Have you hugged your breasts today? Don’t; they might break

The FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel will meet this week to decide on the fate of silicone breast implants and the expansion of their use. It is expected to make its final recommendation later today.

Despite popular belief, there are much more severe side effects of these silicone-filled pouches than large, supple breasts. Many women who have dealt with ruptured silicone breast implants have complained of chest pain, headaches, lesions, bladder difficulties and other disorders. This is not natural.

There is an alternative to silicone breast implants: saline. This saline, which is basically just salt water, is a very low-risk substance if released into the body. The same cannot be said for silicone, for which the long-term effects are unknown.

For the moment, silicone implants are available only to women who have either had mastectomies or who are involved in controlled research studies because of the fears associated with a rupture in the implant. The FDA is holding these public hearings before it makes its recommendation on whether the government should lift (no pun intended) its moratorium on the implants.

Opponents to this lift — including many who have previously had silicone implants — say the complications to breast implants are debilitating. An FDA study shows that 93 percent of silicone-gel implants rupture in 10 years. With numbers this large, the opposition has a point when it says implants are more of a detriment than a benefit.

A 93-percent rupture rate is ridiculous. That means nearly everyone who has the procedure can plan on having complications within 10 years. This is especially outrageous when no one is even sure what kind of side effects this will have on the patient.

We aren’t saying that women shouldn’t be getting implants. We realize the confidence that can accompany the surgery can greatly improve one’s self-image and self-esteem. But the procedure must be done in the safest way possible.

The companies that manufacture silicone implants say their product is comparable to things like pacemakers and metal hip joints: Their product wasn’t made to last forever. However, comparing a breast implant to a pacemaker is like comparing apples to elephants. You can’t argue that a breast implant is so necessary that we should be putting people at risk for them. A pacemaker, on the other hand, can be lifesaving. There is a legitimate reason for rushing to get this product out to the public as soon as possible.

We have serious doubts that anyone has ever been rushed to the hospital for an emergency breast augmentation.

There is no need to have silicone implants on the market when a safer alternative, saline, is available. Until some more in-depth research has been done, the FDA should be wary of silicone due to the many first-hand accounts of those who have suffered side effects from the ruptured implants.

The above editorial is the consensus opinion of the Daily Kent Stater editorial board, whose members are listed to the left.