Talk:Dalkon Shield

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evasilako. Peer reviewers: Bgreaves18, Bschutz11, Isabelleadeyinka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Used also in Brazil

Here in Brazil, this despicable american device was also used, with terrible results. Even there were deaths produced by this american product. The article doesn't shows nothing about the use of this despicable device, in Brazil and others Third World countries. Agre22 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

For this information to be added to the article, sources would be needed. HairyWombat 02:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Value Jump?

The article states:

The cost of litigation and settlements (estimated at billions of dollars) led the company to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1985. As a result, the stock value of the company quadrupled, and Robins was able to sell the company for a hefty profit to American Home Products, (now Wyeth)[citation needed].

Is there missing information here? It seems to imply that because the company faced billions of dollars of litigation and went into bankruptcy that it's valuable quadrupled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.193.248 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I recall the reason the stock increased in value is that bankruptcy protects the company from its previous liabilities. Companies often do have a stock increase after filing bankruptcy for this reason, since part of the consideration for valuing stock is based on assets and income versus liabilities. I'm not a financial expert, but that has been my observation. I do think that part deserves expansion, further explanation, and more citations. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I remember studying this case in college. It is one of many examples (although it's used because it is such a blatant example) of the way that the structure of corporate law, the nature of corporate profits, and the way torts work actually produce an advantage for unethical behaviour. If a company can engage in some form of unethical behaviour or violate the law, but the cost of any consequences of doing so is less, much less far less, than the profits it receives as a result of that behaviour, it is in the corporation's interest to engage in that behaviour. Likewise the immunities provided to executives by dint of having acted in their official capacity provide an incentive to the executives themselves because they will not suffer consequences for their actions - the corporation does, if anyone. Another example of this dynamic would be the many cases of malfeasance within the financial system, much of which were brought to the attention of the larger public by the Subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent Financial crisis of 2007–2008, as well as the government's reaction to it. In its time Dalkon Shield was one of the most egregious cases to enjoy that level of infamy. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits of March 24

I did some major edits on this article based on the following:

• The article was full of unsupported statements about what the company knew and when it knew it
• It relied almost entirely on a book by a lawyer for the plantiffs (in violation of WP:THIRDPARTY) and a college essay as sources

I am not familiar with the story of this device, and attempted to trace the early history by examining early medical papers published in pubmed and by looking at early newspaper articles. I did not find any evidence in this search for the previous version of the article's assertions that reports of infections were pouring in from the first months the device was on the market. In fact, a CDC survey performed in 1973 concludes that IUDs (most of which were Dalkon Shields at that time) were safer than pregnancy and most other forms of birth control. The problems do not appear to have become apparent until the passage of some time from what I can gather.

This is not intended to be a POV edit, though I have changed what I regard as a very one-sided and poorly sourced version of the story. I welcome the input of other editors who may wish to supplement or edit what I have done here, provided of course that high quality sources are used.

Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some good sources here (deliberately steering clear of nonWP:MEDRS, pop medicine books but trying to get a range of views from quality medical sources. Overall I think these are a little more nuanced in the opinions expressed than the book written by the lawyer for the plantiffs, and should be incorporated to the extent possible. I think they give a nice overview of the scientific controversy from experts in the field.

1) Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease.

2) Another look at the Dalkon Shield: meta-analysis underscores its problems.

3) Was the Dalkon Shield a safe and effective intrauterine device? The conflict between case-control and clinical trial study findings

4) Pelvic inflammatory disease with intrauterine device use: a reassessment.

5) Pelvic infection: a comparison of the Dalkon shield and three other intrauterine devices

6) Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and the Dalkon Shield

7) The effect of different types of intrauterine devices on the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease.

8) Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: meta-analyses of published studies, 1974-1990.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6856209

Formerly 98 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall I believe that the article is relatively complete with broad information surrounding the Dalkon Shield. It is well organized, there are no grammatical errors, and it is stated in a clear and concise way. There is however not a lot of information surrounding several important factors regarding the problematic IUD. There is no information that shares who invented the Dalkon Shield or their background. I believe there should be a section that details more about the origin of the device. I believe the article is pretty well developed, as there is not much else to say about the device other than what is already written. Most of the information online about the Dalkon shield is reflected throughout the article, so I would say it is generally pretty complete.

Isabelleadeyinka (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)isabelleadeyinka

Copper sulfate and radiopacity

The article says

To evade oversight, Robins claimed the copper sulfate was only there to help with imaging.

which implies that the claim was false. But earlier we said

copper sulfate was added to increase its radiopacity

which means that the copper sulfate was there to help with imaging. How then was he evading oversight? Marnanel (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)