I am sorry to say that your reasoning is simplistic. The mortality risk implied by a potentially longer excision is not that trivial. Actually, this is exactly why the morcellator made it to widespread use. If that wasn't the case, you would be saying things on the order of "why use such primitive techniques when you can do it through less risky incisions? Whoever thought this was a good idea should be disqualified" Benefit versus risk of the use of a morcellator remains to be established. Which is why the FDA did not ban it altogether. But in an overly legalized society such as the US, manufacturers will often find beneficial to push the complication risk back onto the practioner by discontinuing their product in hope of avoiding trial.