Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 2/15/2019
-
Health minister says women harmed by mesh should sue their surgeons
Feb 14, 2019 | British Medical Journal
By Jacqui Wise
A health minister has called on women to sue their surgeons for clinical negligence if they have experienced complications from mesh treatment. -
Lack of transparency to blame for effects of mesh on women, government admits
Feb 14, 2019 | Med-Tech Innovation
By Reece Armstrong
Speaking at a parliamentary debate this week, under-secretary for health and social care, Jackie Doyle-Price, said that regulation has been concerned more with the commercial interests of businesses rather than patient safety. -
Owen Smith MP: Vaginal mesh is only one of many medical device scandals and our regulatory system is to blame
Feb 15, 2019 | PoliticsHome
By Owen Smith
This week, I led a debate in the House of Commons calling for reform of the licensing and regulation of our medical devices. -
FDA Advisory Panel Tackles Tough Questions on Vaginal Mesh
Feb 14, 2019 | Medscape
By Miriam E. Tucker
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating the efficacy and safety of currently marketed vaginal mesh products for treating pelvic organ prolapse. -
Doctors, lawyers with monetary motives cause painful decisions in women’s health care
Feb 14, 2019 | Amsterdam News
By Glenn Ellis
Women, especially women of color and poor women, tend to suffer disproportionately in our health care system. The problem is growing worse now that there’s a group of trial lawyers eager to exploit female victims, under the guise of offering help. -
Suit filed against C.R. Bard over allegations mesh device caused injury
Feb 14, 2019 | St. Louis Record
By Angelica Saylo Pilo
Several individuals have filed a complaint over allegations that a mesh device used in surgeries caused them injury. -
Scottish women to take part in ‘big squeeze’ to promote bladder health
Feb 15, 2019 | Edinburgh Evening News
Women from across Scotland have taken part in an attempt to break a unique world record to raise awareness of a common medical issue – by simultaneously joining in with pelvic floor exercises.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Health minister says women harmed by mesh should sue their surgeons
Feb 14, 2019 | British Medical Journal
By Jacqui Wise
A health minister has called on women to sue their surgeons for clinical negligence if they have experienced complications from mesh treatment.
Speaking in an adjournment debate about medical devices, Jackie Doyle-Price said that she did not want to pre-empt what will come out of the Cumberlege review, which is due to report later this year.1 But she said, “It is becoming clear that mesh was deployed far too insensibly—far too many women were given this treatment, often at comparatively young ages, given that this was going to stay in their body for a long time.”
She said that the conversations that had taken place between women who were having this treatment and their surgeons were “utterly inadequate.”
Doyle-Price told the House of Commons, “I say to those women who have suffered badly at the hands of mesh treatment that there are clear medical criteria relating to that product and, if they have any complaint about the treatment they have received, they should be pursuing claims for clinical negligence against their practitioners.”
A recent BMJ investigation reported that there was scant evidence for mesh despite its rapid uptake, and widespread conflicts of interests among surgeons and royal colleges.2
Thousands of women around the world are taking legal action against mesh manufacturers, including in the UK, but it is rare for patients to sue their doctor.
Owen Smith, MP and chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Surgical Mesh Implants, called for the UK government to follow Australia’s example and issue a national apology to women damaged by pelvic mesh implants. He also called for radical reform of the regulatory system for medical devices in the UK in the light of recent scandals involving surgical mesh, defective pacemakers, faulty artificial hips, and PIP breast implants.
He said that the current regulatory system for these devices was “more akin to the system that applies to toasters or plugs, and the way in which they get kitemarks, than to the way in which medicines are approved.”
Paul Masterton, MP for East Renfrewshire, backed this by saying that when the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) appeared before the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish parliament it admitted that its verification process for use of mesh implants amounted to “a two week desktop exercise carried out by three people at a cost of £20 000.”
A global investigation by journalists from 36 countries, including the BMJ, BBC Panorama, and the Guardian, into the medical device industry uncovered thousands of documents that showed rising numbers of malfunctions and injuries.3 In the UK alone the MHRA received reports of 64 000 adverse events involving medical devices between 2015 and 2018. A third of those incidents had serious medical repercussions for patients, and 1004 resulted in death.
The EU’s new directive on medical devices is due to come into effect in May 2020. However, Brexit will place the UK outside its scope. Smith called on the MHRA to set out robust regulations, starting with tougher device licensing and the introduction of a national registry to monitor all devices through a publicly available national database, something the Royal College of Surgeons called for in November last year.4
Doyle-Price said that the issue of a national devices registry was currently being considered by England’s Department of Health and Social Care. She also said that the UK would implement the regulatory improvements currently being taken by the EU even after Brexit. There would be stringent requirements on manufacturers and suppliers of medical devices, and the MHRA would have enhanced market surveillance responsibilities.
She said, “In the past regulation has focused excessively on what is in the commercial interests of businesses to maintain competition, rather than having patient safety at its heart.
“There has been a historic lack of transparency in the current system. It has not always been easy for patients to investigate and find more data about the things being put in their bodies.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l738
-
Lack of transparency to blame for effects of mesh on women, government admits
Feb 14, 2019 | Med-Tech Innovation
By Reece Armstrong
Speaking at a parliamentary debate this week, under-secretary for health and social care, Jackie Doyle-Price, said that regulation has been concerned more with the commercial interests of businesses rather than patient safety.
The debate was secured by Labour MP Owen Smith, who called for UK/EU-wide regulatory change from class III implantable devices.
Smith drew on examples of vaginal mesh devices, which have gained notoriety recently over the harmful effects they’ve had on patients.
“Many of the variants of vaginal mesh, like most of the other devices now on the market, are developed without any real clinical trials, and certainly without the randomised controlled clinical trials we are familiar with in respect of medicines; that is an extraordinary fact. We understand why that is the case, but there are other ways in which the device manufacturers could ensure their devices were safer and definitely not going to harm patients,” Smith said during the debate.
Smith also highlighted the failings of regulatory institutions across the UK and Europe, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the numerous notified bodies. Notified bodies, which are licensed by the MHRA, are responsible for providing CE marks to medical device companies once it has reviewed any clinical data and the efficacy and safety of a product. However, Smith raised the issue that since there are numerous notified bodies spread across Europe, if a company fails to get a CE mark from one, it can easily try the next notified body.
The MHRA’s process for reviewing surgical mesh implants was compared to being more “akin to the system that applies to toasters or plugs, and the way in which they get kitemarks, than to the way in which medicines are approved,” Smith stated.
For instance, the verification process for reviewing mesh implants by the MHRA amounts to a “two-week desktop exercise carried out by three people at a cost of £20,000,” one MP said during the debate.
In 2017, Doyle-Price refused to suspend the use of mesh and related the issue with the implants to clinical practice rather than the devices themselves.
Now Doyle-Price admits that mesh has ‘transformed the lives of some women’ and is now recommending that women who have suffered due to mesh treatment pursue legal action against their practitioners.
Doyle-Price said the government was working on a number of actions to ensure that existing legislation is effective.
This includes a joint assessment of notified bodies by multiple authorities to ensure that assessments of new medical products and new standards for clinical data are required for any high-risk device coming to market.
Responding to a request for comment by Med-Tech Innovation News (MTI), Smith said: “I’m glad the Minister acknowledged that commercial interests have been historically prioritised over patient safety in the regulation of medical devices, but the Government needs to go further by toughening up the licensing process and committing to a national registry of all devices to protect patients.
“Medical devices can save and transform lives, however, when faulty or poorly designed, they have also damaged and ended the lives of many thousands of patients around the world. The regulatory system for medical devices in our country, and across the wider world, is simply not fit for purpose and must be properly reformed.”
Founder of campaign group Sling the Mesh, Kath Sansom, told MTI that many women are still being told that “mesh is not to blame”.
The youngest member of the support and awareness group was just 15 when she joined and now suffered from daily pain five years later, Sansom explained.
“The Government were backing surgeons until last year saying mesh was the best treatment option for women suffering [stress urinary incontinence] SUI or prolapse and only stopped this line when Baroness Cumberlege announced a suspension. Now they are telling women to sue their surgeons for giving them mesh! To me it is a sign that surgeon societies have had way too much power to influence decision makers. Meanwhile patients who have been desperately trying to tell the establishment since 2007 that mesh is causing life changing complications have not been listened to,” Sansom added.
MTI also reached to MHRA for comment on the safety of medical devices and whether current regulation is effective enough to ensure patient safety.
“Patient safety is our highest priority. As a regulator our work is underpinned by robust and fact-based judgements to make sure that the benefits justify any risks. The regulatory system for medical devices has been in place for 25 years. Over that time medical technology has improved and transformed countless lives,” an MHRA spokesperson said.
“We have actively championed the new Medical Devices Regulations(MDR), which significantly strengthen the regulatory framework for medical devices. In particular, they raise the threshold for clinical evidence required, increase the requirements and scrutiny placed on notified bodies, support greater traceability of products through the supply chain and significantly increase the availability of information to patients and clinicians.
“Even if every conceivable safety measure is performed there will always remain an element of ‘risk’ associated with the use of medical devices and surgery, however small. The final decision of what is an acceptable risk for any condition and for any individual patient ultimately rests with the clinician and patient, and this is at the heart of the informed consent process, supported by information within the manufacturer’s instructions made available to clinicians. If someone thinks that they might have had a side effect or complication from a medical device, they can report it to us through our Yellow Card Scheme.”
https://www.med-technews.com/news/lack-of-transparency-to-blame-for-effects-of-mesh-on-women-g/
-
Feb 15, 2019 | PoliticsHome
By Owen Smith
This week, I led a debate in the House of Commons calling for reform of the licensing and regulation of our medical devices.
Medical devices are an important and growing part of medicine, they have saved and transformed the lives of millions of patients over many generations. However, when faulty or poorly designed, they have also damaged and ended the lives of many thousands of patients around the world.
The term “medical devices” refers to everything from bandages to syringes through to heart pacemakers and artificial joints. My concern is that more high-risk, implantable devices are developed without any real clinical trials, and without the randomised controlled clinical trials we are familiar with in respect of medicines.
The regulatory system for medical devices in our country, and across the wider world, is simply not fit for purpose and must be properly reformed.
Here in the UK, a recent investigation revealed the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) received 62,000 “adverse incident” reports linked to medical devices between 2015 and 2018. A third of the incidents had serious repercussions for patients and 1,004 resulted in death.
I was first alerted to the issues in our regulatory system of medical devices when I began campaigning on surgical mesh implants several years ago. Thousands of women have suffered devastating complications following mesh surgery which is implanted to treat stress urinary incontinence and prolapse.
Many of the variants of mesh, like most of the other devices now on the market, are developed and marketed with scant clinical data, and with no real certainty of how they might perform once implanted into patients.
Last year, just days after a government-ordered review began taking evidence from women affected by mesh injury, its Chair called for the immediate suspension of mesh procedures. She was obviously left in no doubt – as those of us who have listened to women injured by mesh are in no doubt – that the risks far outweigh any benefits.
The vaginal mesh story is a medical scandal that is only beginning to unfold in court-rooms and in women’s lives around the world. But the terrible truth is that it is just one of many such scandals, with metal on metal hips, PIP breast implants and faulty pacemakers just some of the more infamous recent examples.
How did these things get onto the market? Devices which leak into the body and poison people, devices which migrate or break or transform within the body, devices which are meant to cure but sometimes kill.
Well, the common story here that unites mesh with these other device scandals is the is the weakness of our UK and European Regulatory system for such devices. It’s a system more akin to that which applies to toasters or plugs, and gives them their kitemarks, than to the way in which medicines are approved.
New EU directives on device regulation come into force next year, launched with an acknowledgment that previous regulations were not fit for purpose, were less stringent than those in the United States, and need to be significantly reformed. But even prior to their introduction the new rules have been subject to significant criticism as being insufficiently robust and too favourable to the companies involved. Here in the UK, we face the prospect of not even being protected by the new regulations after Brexit and this poses real questions as to how our regulators are going to respond.
I’m glad that during the debate, the Health Minister acknowledged that commercial interests have been historically prioritised over patient safety in the regulation of medical devices, but the Government needs to go further by toughening up the licensing process and committing to a national registry of all devices to protect patients.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/health-and-care/opinion/house-commons/101856/owen-smith-mp-vaginal-mesh-only-one-many
-
FDA Advisory Panel Tackles Tough Questions on Vaginal Mesh
Feb 14, 2019 | Medscape
By Miriam E. Tucker
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating the efficacy and safety of currently marketed vaginal mesh products for treating pelvic organ prolapse.
On February 12, 2019, the FDA's Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee met to advise the agency on how to evaluate data from ongoing studies of three vaginal mesh devices currently on the US market, as well as any future candidate mesh devices indicated specifically for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse in the anterior vaginal compartment.
The three mesh devices available in the United States are two from Boston Scientific, the Uphold LITE and Xenform, and Coloplast's Restorelle DirectFix Anterior. All three are indicated for anterior and apical vaginal compartment repair.
The panel was not tasked with evaluating data for the individual devices, nor with advising the FDA on whether or not they should stay on the US market.
Rather, the agency sought the panel's guidance on a variety of issues related to ongoing trials. These included whether vaginal mesh manufacturers should be required to demonstrate that their products are more effective or simply noninferior to native tissue repair; whether both objective and subjective outcomes should be required; what types of adverse event data should be collected to evaluate safety; what factors should be used to determine whether a patient should undergo a mesh placement versus native tissue repair; and the effect of surgeon experience on outcomes. Newer Mesh Products Safer, Manufacturers Say
The regulatory situation for these devices is unique. Following a series of warnings about adverse events with mesh products used for vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse, in 2011 FDA re-classified the devices from class II (moderate risk) to class III, a higher risk category. The switch meant that going forward manufacturers would need to collect efficacy and safety data for each individual product, including those already cleared with a less-strict standard.
Starting in 2012, FDA issued orders to 34 separate vaginal mesh manufacturers, requiring postmarketing data collection — known as "522 studies" — on effectiveness and safety outcomes at 12, 24, and 36 months, including comparisons to native tissue repair. Following that ruling, all but Boston Scientific and Coloplast withdrew their devices from the market.
At the advisory meeting this week, representatives from both companies emphasized that their currently marketed mesh devices are newer and safer than the ones that previously prompted concern because of improved features such as lower density and single-incision insertion.
Speaking on behalf of Boston Scientific, Miles Murphy, MD, associate medical director of the Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, North Wales, Pennsylvania, reported that the 12-month data for both the Uphold LITE and Xenform showed noninferiority to native tissue repair on a composite efficacy outcome of anatomic repair, subjective success, and no retreatment, with low serious adverse event rates.
Although an FDA literature review — also presented at the meeting — yielded a mesh exposure rate of 11% to 12% for all devices that were previously marketed, those rates for trials of the Uphold LITE were 0% to 8%. Similarly, data for the Coloplast product showed exposure/extrusion rates of 0% to 7.3% across studies.
In addition to improvements in the newer-generation products themselves, Murphy noted, "Proper surgical techniques, experience, and training have led to improved outcomes."Transvaginal Mesh Still Seen as Option for Some Patients
During the meeting, representatives from three professional societies — the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Urogynecologic Society, and Society of Gynecologic Surgeons — each presented a risk–benefit analysis concluding that, although native tissue repair is generally the preferred surgical approach for anterior prolapse, transvaginal mesh is still a reasonable choice for certain patients.
The procedure involves inserting a net-like fabric into the vagina to support the bladder, uterus, or bowel.
Cheryl Iglesia, MD, director of the Section of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center and professor in the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, spoke on behalf of ACOG.
"There are unique advantages and complications associated with synthetic mesh when used in pelvic organ prolapse surgery," she said.
Transvaginal mesh improves anatomic outcomes as well as some subjective outcomes including decreased awareness of prolapse (ie, "bulge"), and it reduces risk of repeat surgery for prolapse, as well as the risk of recurrence compared with native-tissue repair.
On the other hand, Iglesia noted, unique complications associated with synthetic mesh when used in pelvic organ prolapse surgery include mesh contracture, vaginal exposure, and erosion into the urethra, bladder, and rectum. And when those mesh-related complications occur, multiple procedures often are required to manage them.
"Given these potential complications, pelvic organ prolapse vaginal mesh repair should be limited to high-risk individuals in whom the benefit of mesh placement may justify the risk," she emphasized, including patients with recurrent prolapse or with medical comorbidities that preclude more invasive and lengthier open and endoscopic procedures.Trial Interpretation: Patient-Reported Outcomes Considered Key
The panel spent several hours deliberating over eight multi-layered questions regarding how FDA should interpret the ongoing 522 trial results. One area of general consensus was that manufacturers should be required to show improvement in both objective/anatomic and subjective/patient-reported outcomes, but more weight should be given to the latter. Panel members also endorsed the use of validated questionnaires for this purpose.
There was some disagreement over whether FDA should require superiority or noninferiority of mesh effectiveness over native tissue repair; the majority endorsed the requirement for superiority except in certain patient subgroups.
Regarding safety, the panel generally endorsed a list of adverse events that FDA has already required for the 522 studies, including pelvic pain, erosion/exposure, dyspareunia, de novo voiding dysfunction (ie, incontinence), infection, and various anatomic abnormalities including vaginal shortening, scarring, and fistula formation.
Members also advised that careful pre-operative assessment is vital so that it is possible to later confirm that any adverse event is actually device-related.
There was some debate about the length of follow-up for efficacy and safety, but the panel settled on a minimum of 3 years, with longer follow-up as necessary.
Panel members also spent a good deal of time discussing surgeon training and experience, and agreed that because this variable could affect outcomes, FDA should find a way to account for it.
While data from the 522 studies, randomized clinical trials, and registries are being collected, patients should be educated about all nonsurgical and surgical treatment options and informed consent obtained, Iglesia advised.
"The risk–benefit ratio is very individualized, underscoring the important role of patient counseling, education, and shared decision-making for patients contemplating anterior pelvic organ prolapse repair with transvaginal mesh," she concluded.
FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest and are granted waivers if necessary. None were granted for this meeting. Murphy has received grant/research support from Boston Scientific and Coloplast, and is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson. Iglesia has reported no relevant financial relationships.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/909082
-
Doctors, lawyers with monetary motives cause painful decisions in women’s health care
Feb 14, 2019 | Amsterdam News
By Glenn Ellis
Women, especially women of color and poor women, tend to suffer disproportionately in our health care system. The problem is growing worse now that there’s a group of trial lawyers eager to exploit female victims, under the guise of offering help.
Take for instance that roughly one-quarter of U.S. women suffer from pelvic floor disorders, and according to The Washington Post, about 3-4 million of them have been treated with transvaginal mesh. The vast majority of these women receive repairs using transvaginal mesh without complications, but a significant minority experienced serious problems.
After the publicity surrounding this issue hit the fan, the lawyers pounced. It has come to light that some law firms, doctors and finance companies are pressuring women into unnecessary surgeries to remove the mesh. Giving new meaning to the term “insult to injury,” this phenomenon, according to The New York Times, is leading unsuspecting women to the operating table—even in cases when the removal could worsen the symptoms.
If that’s not enough, some unscrupulous hedge funds are financing companies connected with law firms specializing in suing manufacturers of the mesh. These law firms often use overseas telemarketing callers in countries such as India and the Philippines to contact women who are known to have had the mesh surgery, with offers to join in lawsuits to sue the mesh manufacturers.
The New York Times highlighted this growing problem that tends to target women: it is an industry grown out of medical device settlements. There is, for example, a court-ordered, charitable fund called the Common Benefit Trust, which was established out of the Dow Corning breast implant settlement fund from 1998, which also resulted from a faulty medical device. The Common Benefit Trust appears to have used some of its money to fund policy centers, advocacy groups. And a conference on litigation.
Pelvic organ prolapse, a medical issue sought to be treated by the transvaginal mesh, is one of the most common reasons for women to have surgery. It is ranked among the top three reasons that women have hysterectomies.
Then there are racial disparities. Compared with African-American women, Latina and white women had a four to five times higher risk of symptomatic prolapse, thought to be in large part due to the lower rates of African-American women reporting the condition as a problem to doctors. Researchers see this pattern as part of a culture where African-American and/or poor women will not typically see the condition as a problem requiring them to consider surgery.
The revelation that issues like the transvaginal mesh point to disparate treatment of women is not new. All patients—but especially women patients and minority patients who have traditionally been marginalized—deserve better than to be exploited in some of their most vulnerable times.
Those vulnerable times include childbirth and other areas of maternal health. Dr. Niva Lubin-Johnson, president of the National Medical Association, which represents more than 50,000 African-American physicians on issues of health disparities and justice, says, “There is a crisis for African-American women that is related to maternal mortality—and that’s across any economic level and educational level for African-American women. We are losing in that area,” she says.
As for the transvaginal mesh, Lubin-Johnson says women must take extreme precaution when contacted by anyone about removals of that or any other device. “No, you go talk to your own physician about that and not to someone who is doing a cold call because of some possibility of joining a law suit... Talk to your own physician first; even if they were not the one who put the mesh in.”
Since The New York Times began shining a light on these bad behaviors, federal prosecutors from the eastern district of New York have begun investigating the allegations of unnecessary and unneeded vaginal mesh removal surgeries. According to reports, doctors, lawyers, financiers and others who may have been involved in the sham have been subpoenaed.
So, if you’re considering medical treatment, be an informed consumer. Be sure to have your health care provider explain all of your options, as well as their possible risks and benefits. Though if these risks are not avoided, by all means, beware of financial lures to have surgeries that you do not need and that could leave you in a condition far worse than before.
Glenn Ellis is a research bioethics fellow at Harvard Medical School, and a health columnist and radio commentator who lectures—nationally and internationally—on health-related topics. He is also the author of “Which Doctor?” and “Information is the Best Medicine.”
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2019/feb/14/doctors-lawyers-monetary-motives-cause-painful-dec/
-
Suit filed against C.R. Bard over allegations mesh device caused injury
Feb 14, 2019 | St. Louis Record
By Angelica Saylo Pilo
Several individuals have filed a complaint over allegations that a mesh device used in surgeries caused them injury.
Deborah Kostedt, et al. filed a complaint on Jan. 25 in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against C. R. Bard Inc. and Doe manufacturers 1 to 100 alleging strict liability - failure to warn and other counts.
According to the complaint, Kostedt is a Missouri resident and was implanted with a Bard mesh device in 2009.
The suit states that the mesh products are "biologically incompatible with human tissue" and causes inflammation of the pelvic tissue and can contribute to severe, adverse reactions. Kostedt alleges that she has experienced "significant mental and physical pain and suffering," injuries and needed medical treatment because of the product.
The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to warn of the risks and dangers of the devices and that the products were defective at the time of their manufacture.
The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek punitive and exemplary damages, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief deemed just and proper. They are represented by Wilson D. Sikes of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC in Edwardsville, Illinois.
https://stlrecord.com/stories/511774566-suit-filed-against-c-r-bard-over-allegations-mesh-device-caused-injury
-
Scottish women to take part in ‘big squeeze’ to promote bladder health
Feb 15, 2019 | Edinburgh Evening News
Women from across Scotland have taken part in an attempt to break a unique world record to raise awareness of a common medical issue – by simultaneously joining in with pelvic floor exercises.
“The World’s Biggest Squeeze” was aimed at promoting bladder health following a national survey which found that difficulty in bladder control affects more women in Scotland than hayfever.
The study, conducted by Yougov and funded by Natacare, revealed a high number of respondents were too embarrassed to discuss the topic of incontinence with a healthcare professional.
Despite being a common medical issue, just 9 percent of women said they had talked to a partner or friend about incontinence, while more than a third of those polled were unaware leakage can be cured through pelvic floor exercises.
And Natracare – a UK-based company which manufactures plastic-free period products – challenged women to log in to a live Facebook stream to to take the topic of incontinence from taboo to traction by joining the record attempt.
Hosted by Edinburgh-based physiotherapist and comedian Elaine Miller, women were able to participate in the Valentine’s Day attempt at home and live chat with others taking part online. Elaine, who performed a live stand-up show at the 2018 Edinburgh Festival Fringe on the topic of incontinence, commented: “The World’s Biggest Squeeze is a clever way to get women thinking about their pelvic floors.Most women know they have a pelvic floor and that they should be doing exercises, but they’re not confident about doing them properly and forget about them.”
“Worse still, they wrongly think that leaking is normal – this is such a shame because physiotherapy works and women don’t need to put up with it.
“I was excited to be hosting the Biggest Squeeze online event and promoting this magnificent act of self love to show women how to laugh and not leak.”
Further results from Natracare’s survey found that 73 percent of people in Scotland think only the elderly struggle with bladder control.
The company primarily hopes to enlighten people of the fact that by doing pelvic floor exercises, incontinence can be cured, meaning less women will go through with more potentially harmful means of treatment such as vaginal mesh surgery. NHS advice says anyone suffering from any kind of bladder incontinence should seek advice from their GP as soon as possible.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-women-to-take-part-in-big-squeeze-to-promote-bladder-health-1-4873537
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested