Before Getting Essure, Read This
The permanent negative effects Essure could have on a woman’s body
Essure is a female contraceptive implant device similar to an IUD, but with a few notable exceptions. Firstly, Essure is non-reversible unlike IUDs and is only placed into the fallopian tubes, while IUDs are placed where the fallopian tubes and uterus meet.
An IUD is more T-shaped, while Essure is a straight tube that prevents eggs from leaving the fallopian tubes to be fertilized. It turns out there are more differences between the two products.
Thousands of American women file lawsuits against Essure’s parent company Bayer due to complications from the device. Plaintiffs are suggesting the device was rushed into the market without proper research, which has led to these life-altering complications. These issues are so problematic that they’ve been featured in the Netflix documentary “The Bleeding Edge.”
It’s clear we’re dealing with some serious medical issues, so why exactly are scores of women lawyering up to face Bayer about the Essure product?
Damage to Peripheral Organs
Tissues and organ structures around the fallopian tubes have been damaged due to the Essure device becoming dislodged after implantation. The device can cause cuts and result in severe debilitating pain that has caused women to have to avoid work at best and go in for emergency removal procedures at worst. The metal tubes that make up the Essure device can even puncture the fallopian tubes in such a manner that results in a permanent inability to conceive, even after the tubes have been removed surgically.
Unexplainable Side Effects
Most side effects from these types of devices are centralized solely within the reproductive or urinary systems, due to those being the systems closest to where the device is implanted. However, women have reported symptoms ranging from brain fog to consistent migraines after having an Essure device implanted. The symptoms were only resolved after removal of the device. The leading explanation for some of these whole-body effects is that the nickel and polyester fibers found within the tubes cause an inflammatory response that can spread to the entire body. Essentially, any negative bodily outcome that can be connected to inflammation has been experienced by women who have used the Essure product.
Incapacitating Pain
One woman suffered from severe pain, so much so she would occasionally faint. After going to the doctor’s office, it was discovered that her Essure implant had lodged itself behind her colon. Besides the pain, she also suffered from various autoimmune responses like a fever due to the device disrupting her body’s natural homeostasis.
Unfortunately, this is one of many stories where women have reported either localized or generalized pain after having the Essure device implanted inside of their bodies. In the case mentioned above, the pain was only resolved after performing a hysterectomy.
Conclusion
When something happens once, it’s a fluke. If it happens twice, perhaps it’s a coincidence. When negative effects are recorded thousands upon thousands of times, there’s an issue larger than predicted. Of these women who have suffered from the Essure device, many of them have had permanent damage to their bodies, and as such, are seeking lawsuits against Bayer for misleading advertising copy and not properly informing medical professionals as to the risks associated with the device.
Be sure to talk to your doctor in detail about the possible negative effects Essure could have on your body. It helps to do your own research before taking a leap into something that could potentially permanently disrupt your health for life.
Essure Lawsuit Update 2019
A Bayer sales representative has now been made a defendant in a Cook County case alleging negligent misrepresentations in the sale of Essure, a form of permanent birth control no longer on the market. Essure was featured, along with transvaginal mesh, in a Netflix documentary called “Bleeding Edge.” In Cook County, a discovery petition was filed against the hospital where the Essure was implanted. The hospital then turned over to the Petitioner the invoices by Conceptus pertaining to the sale of Essure for an implant in Cook County. Garcia v. Northshore University Healthsystem and Bayer, No. 2019 L 000392 (Cook County, Law Division). Conceptus sold Essure in Cook County and the Chicagoland area before Conceptus was eventually bought out by Bayer. After the invoices were obtained from the hospital, the sales representative was just identified as “SR56.” So then Garcia amended her Petition in Cook County to name Bayer as a Respondent and Bayer, who opposed the attempt to obtain the identity of the sales representative, was ordered to identify SR56. SR56 was identified by Bayer as Lindsay Anne Boatwright. She was the sales representative in the Cook County and Chicagoland area named on the invoices. Now another patient with Essure implanted has sued Bayer and Boatwright for negligent misrepresentations about Essure. This patient was also implanted with Essure in Cook County. Garcia, represented by Tom Plouff, now seems on track to again have named in a Cook County lawsuit a sales representative for Essure. Where Boatwright is named as a Defendant for negligent misrepresentation the complaint alleges the sales representative made misrepresentations about the safety and efficacy of Essure to various physicians who implanted and to various hospitals, where Essure was implanted in Plaintiff. Plaintiff was shown informational brochures or pamphlets about Essure in Chicago, Cook County, while at the implanting physician’s office. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon this information in deciding to have Essure implanted. This information was allegedly false and misleading about: the safety of Essure; the reliability of Essure as a method of birth control; and whether Essure caused pain. The plaintiff would have never had Essure implanted had she known the falsity of the representations. These misrepresentations over-promoted Essure and nullified otherwise adequate warnings.
It is further alleged the sales representative for Essure in Chicago, Cook County, knew or should have known that the information about Essure was false and misleading. The sales representative also for Essure in Chicago, Cook County, further failed to try to ascertain the truth of these statements. The sales representative also made statements with the intent to induce the implanting physician to use the Essure at the implanting hospital in Chicago, Cook County who acted in reliance on the truth of the statements made by the sales representative. Plaintiff says she would not have consented to undergo the Essure procedure in Chicago, Cook County had she been fully informed of its increased dangers, risks, and adverse consequences, which would have been the case had truthful information been provided to Plaintiff and her implanting physician instead of the negligent misrepresentations made by the sales representative. The misrepresentations allegedly concerned material health and safety risks associated with Essure, Plaintiff was injured and suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, damages, and economic loss. The sales representative for the Essure product in Chicago, Cook County misrepresented the known dangers and defective nature of Essure that arose out of Essure and engaged in a systematic failure to disclose and/or cover-up such information from/to the implanting physician and Cook County hospital. Advocate Christ Medical Center and the general public, including Plaintiff. The sales representative allegedly had to ascertain the truth of her statements prior to disseminating representations about the safety of Essure to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s physician. She had to disclose the true character, quality, and nature of the increased risk of adverse events, and dangers associated with Essure.