(07-13-2021, 08:58 AM)btreger Wrote: [60 Minutes] It is a start, the downside is that they are on their summer break, and only showing reruns.
[Law Firms] I tried to start a dialogue with a large local law firm.
[Media] My next step is to go after my local news outlets, both print, and broadcast.
I didn't realize that 60 Minutes would be on a summer break, and that would considerably extend their response time. Hopefully, as a news magazine, they're always actively processing investigative news stories and they'll forward the investigative news suggestion on to another CBS news journal/department that can act on it in a more timely way.
Regarding law firm coverage, my guess is that there are class-action firms that are extremely well suited for this type of situation. With 3-4 million affected people, it has important implications to many. The challenge that some will see is analyzing the direct "harm". Many need to be educated on the many types of "harm" that has been done to the Philips PAP owner community. It's taken me awhile to fully understand it. Here is a summary of the "harm" or damage that I see so far:
Immediate Out-of-Pocket Financial Costs to End-Users
There's no need to prove "harm" here. We were immediately instructed by Philips to stop using their recalled devices and acquire a replacement device. That financial consequences for the immediately replacement of a necessary medical device is likely $500-$2,500. The damages here are therefore, at least, the residual asset value of owners' recalled device, after depreciation/usage. One could even argue it's more due to now having to compete with current replacement costs, obtaining new prescriptions, possibly having to throw out Philips system related accessories too, etc.
Possible Current/Past Health Damages Related to Use of Defective Devices
This is more complex and time consuming. Lawyers will have to prove there is a significant likelihood that some people's health issues (anything from throat irritation on one extreme, to possible life-threatening diseases on the other).
Long-term Future Health Damages Related to Use of Defective Devices (Currently Not Known)
If someone were to develop an illness in 6 months or several years, that might possibly be related to the ingestion of foam particles and their chemical composition, a fund should exist that would allow them to access medical funding and/or compensation.
Corporate Neglect in Delaying the Announcement of the Recall
Philips has delayed the announcement of the recall between a few months and a few years - depending on its real reason for the foam change in the DreamStation 2 and when first complaints about foam particles began surfacing. Philips may have been deliberately covering up and minimizing the evidence of the harmful nature of the breakdown of the foam, especially as assisted by SoClean and other intensive internal cleaning systems.
Design Errors in the Implementation of the Foam in 2009
As one of the earlier great posters pointed out, Philips purchased Respironics around the beginning of 2008. Philips changed the foam in systems beginning 2009, to the defective foam, also made with cancer-causing chemicals. That leads to many questions. Was the previous foam also faulty? Was there therefore neglect by Philips in its choice of new foam? If so, they could be made accountable for selling a faulty designed product.
Others
I'm sure I've missed one or more other ways that Philips could be held financially responsible.
Also, media outlets, government agencies and lawyers need to understand two additional very important issues that they don't seem to quite understand as yet:
(1)
Many people see their PAP system as a life-saving device.
If I don't use my system, I'll likely be in an ER within 30 days, either from a car accident, cardiac arrest, or something else - and I don't have any (known) other health issues. PAP systems are NOT health aids. For many, they are life extensions. Therefore, telling PAP users that they must immediately stop using their machine means they have to immediately acquire something else - or, worse yet, be forced to continue using their defective, potentially cancer-causing, breathing system.
(2)
Philips' announcement of the recall and a "fix" has produced no results immediately for end-users.
Recalled device users know that they likely won't receive a "fixed" device (or replacement) for many months, possibly years. Most have indicated that they will be using that device as a backup system as they will have already acquired a replacement system. So the significance of these long-term future efforts by Philips is minimal. No "fix", no replacement device, no compensation for the past purchase of a defective device, etc.
Regarding the media, you and others have motivated me to put together a substantive report on all the issues that are related to the Philips recall. There are so many branches to it, as indicated above. But the most important branch at the moment, as far as end-users are concerned, is a timely immediate appropriate replacement or compensation for the need to immediately replace a medically necessary breathing system. I'll then conduct a campaign to notify various national media outlets. We could use a little press to highlight the importance of PAP devices and the lack of action by Philips.
