No / Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced by a wide variety of chemicals and physiological processes in which enzymes catalyse the transfer of electrons from a substrate to molecular oxygen. The immediate products of such reactions, superoxide anion radicals and hydrogen peroxide can be metabolised by enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), respectively, and depending on its concentration by Vitamin C (Vit C). Under certain circumstances the ROS form highly reactive hydroxyl radicals. We examined human sperm and lymphocytes after treatment with six oestrogenic compounds in the Comet assay, which measures DNA damage, and observed that all caused damage in both cell types. The damage was diminished in nearly all cases by catalase, and in some instances by SOD and Vit C. This response pattern was also seen with hydrogen peroxide. This similarity suggests that the oestrogen-mediated effects could be acting via the production of hydrogen peroxide since catalase always markedly reduced the response. The variable responses with SOD indicate a lesser involvement of superoxide anion radicals due to SOD-mediated conversion of superoxide to hydrogen peroxide generally causing a lower level of DNA damage than other ROS. The variable Vit C responses are explained by a reduction of hydrogen peroxide at low Vit C concentrations and a pro-oxidant activity at higher concentrations. Together these data provide evidence that inappropriate exposure to oestrogenic compounds could lead to free-radical mediated damage. It is believed that the observed activities were not generated by cell free cell culture conditions because increased responses were observed over and above control values when the compounds were added, and also increasing dose¿response relationships have been found after treatment with such oestrogenic compounds in previously reported studies.

Alors que le contentieux des produits de santé n'a jamais été aussi fourni, l'application du régime spécial de responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux issu de la directive européenne du 25 juillet 1985, entraîne l'émergence d'un certain nombre d'incertitudes qui affectent directement le sort des demandes en réparation. Les incertitudes matérielles ont, pour la plupart reçu un traitement efficace par l'action conjuguée de la jurisprudence et du législateur. Si les outils juridiques traditionnels, tels que les présomptions ou la causalité alternative, ont permis de résoudre une partie non négligeable de ces incertitudes, les juges se sont également attachés à développer des outils nouveaux comme la balance bénéfice/risque ou encore la répartition de l'obligation à la dette selon les parts de marché. Cependant, si le développement de ces outils juridiques, plus adaptés aux spécificités des produits de santé, a permis d'apporter une solution efficace aux incertitudes matérielles, le traitement de l'incertitude scientifique, fondé sur les présomptions du fait de l'homme, n'apporte, toujours pas, de solutions satisfaisantes. L'étude du traitement des incertitudes dans le contentieux des produits de santé défectueux permet d'apprécier les acquis mais également les limites atteintes par l'utilisation de certains outils mis à la disposition des juges et qui se révèlent parfois inadaptés. L'intervention du législateur et la prise en compte des spécificités des produits de santé, permettraient de développer un système d'indemnisation adapté qui interviendrait de façon subsidiaire en cas d'échec de la voie contentieuse. / At a time when healthcare-product litigation is attaining record heights, the implementation into French law of the special liability regime for defective products, which derives from the European Council Directive of 25 July 1985, has led to the emergence of several grey areas of uncertainty which have a direct impact on the outcome of claims for compensation. Areas of material uncertainty have, for the most part, been effectively dealt with through the combined application of case law and the intervention of the legislator. While classic legal tools such as presumption and alternative causality provide a means to resolve a non-negligible part of these uncertainties, judges have also endeavoured to develop new tools, such as risk/utility test and market-share liability. Still, although the development of these legal tools - better suited as they are to the specific features of healthcare products - provide an effective solution to resolving areas of material uncertainty, the treatment of scientific uncertainty, which is based on presumptions of fact, does not always provide satisfactory solutions. The study of the legal treatment of uncertainty in healthcare-product litigation provides a means to assess the benefits but also the limitations of certain tools that are now available to judges but which at times prove inadequate. Intervention on the part of the legislator, while at the same time taking into account the specific features of healthcare products, could lead to the development of a suitable compensation system that could afford relief when litigation fails.