On May 6, 1994, this was a digital version of an article in The Times Print File, before it began to be published online in 1996. To keep these articles as they appear initially, the Times will not change, edit, or update them. There are occasional copywriting errors or other problems during the digitization process. Please send a report of such issues to archid_feedback @ nytimes. com. To the editor: Your April 25- Page articles on medical device material suppliers concerned about liability litigation have caused harm to thousands of victims of untested, unsafe medical devices. While Dow Corning and DuPont complain about \"fear of litigation\", you do not mention that product liability litigation is almost the only protection for consumers from dangerous, defective medical devices. Since 1960s, Dow Corning has launched a chin implant called Silastic. It is similar to the Vitek device you discussed, except that it is made of silicone rubber instead of Teflon. The device must be redesigned due to debris and damage issues. According to a researcher in congressional testimony, Dow\'s public documents imply and medical literature confirm that Dow has reason to know that the silicone rubber in the device is, \"as a biological material for long-term use, defective in nature The term implanted in the human body. \"Dow did not include enough warnings in the package inserts and continued to sell the equipment. The Food and Drug Administration\'s lack of regulation of the medical device industry has often exacerbated this neglect of safety. The investigation by John Dingle, chairman of the House supervisory and investigative subcommittee, exposed F. D. A. This makes it dangerous for many devices to be later proven to pass the approval process. In order to ensure the safety of medical devices, it depends on the infringement system of defamation. In fact, without exception, the result of the litigation described by the industry as frivolous is valid and the allegedly safe product is proved to be dangerous. M. Christine Rand, lawyer, Consumer Union Washington, April 26, 1994, a version of the letter appeared on page A00028, the national edition of May 6, 1994, with the title: only legal protection for Medical Consumers.