Having an adulterated device in one's body entails a specific experience of risk for PIP recipients. This can be analyzed through the concept of embodied risk. Embodied risk refers to risks inscribed in the body of an individual, defined through the diagnosis of premalignant (Kavanagh and Broom, 1998), genetic (Löwy, 2010), or familial predispositions. Beyond environmental and life-style risks, such risks indicate the likelihood of developing a disease (Kavanagh and Broom, 1998). The “embodiedness” of the risk may be considered a variable attribute. For example, Löwy (2012: 215) observes that because of its materiality when compared to purely statistical factors, women perceive breast cellular atypia as more embodied than other factors of predisposition such as age or age at first pregnancy. Moreover, Sulik (2009) shows how embodied breast cancer risk leads some patients to develop a “technoscientific illness identity” around the definition and management of the risk. Kavanagh and Broom (1998) underline that the location of the risk inside the patients' bodies makes it harder to cope with, and that traditional answers, like lifestyle changes, are unavailable. One of the main answers is continuous medical monitoring. …show more content…
In the case of prostheses and implants, such risks derive from medical devices that are literally embodied by patients. By definition, iatrogenic risk is estimated in terms of the presumed benefits of the treatment, which serve as a counterbalance to the risks associated with the intervention. Research on medical innovations demonstrates that the proponents of the innovations (such as doctors and medical companies) emphasize the advantages and downplay the risks (Carricaburu, 1999; Löwy,