anecdote..... So why did it take a decade and a half for the FDA to let these implants back on the market? One reason is government regulators don't like admitting they were wrong. Another is that they prefer to err on the side of excessive caution. No one will get sick from an operation she is not allowed to have, which means no bureaucrat will be blamed for the illness.
Another comment from the NewsBusters blog titled "Deflating Hysteria: Implant Scare of Early '90s Had No Merit"
From the Saginaw (MI) News "Greed, implants and iffy science"
The FDA's approval this month still doesn't address the shortcomings of a legal system that steamrolled over science and caused manufacturers to suspend or quit marketing of silicone based medical devices. Its anyone's guess how many lives and health hardship that cost....It's a travesty of our product liability system that it took so long and cost so much to give women the choice. The only big winners in this legal-medical saga were the lawyers. (emphasis mine)
From the Business & Media Institute " article "Unhealthy Bias in Implant Stories, Then and Now" which focuses on the media treatment from the early 1990's culminated in the infamous Connie Chung hit piece on "48 Hours"
From AEI comes "Two Cheers for the FDA - The recent decision to allow silicone breast implants was a sadly unusual victory of evidence over fear for the agency."