Sixteen lawsuits have been filed in New Jersey as of August this year, television networks and newspapers report. cases were also cited in other states and from all indications, there are more to come. In other states, cases have already been reported and more are foreseen to be filed. Bayer has appealed for a centralized management of the Mirena litigation as a offshoot of increasing number of cases. This is also in expectation
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.
Mirena IUD has been alleged to be the cause of major complications and serious problems as side effects of the product. Among those mentioned are uterus perforation which can cause internal scarring resulting to infection and damage to other organs, migration which results to intestinal perforation and obstruction, and severe infections which may cause infertility or hamper the chance of conceiving. Partial of complete expulsion has also been identified as a possible result especially to women who have not experienced childbirth or those who had the device inserted after delivery or abortion.
The first report involving Mirena IUD came in October 2011 when a patient from Virginia sued her OB/GYN doctor for medical malpractice. It was alleged by Angela Collins that a Mirena IUD was left floating in her system after Dr. Karen Wade implanted the birth control device in September 2006. Collins is suing Dr. Wade and her clinic for $2 million before the Winchester Circuit Court in Virginia for alleged negligence in the failure of using proper medical procedures to discover and remove said device from her body.
Barely a year after this lawsuit, more women came out claiming that the implanted Mirena IUDs migrated within their bodies and removal procedures had to be undertaken. These two complaints filed in New Jersey were followed by similar lawsuits from women in Oklahoma and Ohio. Same as the cases in New Jersey, these complaints also allege that the devices were detached from their uterus and were now threatening their bodies.
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.
Mirena IUD has been alleged to be the cause of major complications and serious problems as side effects of the product. Among those mentioned are uterus perforation which can cause internal scarring resulting to infection and damage to other organs, migration which results to intestinal perforation and obstruction, and severe infections which may cause infertility or hamper the chance of conceiving. Partial of complete expulsion has also been identified as a possible result especially to women who have not experienced childbirth or those who had the device inserted after delivery or abortion.
The first report involving Mirena IUD came in October 2011 when a patient from Virginia sued her OB/GYN doctor for medical malpractice. It was alleged by Angela Collins that a Mirena IUD was left floating in her system after Dr. Karen Wade implanted the birth control device in September 2006. Collins is suing Dr. Wade and her clinic for $2 million before the Winchester Circuit Court in Virginia for alleged negligence in the failure of using proper medical procedures to discover and remove said device from her body.
Barely a year after this lawsuit, more women came out claiming that the implanted Mirena IUDs migrated within their bodies and removal procedures had to be undertaken. These two complaints filed in New Jersey were followed by similar lawsuits from women in Oklahoma and Ohio. Same as the cases in New Jersey, these complaints also allege that the devices were detached from their uterus and were now threatening their bodies.
REFERENCES:
- mirena-us.com/having-mirena-placed/index.jsp
- contraception.about.com/od/iud/a/mirena.htm
