Ah, but then there's the geriatric who is having a potential life ending shower of blood clots, winding up with a pulmonary embolism. A filter is inserted and he recovers, living several more years...certainly more than if he had not received immediate intervention. Then, due to the delicate nature of the filter, a piece breaks off and causes problems. There are any number of nationwide law firms on TV lining up to crucify the product and physician/hospital that gave this individual many more years on this earth than he would have had without it. In the same vein (pardon the pun), an individual at high risk for a stroke is prescribed "blood thinners" and he lives for years without incident. Then at some point years in the future, he suffers a bleeding incident such as a GI bleed or hemorrhagic stroke, at once again, there are the TV guys ready to sue.
I have never been sued so you can't use the "Must have had some PI lawyer take your pride or ego at one point to be still harping on this issue with envy and resentment in retirement." card. I just think there are cases which are filed when common sense should prevail and the legal beagles should tell the potential client, "Look, those products and devices saved or prolonged your life for many extra years. No one lives forever...it was just the result of old age and genetics." Those TV ads really make me mad.