Preview Newsletter
Ethicon 11/20
-
Texas Justices Shelve J&J Mesh Case After Appeal Dropped
Nov 17, 2017 | Law360
By Jess Krochtengel
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday decided to end a case asking when the clock begins to run on a personal injury claim stemming from an allegedly defective product, after the plaintiff in a Johnson & Johnson unit pelvic mesh suit dropped her connected Eleventh Circuit appeal. -
As Health Products Litigation Heats Up, Plaintiffs Lawyers Questioning Tactics of J&J's Counsel
Nov 17, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
Plaintiffs lawyers representing plaintiffs in three separate cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries have alleged over the past six weeks that attorneys for the health care products company have engaged in improper contact with witnesses in the cases. -
J&J Lawyers’ Questionable Ethics in High Stakes Litigation
Nov 20, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
Johnson & Johnson is involved in three high stakes health product mass tort cases and plaintiffs’ lawyers allege the company is using questionable tactics. -
W.Va. High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Hysterectomy Suit
Nov 17, 2017 | Law360
By Nicole Narea
West Virginia’s high court on Friday affirmed the toss of a medical malpractice suit alleging that a doctor injured a patient during a hysterectomy, finding that the lower court rightly determined the suit was time-barred. -
Sling the Mesh holds a ‘virtual rally’ of 10 Downing Street ahead of a Parliamentary meeting into the controversial implants scandal
Nov 17, 2017 | Wisbech Standard
By Harry Rutter
The Prime Minister’s official home at 10 Downing Street is the next step in our Sling The Mesh campaign when women hold a ‘virtual rally’ in the capital. -
Readers urged to bombard May with tweets for weekly’s campaign
Nov 20, 2017 | Hold The Front Page
By David Sharman
A weekly newspaper is set to hold a virtual march on Downing Street as part of a campaign to ban a medical procedure which left one of its journalists a “physical wreck”. -
Tackling the taboos – Alex Cole-Hamilton leads Holyrood debate on incontinence
Nov 17, 2017 | Liberal Democrat Voice
By Caron Lindsay
As we reported last month, Alex Cole-Hamilton brought a motion calling for a National Continence Strategy to the Scottish Parliament. It was debated yesterday. -
Transvaginal Mesh Victim calls Implant the “Alien Thing”
Nov 18, 2017 | Lawyers and Settlements
By Jane Mundy
Since Jane had her first transvaginal mesh implant she has dealt with pain and incontinence (she didn’t even have this issue before the implant), two rounds of Botox, self-catheterization, and infections and if it can’t get any worse, she and her husband can no longer have sexual intercourse.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Texas Justices Shelve J&J Mesh Case After Appeal Dropped
Nov 17, 2017 | Law360
By Jess Krochtengel
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday decided to end a case asking when the clock begins to run on a personal injury claim stemming from an allegedly defective product, after the plaintiff in a Johnson & Johnson unit pelvic mesh suit dropped her connected Eleventh Circuit appeal.
The court had been set to hear argument Feb. 7 on a question certified by the Eleventh Circuit: whether the state’s “discovery rule” means the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim starts when a consumer connects their injury to a defective product or only when they also have reason to believe the manufacturer acted with ill intent or negligence.
The case arose from Texas plaintiff Ann Marie Bergin’s claim J&J unit Mentor Worldwide LLC made a defective suburethral mesh sling product called ObTape Transobturator Tape that caused her pain and other negative side effects. About 10 days after the Texas justices granted review of the question, Bergin asked the Eleventh Circuit to dismiss her appeal with prejudice.
And on Nov. 10, Bergin asked the Texas high court to jettison its planned review of the question.
“Because of the termination of the underlying case from which the question was certified to this court, there is no longer a justiciable controversy,” she said in a motion to dismiss.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
The Bergin case stems from her 2005 implant of Mentor’s ObTape to resolve her urinary incontinence. She alleges she experienced pain and other negative side effects in the months after getting the implant, that her doctor found part of the implant was exposed and removed that section, and that only after another surgery in September 2006 did he extract the mesh material that likely led to the side effects.
In May 2013, Bergin sued Mentor in Georgia federal court, claiming the company may have acted negligently in producing a defective sling. Mentor argued Bergin’s claims were time-barred under Texas law, which designates a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
The parties disagreed about when the countdown should begin on her claims, with Mentor contending the start date was in 2006, when Bergin’s doctor first linked her symptoms to the sling, while Bergin says the time limit on her case shouldn’t start to run until 2013, when she allegedly discovered that the product was defective.
The Georgia federal court agreed with Mentor, ruling the limitations period begins when the consumer identifies a product that caused them injury.
Bergin appealed, arguing the Georgia court’s ruling is incorrect under Texas law and that the clock only begins to run on a claim when both the injury and its “negligent cause” have been identified.
The Eleventh Circuit said Georgia district courts, the Fifth Circuit and the Texas Supreme Court have struggled to reach a consensus on the appropriate requirements for accrual of a claim, at times contradicting their own precedent, and asked the Texas justices to clarify the issue.
Bergin is represented by Earl Landers Vickery of Law Office of Lanny Vickery, Andy D. Birchfield Jr., Wesley Chadwick Cook, Michael J. Crow, Frederick Bryan Darley III, Kendall C. Dunson, M. Allison Hunnicutt and Patricia Leigh O'Dell of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC.
Mentor is represented by John Q. Lewis, Dustin Bradley Rawlin and Benjamin Creighton Sasse of Tucker Ellis LLP.
The case is Bergin v. Mentor Worldwide LLC et al., case number 17-0781 in the Supreme Court of Texas.https://www.law360.com/articles/986461/texas-justices-shelve-j-j-mesh-case-after-appeal-dropped
-
As Health Products Litigation Heats Up, Plaintiffs Lawyers Questioning Tactics of J&J's Counsel
Nov 17, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
Plaintiffs lawyers representing plaintiffs in three separate cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries have alleged over the past six weeks that attorneys for the health care products company have engaged in improper contact with witnesses in the cases.
The most high-profile accusation was made in October in a Texas case involving a J&J subsidiary, in which a federal judge asked the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to look into allegations of witness tampering.
But, in early November lead counsel in the Xarelto litigation also made allegations that a sales representative for J&J subsidiary Janssen improperly contacted a key witness in the ongoing bellwether case, and that counsel for the company failed to properly notify the plaintiffs about the alleged contact until the eve of trial. Also, counsel for the plaintiffs in the pelvic mesh mass tort alleged that attorneys for defendant Ethicon, another J&J subsidiary, intentionally misrepresented the whereabouts of a witness integral to a jurisdictional dispute that could result in having most of the litigation transferred out of Philadelphia.
Attorneys from Drinker Biddle & Reath have been involved in each of the disputes. A spokesman for the firm did not provide a comment for this story as of press time.
A spokesman for J&J has denied the allegations.
“We contend that these allegations are completely without merit, and are simply meant to distract from the issues in these cases,” Ernie Knewitz said in an emailed statement.
One of the attorneys involved in the DePuy case filed a motion in mid-October saying she did not ask the DePuy sales rep to “do anything or communicate” with the witness at issue, a doctor who had filed an affidavit suggesting witness tampering. The judge ultimately determined that the jury would not be able to hear about the alleged witness tampering, and on Thursday, the jury awarded the plaintiff $247 million.
“The court’s finding shows that opposing counsel’s allegations—particularly the suggestions of criminal wrongdoing—were an unfair and unfounded attack on the integrity of the company and its legal team. We are glad to now have that matter behind us,” attorney John Beisner, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who is also representing DePuy, said in an emailed statement.
In the Xarelto matter, after the allegations first arose Janssen produced a signed declaration from the sales representative saying she did not speak with the witness, who was a treating doctor for the plaintiffs, but merely left materials with the doctor’s assistant asking him to attend a presentation. In the wake of the allegations, a spokeswoman for Janssen also said the allegations were “completely without merit,” and “simply meant to distract from the issues” in the case.
However, the judge handling that case agreed to allow the sales representative to be deposed, and on Nov. 15, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow the jury to hear arguments about whether the contact may have impacted the witness’s testimony.
The allegations involving Ethicon, another J&J subsidiary, were spelled out in a Nov. 6 motion to the court regarding a dispute that recently emerged over whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bristol Myers-Squibb v. Superior Court of California means that Philadelphia lacks jurisdiction over Ethicon in most of the pelvic mesh cases filed there.
The allegations about defense counsel’s conduct involve efforts by plaintiffs counsel to take the deposition of a former Ethicon employee regarding whether the company used materials made by a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer in its mesh devices. According to the motion, plaintiffs counsel sought to depose former Ethicon employee James Williams, but defense attorneys responded that Williams no longer worked for Ethicon, and that they would “continue to work to obtain Mr. Williams’ contact information.” Defense counsel also suggested that a current Ethicon employee be deposed instead, according to the motion.
However, the motion said, plaintiffs attorneys found Williams’ contact information through a simple internet search, and during the deposition learned that Williams had lived at the same location long before he left Ethicon and that Ethicon had contacted him in October to tell him he might be deposed.
“So on the very day that Ethicon told the court that it would ‘work to obtain Mr. Williams’ contact information,’ it telephoned Mr. Williams,” the motion said. “The court should be aware of Ethicon’s dissembling and what appears to be flat-out dishonesty when trying to prevent Mr. Williams’ deposition from taking place.”
The motion said the conduct could justify sanctions, but asked that the court should use the company’s alleged conduct when making credibility determinations about Williams’ deposition, which plaintiffs attorneys said greatly supports their position.
Attorney Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter, who is a lead attorney in the pelvic mesh litigation, declined to comment for the story.
One clear theme to the allegations is that they are emerging over especially high-stakes issues.
The allegations involving DePuy arose in a bellwether trial over the company’s hip implant. Two previous trials landed $502 million and $1.04 billion verdicts.
The allegations involving Xarelto arose in the first bellwether trial to take place in Philadelphia, after the plaintiffs suffered a string of losses in federal court, and the jurisdictional dispute in the pelvic mesh case could significantly reduce the number of cases pending in Philadelphia, where Ethicon has been hit with numerous multimillion-dollar verdicts, including a $57.1 million award in September.
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/sites/thelegalintelligencer/2017/11/17/as-health-products-litigation-heats-up-plaintiffs-lawyers-questioning-tactics-of-jjs-counsel/?slreturn=20171020033958
-
J&J Lawyers’ Questionable Ethics in High Stakes Litigation
Nov 20, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
Johnson & Johnson is involved in three high stakes health product mass tort cases and plaintiffs’ lawyers allege the company is using questionable tactics.
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in three separate health products cases against defendant Johnson & Johnson say J&J attorneys have resorted to improper contact with witnesses over the last six weeks, reports The Legal Intelligencer (here).
The situation is being taken so seriously that in October, a federal judge asked the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate allegations of witness tampering involving DePuy, the J&J company responsible for metal-on-metal hips.
The Journal reports that in another case involving the blood thinner Xarelto, the lead counsel for J&J’s subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, is alleged to have improperly contacted a key witness in the bellwether case. The plaintiffs’ counsel was not told until the eve of trial.
In another charge, counsel for pelvic mesh plaintiffs argued that attorneys for Ethicon misrepresented the whereabouts of a witness important to a dispute about jurisdiction questions that have arisen since a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bristol-Myers Squibb.
In the pelvic mesh case, the allegations are that defense counsel told plaintiffs’ counsel that a former Ethicon employee no longer worked for Ethicon but they would try to find him. But the man in question, James Williams, had not moved since leaving Ethicon. Additionally, he had been warned in October by the company that he might be deposed.
Plaintiffs’ firms said the company was trying to prevent Mr. Williams’ deposition from taking place.
The Supreme Court decision essentially says that a plaintiff must reside in or the defendant company must do business in a state where a product liability case is litigated. See Bristol Myers-Squibb v. Superior Court of California story here.
The issue could have resulted in having the transvaginal mesh litigation transferred out of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Ethicon argues as many as 90 cases do not meet that criteria.
Since that decision, Judge Arnold New granted Ethicon’s motion to block plaintiffs from additional depositions about Ethicon’s materials suppliers. Plaintiffs will be allowed to depose a corporate designee about the sourcing of Ethicon materials.
There are more than 100 pelvic mesh cases waiting in the Philadelphia court. Kline & Specter is representing the plaintiffs.
The lawyers for J&J are with the law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath but did not comment for the story wile J&J has denied allegations.
Earnie Knewitz said in an email to The Legal Intelligencer“We content that these allegations are completely without merit, and are simply meant to distract from the issues in these cases.”
In the DePuy case, a J&J attorney denies she asked a sales rep to communicate with a surgeon. Texas attorney Mark Lanier raised the witness tampering concerns during a hip implant trial in Dallas.
Lanier alleges that orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Shein, alleged a DePuy sales rep told him “there could be ramifications” from his upcoming testimony. The doctor said the conversation and pressure from lawyers made him anxious. Lanier declined to put him on the stand.
In the DePuy case the jury was not allowed to hear about the alleged witness tampering and instead awarded the plaintiff $247 million.
The J&J law firm in the DePuy matter were Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom who call the suggestion of criminal wrongdoing an “unfair and unfounded attack on the integrity of the company and its legal team.”
J&J is facing high stakes lawsuits. The DePuy litigation has resulted in a $502 million and $1.04 billion verdicts.
The Xarelto case was the first bellwether to take place in the Philadelphia state court and transvaginal mesh cases against Ethicon in Philadelphia has resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts for the plaintiffs, the most recent being $57.1 million in September.
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/jj-lawyers-questionable-ethics-high-stakes-litigation/
-
W.Va. High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Hysterectomy Suit
Nov 17, 2017 | Law360
By Nicole Narea
West Virginia’s high court on Friday affirmed the toss of a medical malpractice suit alleging that a doctor injured a patient during a hysterectomy, finding that the lower court rightly determined the suit was time-barred.
The five-judge panel determined that patient Donna Parsons should have known that her doctor, Betty Goad, might have damaged her bowel during surgery when another doctor diagnosed her with an infection afterward, noting that she had ample opportunity to file suit in time. The high court therefore agreed with the lower court in determining that her claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
“Petitioners discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered that Mrs. Parsons’ injuries may have been caused by Dr. Goad when Dr. Hofeldt diagnosed Mrs. Parsons with a postoperative infection,” the decision states. “On July 11, 2013, petitioners learned something went wrong, as proved by the fact that they sought legal counsel later that same month to evaluate potential claims.”
Parsons received a hysterectomy from Goad in June 2013 and informed Goad that there was drainage at the incision site during a follow-up appointment the next month. Goad determined that the drainage was a result of a periumbilical infection, prescribed antibiotics, and referred her to another doctor, Matthew Hofeldt.
That July, after performing a CT scan and an exploratory procedure, Hofeldt determined that Parsons had a postoperative wound, an infection and bowel damage. He then removed infected permanent mesh implants that had been put there years earlier, saying that they looked like they had eroded into the bowel.
Parsons told Goad later that month about the procedure, which allegedly occurred around the time various mesh manufacturers were facing product liability litigation. Parsons then sought legal counsel to determine if she should have become involved in the litigation.
However, Parsons’ counsel told her that Goad might have caused the injury to her bowel, a hunch later confirmed by another doctor. She consequently sued the hospital and Goad in November 2015.
The hospital and Goad, however, asked the court to toss the suit on the basis that Parsons’ claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations under West Virginia code. The circuit court agreed, determining that the statute of limitations began running on July 11, 2013, at the latest, when Parsons’ postoperative infection was diagnosed. It also asserted that the fact that Parsons initially thought her injury was due to defective mesh implants did not save her complaint.
Parsons appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to notify her that it was ruling on summary judgment in the case, that it incorrectly found her claims time-barred, and that it wrongly discounted certain witness affidavits, according to court filings.
The panel determined that the lower court had, in fact, provided adequate notice that it was ruling on summary judgment in the case, arguing that, at the very least, the hospital’s motion was titled “motion for summary judgment.”
Moreover, the high court determined that the circuit court correctly based its assertion that Parsons’ claims were time-barred on the undisputed facts regarding when he contracted her infection, when Goad performed the hysterectomy, when Hofeldt diagnosed her, and when Parsons sought legal counsel.
And finally, the panel agreed with the lower circuit court’s refusal to accept affidavits from Parsons’ medical providers that indicated that she might have had a defective mesh implant, finding “no obvious injustice” in denying her request.
Counsel for the parties were not available to comment after business hours Friday.
Justices Allen Loughry, Margaret L. Workman, Menis E. Ketchum, Elizabeth Walker and Robin Jean Davis sat on the panel for Supreme Court of Appeals.
Parsons is represented by Robert P. Welch.
The hospital is represented by Robby J. Aliff and Candice M. Harlow of Jackson Kelly PLLC.
Goad is represented by Don R. Sensabaugh Jr. and J. Dustin Dillard of Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC.
The case is Donna Parsons et al. v. Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital et al., case number 16-1178, in the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia.https://www.law360.com/articles/986576/w-va-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-hysterectomy-suit
-
Nov 17, 2017 | Wisbech Standard
By Harry Rutter
The Prime Minister’s official home at 10 Downing Street is the next step in our Sling The Mesh campaign when women hold a ‘virtual rally’ in the capital.
The rally will be held the evening before the first official All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) into mesh.
Speaking at the APPG will be leading professors, surgeons and MPs alongside Kath Sansom who will represent Sling The Mesh Facebook campaign group, which has grown to 4,400 members.
It had 1,100 members six months ago.
Kath said: “Many women are in too much pain to travel to the capital to protest, so we are doing a virtual rally instead via social media.
“We will be Tweeting 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister and her health secretaries, to raise awareness of what is clearly a national women’s health scandal and a personal disaster for everyone affected.The MHRA admits that austerity measures are challenging in the medical device department. Sling The Mesh is calling for a public inquiry and mesh implants to be suspended.
“An issue that gets support from politicians in every party is clearly a matter of great concern.
“There has been woefully inadequate auditing of mesh outcomes by surgeons, so nobody knows the true scale of this disaster, but I can guarantee you it is way higher than the one to three per cent risk quoted by the NHS.
“Most surgeons only follow up women for a few months post surgery. Some problems don’t cut in for years.
“Even if there are problems, less than 40 per cent of surgeons report them to their databases.
“In addition most women on the group are told their intense pain has nothing to do with their mesh operation so in the surgeon’s eyes it is not a complication to report.
“All they see is that they fixed the incontinence or prolapse - they ignore the fact that women are left with ruined life quality.
“Studies used to calculate risk are short term and did not include risk of loss of sex life - this has been done deliberately to keep the statistics low.
“Even those low figures were worked out five years ago, so are not current, and the Government are ignoring a new study that shows risk is at least 10 per cent.
“That study looked at more than 92,000 women over eight years using the NHS’s own hospital readmission figures for women with mesh problems.
“The Government not listening. Enough is enough.”
• Sling The Mesh is calling for the Government to suspend vaginal/pelvic mesh implants while a public inquiry is carried out and a National register set up to track problems.
• The first All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) into mesh is at Portcullis House on Tuesday November 21 from 3 to 4pm.
• The Sling The Mesh virtual rally will be on Monday 20 from 6pm to 7pm. If you want to take part search @meshcampaign.
• Send tweets to @Number10gov, @Number10press, @jamesosh, @JackieDP, @Jeremy_hunt, @Theresa_may.
http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/sling-mesh-online-rally-10-downing-street-parliament-tvt-tvto-tot-1-5284827
-
Readers urged to bombard May with tweets for weekly’s campaign
Nov 20, 2017 | Hold The Front Page
By David Sharman
A weekly newspaper is set to hold a virtual march on Downing Street as part of a campaign to ban a medical procedure which left one of its journalists a “physical wreck”.
Cambs Times reporter Kath Sansom, left, has campaigned for the last three years to end pelvic surgical mesh implants – a procedure for women suffering with bladder problems following childbirth.
Campaigners says they have suffered serious life changing pelvic floor injuries and long-term chronic pain as a result of what is described as a minor procedure.
Now the Times is calling on readers to hold a ‘virtual rally’ tonight and bombard Prime Minister Theresa May, as well as health ministers, with tweets supporting calls for a public inquiry on the issue between 6pm and 7pm.
The paper hopes to get the hashtag #slingthemesh to trend on Twitter.
It comes after Labour backed Kath’s campaign when she attended a Parliamentary debate on the issue last month.
The first All-Party Parliamentary Mesh Group is set to meet on Tuesday, and Kath has been invited to address its members.
She said: “Many women are in too much pain to travel to the capital to protest, so we are doing a virtual rally instead via social media.
“We will be tweeting 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister and her health secretaries, to raise awareness of what is clearly a national women’s health scandal and a personal disaster for everyone affected.
“An issue that gets support from politicians in every party is clearly a matter of great concern.”
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2017/news/weekly-urges-readers-to-bombard-theresa-may-with-tweets-for-campaign/
-
Tackling the taboos – Alex Cole-Hamilton leads Holyrood debate on incontinence
Nov 17, 2017 | Liberal Democrat Voice
By Caron Lindsay
As we reported last month, Alex Cole-Hamilton brought a motion calling for a National Continence Strategy to the Scottish Parliament. It was debated yesterday. Here is Alex’s speech. He is pictured here with Elaine Miller, his constituent whose show Gusset Grippers highlighted the issue at this year’s Edinburgh Festival.
If we ask anyone in this chamber or beyond it what their top five fears of age or infirmity might be, we can be sure that the subject of this debate will sit right up there. However, I state from the outset that, if we, as legislators, assume that incontinence is a condition only of the old or infirm, we are mistaken and are part of the problem. I called for the debate because women and men of all ages suffer in silence. It is high time that they are made aware of, and given, treatment, support and—most important—hope.
Incontinence is still taboo. Patients are shy and embarrassed to talk about it or to seek medical help, and many of them assume that nothing can be done for them. This may be the first time that we have debated the problem with such a focus in the Parliament. I am glad that members from all parties are present today and are prepared to put aside our hang-ups on the issue and look collectively towards relatively straightforward solutions.
Here are the facts: one in three women and one in nine men leak urine. A remarkable 30 per cent of women who have given birth vaginally will have damage to their pelvic floor, while those who sustain a third or fourth-degree tear during childbirth are likely to have problems with faecal incontinence. Statistics show that incontinence has a bigger impact on a person’s quality of life than nearly any other condition, and a recent survey of those over the age of 60 and in hospital characterised incontinence as a fate worse than death.
We do not know the true cost to Scotland of incontinence, associated products and the causal impact on physical and mental health. However, in 2010, Australia made a stab at researching the scale of the problem. A study there examined the cost not only of sanitary wear, medication and surgery, but of dealing with the depression and anxiety that can arise from the condition. It amounted to $43 billion dollars annually, which is astronomical. Our two countries have similar societies and face similar health challenges, so we can extrapolate that to around £5,000 for every Scot with the condition every year.
A range of additional health complications stem from incontinence, and they have much bigger associated costs. For example, incontinence is linked to falls. Many older people fall and break their hip by slipping in the night after not making it to the loo in time and may become part of the 25 per cent of those over the age of 80 who will be dead within a year after such a fracture. We are still waiting for the national falls strategy, which will build on the 2014 falls framework that the Scottish Parliament voted for earlier this year.
One of the only surgical interventions available when sufferers are beyond the help of physiotherapy is the transvaginal mesh implant. Last year, along with colleagues from all parties, I met mesh survivors on a visit arranged by Neil Findlay. Thanks to their campaigning efforts, we have all heard the awful traumas that they have endured as a direct result of botched treatment for incontinence.
There is also a direct causal relationship between male incontinence, erectile dysfunction and male mental health issues. Given that much of the increase in the suicide rate last year related to young Scottish men, we cannot afford to ignore that link.
There are, nevertheless, solutions to this terrible condition, and they are not rocket science. Those women who, after childbirth, are left with rectus abdominis diastasis—separated tummy muscles—are more prone to developing back pain and vaginal prolapse. They could easily be identified on the maternity ward and referred to a physiotherapist. We also have a six-week postnatal check in place, but there is currently no requirement to check how those muscles have healed and not all general practices routinely follow that up. We can prevent more women finding themselves with that debilitating condition if they are empowered with knowledge both before and after giving birth.
It is astonishing that a country that provides a box to new parents that contains a poem from the makar does not yet routinely train midwives and health visitors in basic pelvic physiotherapy. We must ensure that that is done as a matter of course, so that mothers are informed about post-partum exercises, what to look out for after tearing and when to seek treatment.
An understanding of pelvic floor exercises must be included as part of the curriculum in either personal and social education or physical education, so that young people are aware of their own pelvic health. There is evidence that physiotherapy works for all ages as well as years after the onset of symptoms, yet many people who suffer incontinence do not realise that treatment could improve their symptoms.
We need to normalise the discourse around the issue. Given that only 30 per cent of sufferers are coming forward for help, we need to build awareness so that everyone who is affected knows how to get help and that they are not alone. That would not cost much money but could significantly improve the quality of life of those who experience the condition at any time of life.
Incontinence is a huge and underrecognised public health issue in our country, but evidence shows that we can prevent and manage it with physiotherapy. We need to better support the many Scots who contend with the problem every day, some of whom are known to us personally.
I will close by thanking my friend and constituent Elaine Miller, who is a pelvic physiotherapist and comedian. She is leading a one-woman campaign to bring the issue out of the shadows and to an international audience. She is sitting in the public gallery today and will bring her show to the Parliament next Tuesday. I heartily recommend it to colleagues.
Incontinence is one of those health conditions that are indiscriminate of class or lifestyle. It ruins lives but we seldom give it the attention that it deserves.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/tackling-the-taboos-alex-colehamilton-leads-holyrood-debate-on-incontinence-55874.html
-
Transvaginal Mesh Victim calls Implant the “Alien Thing”
Nov 18, 2017 | Lawyers and Settlements
By Jane Mundy
Since Jane had her first transvaginal mesh implant she has dealt with pain and incontinence (she didn’t even have this issue before the implant), two rounds of Botox, self-catheterization, and infections and if it can’t get any worse, she and her husband can no longer have sexual intercourse.
Jane (not her real name) and James are now including loss of consortium in their transvaginal mesh lawsuit. But let’s start back in 2009. Incredibly, Jane believes she didn’t even need “the alien thing”.
“I had my regular Pap test and my doctor noticed a bulge—my bladder was protruding into my vagina,” Jane says. “I had no idea, and I didn’t have any incontinence problems, but she referred me to a urologist who just went ahead and implanted me with a Bard transvaginal mesh sling.” Just two weeks later Jane had terrible incontinence, for the first time in her life. She couldn’t hold even a small amount of urine and had to wear pads. “I think Dr. Pringle just wanted to put it in for the money,” she says, adding that she complained but Dr. Pringle (who is no longer practicing) said it was “normal” and the TVM side effects would “go away”. But they got worse.
A few years later Jane and James saw an ad on TV and she joined the class action lawsuit against Bard (C.R. Bard Inc. agreed in 2015 to pay more than $200 million to resolve at least 3,000 cases by women injured by its transvaginal mesh. Jane received $32,000). By 2013 Jane had found another urologist who said he could help with her incontinence problem by removing the existing mesh and implanting another, Ethicon transvaginal mesh —by now she was wearing pads like a baby needs diapers. But the first mesh couldn’t be removed: It had eroded into her bladder.
“After about a month I was having a bath and my bladder was in a big knot, like a charley horse. I was stuck in the bathtub in tears,” says Jane. “Every time I had a bath it was the same problem; if I went swimming I’d probably drown. I think this second mesh was too tight so next up, they put me to sleep and I had a round of botox—30 injections into my bladder. And that ain’t even the half of it.”
The botox had stopped the spasms but it had relaxed her bladder too much. Now Jane had to self-catheterize for six months followed by nasty urinary tract infections. And repeat.
Now it’s summer, 2015. “We were having sex and James got cut; he could feel stitches or something really hard on the right side of my vagina,” Jane says. “He was bleeding.” Back to the hospital, she had yet another general anesthetic (and they take a toll in themselves) and the urologist cut out all the visible mesh.Two months ago, Jane had another surgery because James got cut again, from mesh on the left side. “This time they cut the bottom of my stomach open, like having a C-section, and removed all the mesh – they hope. They took tissue from my insides and formed a sling around my bladder. Why didn’t they do that in the first place? But I’m still in pain and incontinence is back again. I wear a pad in the mornings, and I’m up about six times a night having to go to the bathroom. I can’t sleep, I’m worn out.”
Jane hasn’t been able to work as a cashier since 2009. Part of her job entailed lifting 50lb crates of beer, but after the transvaginal mesh implant she couldn’t lift more than a 10 lb bag of sugar.
“The Alien caused James and I to separate because it messed up our sex life but we got back together again. However, I don’t see a good future and definitely no more intercourse,” says Jane. “The alien thing has taken so much out of me and I hardly go out anywhere, I don’t want to do anything. What a life.”https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/transvaginal-mesh-tvt-sling/interview-transvaginal-mesh-lawsuit-4-22721.html
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested