Bayer Under Fire For Mirena IUDSixteen lawsuits have been processed in New Jersey as of August this year, television networks and newspapers report. The number of liability lawsuits are expected to grow as cases have been reported being submitted in other states. Bayer has requested for a centralized management of the Mirena litigation as a result of increasing number of cases. This is also in This action by Bayer is also in anticipation of more legal actions to come particularly with calls from lawyers asking victims to come forward.
An aggressive marketing campaign was launched after approval by the FDA in 2000 and in a short span of time gained much acceptance from its target market composed mainly of young women. Also known as IUS (intrauterine system), Mirena IUD is a contraceptive which is inserted in a woman’s uterus where it disrupts the interaction of the egg and the sperm, thereby preventing pregnancy.
It has been alleged that the side effects of Mirena IUD have been the cause of major complications and serious problems. Included in the list of serious problems and complications are uterus perforation, which cause infections and may damage other organs; migrations, which results to obstruction, and severe infections causing infertility and reduces the chance of conceiving. Another possible result especially to women who have not experienced childbirth or those who had the device inserted after delivery or abortion is partial or complete expulsion.
In October 2011 a suit was filed against an OB/GYN doctor by her Virginian patient for medical practice ushering in the first controversy involving Merina IUD. Allegedly the Mirena IUD was left floating in her system after the birth control device was implanted in September 2006 by Dr. Karen Wade. Dr. Wade and her clinic was sued for $2 million before the Winchester Circuit Court for alleged negligence in the failure to use proper medical procedures to discover and remove the Merina IUD from her body.
More women came out not long after the Collin’s lawsuit claiming that removal procedures had to be undertaken after being implanted with Mirena IUDs. In New Jersey, two lawsuits were filed by victims and similar suits were also made in Ohio and Oklahoma. That the Mirena IUD implanted in their system detached from their uterus and were threatening their bodies were the allegations of the women from Oklahoma and Ohio.
REFERENCES:
|
Related Videos
|
