The Honorable Minister Of Health

Honorable M. Allan Rock

Questions of ethics and policy to be answered by the federal minister of health- issues topical for 1999.The following are areas where the Federal Department of Health should state its intentions and ets policies. Most of these have been subject to continuing dereliction of duty on the part of Federal authorities and, as a result, have attracted hostile media coverage. The areas deal principally with protection of the consumer from inappropriate medical procedures, faulty medical devices, improper human experimentation, unnecessary health care costs and fraud against provincial health insurance programs by segments of the medical community and associated industries.

The issues are particularly relevant in the context of reduction in Federal transfer payments for health care, ongoing provincial budget cutbacks for essential medical services and hospital closures. They are also relevant in the context of loss of essential health care personnel. Abuses by special interest groups that promote expensive and faulty technologies which benefit few for a short while and where costs from complications ultimately revert to the public are additional factors which lend urgency to the need for changes in policy. Existing policies in these areas and the ladk of foresight that they imply are embarrassing in the light of continuing retrenchment for services such as care of the aged, post-natal care, dental health for children, essential cardiac and ophthalmic procedures and many other areas which are presently the object of cutbacks and long waiting periods for individuals in need.

* In view of the Department of National Health and Welfare’s past policies of accommodation with industry and promoters in matters of non-essential technologies including plastic surgery devices, why is there a continuing lack of leadership?

* Past Ministers of Health and Department officials publicly supported continuing use of cosmetic surgery implants in spite of sub-standard quality and endemic adverse reactions at a time when the material was under investigation by foreign agencies and entangled in litigation in the U.S.

* There have been comparatively few organizational changes since the mid-eighties. The same core of indiniduals remain responsible for the regulation of drugs, medical devices, cosmetics and biologics at the Department of Health and Welfare in spite of investigations and official hearings on adverse reactions. The problems in the area continue unablted.

* There is a current R.C.M.P. investigation of government wrongdoing in matters of breast implant regulations and recalls covering events of the eighties and nineties. The events as reported by the media, suggest collective incompetence, lack of commitment and dereliction of duty, as well as possible dishonesty on the part of many key members of the Department staff.

* Saline-filled breast implants are now the object of recalls and product discontinuation as well as emerging litigation in the U.S. These products have also been the target of increasing numbers unfavourable scientific publications and hostile press for more than two decades.

* A similar situation is developing with respect to certain types of intraocular ophthalmic devices to resolve problems that are more easily and more safely corrected using conventional lenses and eyeglasses.

* Federal and provincial health care funding is dissipated in treating injuries from cosmetic surgery and the inappropriate use of implants for unnecessary purposes. Additional resources are spent in treating secondary diseases which result from plastic surgery implants, implants used for trivial applications better treated differently and other procedures with high risk components. There are additional costs which are incurred as a result of lost time for convalescence and for consumption of health care resources that are better needed elsewhere. There are also major socio-economic losses that are a frequent outcome of the misadventures.

* Why are adverse reactions and failures from cosmetic and plastic surgery implants not subject to mandatory adverse event reporting, as is the case in the U.S.?

* Why is the Minister of Health not briefed on rising costs associated with problem-prone urologic procedures, such as insertion of penile implants of obsolete and hazardous desings?

* What is the Department doing to follow up on current clinical trials on urologic products intended to achieve urinary continence by inducing fibrosis of tissus through injection of fine particles of plastic containing drug-like substances?

Due to the above questions, we are asking you to make sure that a public inquiry will be done in the Health Canada department.

You probably received the letter that we sent to the Honorable Prime Minister M. Jean Chrétien, concerning the article published by Reuters in the Ottawa paper.

We are still waiting for an answer .

As you probably know by now the SPR has come out in USA.

We hope that this report will not effect the Canadian women.

We can hear the big corporations laughting kind of loud at the moment.

Be sure that one day they will stop laughting.

We also hope that the USA law will not be in applicated here in Canada and that our true scientics will be able to comment on that report.

I hope that this time our letter will be taken in consideration,

On behalf of all the silicone victims here in Canada.

We are the evidence. We don’t think that the report of your study including Ontario and Quebec will be different from that SPR from USA.

Micheline B. Lambert, Présidente

Antonio Lambert, Vice-Président

Info Implants Mammaires Inc.