Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, the Cleveland Clinic, and the University of Pennsylvania Health System have been added to the growing list of prominent hospitals who have suspended the use of a surgical device used in hysterectomies because it can cause the spread of cancer.

Forty percent of hysterectomies are done because of the presence of painful fibroid tumors. The device that these hospitals have banned is a power morcellator, which is used to help remove fibroid tumors during hysterectomies.

The use of a morcellator involves making a small incision near the belly button to remove the uterus. Recovery time is three to five days, compared to four to six weeks when the uterus is removed via conventional surgery.

Surgeons use the morcellator to slice up the fibroids or the entire uterus, thus allowing the tissue to be removed through the tiny incision that was made.

But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced the dangers associated with morcellation because the procedure can spread any cancer cells that may be present in the fibroids or the uterus, leaving them behind in the abdomen and pelvic area.

According to the FDA, one in every 350 women who undergo the procedure has uterine cancer which goes undetectable in any pre-operative testing. The spreading of these cancer cells by this procedure significantly decreases rates of long-term survival.

A solution to the issue is to put a bag around the device while the procedure is being performed in order to catch any of that tissue. However, adding the bag would require additional training for surgeons and this could drive up the cost of the procedure.

Studies revealing the dangers of the procedure spreading cancer cells have been around for several years. In 2011, researchers from South Korea presented at a medical conference in Florida their findings of a study they did comparing morcellating tumors or removing them whole. In the group of patients whose tumors were removed whole, 19 percent died within five years. In the group of patients whose tumors were morcellated, 44 percent died within three years. There have been similar results in studies done by studies done in Boston and in Germany.

If you have been left struggling with serious health problems after having a hysterectomy done, contact an experienced Connecticut medical malpractice attorney to find out what compensation you may be entitled to for pain and loss.

Merck & Co. recently announced an agreement to pay $100 million in order to settle all pending lawsuits regarding the company’s NuvaRing contraceptive.

The agreement covers all cases that have been filed in state and federal courts, as well as any claims that have not been filed yet. The company says 95 percent of the 3,800 eligible people need to take part in the agreement in order for it to be put in place.

NuvaRing, available by prescription only, is a plastic vaginal ring that releases low doses of two female hormones, estrogen and progestin. While the ring is in place, these hormones are released in order to block ovulation.

The ring was designed by the company Organon and Schering. It became available in the U.S. in 2002. But in 2007, users of the product began filing lawsuits against the company, alleging that the product could cause blood clots. These clots can lead to heart attacks, strokes and sudden death. Lawsuits also accused the manufacturer of failing to warn the public about these potential health risks.

Merck purchased Schering-Plough in 2009 and inherited the liability blamed on the NuvaRing, along with all the lawsuits. Merck denies all liability to any injuries suffered by victims in its settlement agreement.

If the settlement is approved, it would be much less than what other manufacturers have had to pay out for similar product defects. Last year, Bayer paid almost $1.6 billion in settlements to the thousands of claimants in lawsuits accusing the company’s Yaz and Yazmin birth control pills of causing blood clots that also led to strokes and heart attacks.

If your doctor has prescribed a medication which caused injuries or left you disabled, contact an experienced Westport medical malpractice attorney to find out what civil action you may be able to file for compensation in regards to the pain and loss you may have suffered.

Several subjects regarding healthcare and patient–doctor responsibility have come to light in the wake of the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act. One such necessary discussion that has been much less prominent has been the need to reform the framework for medical malpractice. According to a recent article in the Huffington Post, however, this is one of the most important debates the nation is not having.

One important tenant of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, attempted to curb the cost of wasted money in the healthcare industry. The majority of this waste comes from three causes, reports the Huffington Post: defensive medicine, “caused by unnecessary tests and procedures done in part to help protect doctors from possible lawsuits;” a reimbursement system that rewards doctors for providing more instead of better care; and the cost of “a torrent of bureaucracy.” The article suggests that inefficient healthcare systems waste approximately one trillion dollars of taxpayer money every year. “Solving these problems,” reports the Huffington Post, “requires entirely new frameworks.”

One such initiative included in an early draft of the Act included “alternative systems of justice,” according to the Huffington Post, but this provision was tempered with the actual passage of the law. As it stands, patients can opt out of participating in these special types of health care courts at any time.  

In 2012 alone, according to the New York Daily News, medical malpractice suits costs New York City $134 million by August alone. According to a Connecticut State government legislative report, a total of 3,302 claims were reported in the state between 2008 and 2012, and just less than half (1,562) closed with an indemnity payment. The total cost for the state over the five-year reporting period was $861 million.

Special health care courts that are made mandatory could help to keep the cost of medical malpractice down for taxpayers, no matter in which state you live. Regardless, medical malpractice is a serious issue that requires the assistance of legal counsel. If you or someone you is considering a medical malpractice suit in Connecticut, contact the law offices of Richard H. Raphael for a free initial consultation today.