cannot believe this has not been on here yet as it mixes the sin bins favourite topics Sex and Politics. I have to say that the idea of ANY taxpayers money being used to remove or replace Breast implants is wrong. If you went private to get bigger tits for cosmetic reasons then you should pay prtivately to get it sorted out. Could i get tattoos removed becuase i no longer wanted them or get my crowns removed on the NHs because they are a bit discoloured NO. The only exceptions i would make are those who had surgery for medical reasons such as after cancer or those that were done on the NHS. If private companies go bust TOUGH. That is capitalism for you, you make money you lose money. The state should not be providing an insurance policy for private medical companies who end up making a mistake. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16523464

cannot believe this has not been on here yet as it mixes the sin bins favourite topics Sex and Politics. I have to say that the idea of ANY taxpayers money being used to remove or replace Breast implants is wrong. If you went private to get bigger tits for cosmetic reasons then you should pay prtivately to get it sorted out. Could i get tattoos removed becuase i no longer wanted them or get my crowns removed on the NHs because they are a bit discoloured NO. The only exceptions i would make are those who had surgery for medical reasons such as after cancer or those that were done on the NHS. If private companies go bust TOUGH. That is capitalism for you, you make money you lose money. The state should not be providing an insurance policy for private medical companies who end up making a mistake. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16523464

If the implants have to be removed for safety/health reasons, then that is quite different from a cosmetic procedure ('I want my tattoo removed'). Indeed, there have been some suggestions that the implants, if they burst, could cause cancer.

The issue should be the private companies that were prepared to carry out such procedures now threatening to renege on any responsibilities they have and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

Not that this is new: attempts to offshore medical secretaries' jobs would still have left the NHS to foot the bill of any errors caused by a private company.

Back to this case: as a point of FACT, it's debatable whether the private practices did make "a mistake". The 'mistake' appears to have been in the manufacture of the implants, using inferior materials/procedures and passing them off as ones that were fit for purpose. In other words, the private practices have been on the receiving end of actions that are possibly criminal and will possibly lead to proceedings on that basis.

That does not change the fact that the companies should deal with the fallout – and then sue or claim on their insurance etc.

But it was not 'mistakes' involved – and the implants may need to be removed for health reasons and not cosmetic ones.

I think the argument of the private companies is that the government licensed the implants for use, so they had every right to assume they were safe. If they're not, the government should sort it.

I can see their point to some extent, but I also think that the fact that they acted in good faith shouldn't necessarily free them of any obligation to the patient.

My understanding is that the government acted in good faith in licensing too – that the inferior product only came later under the guise of the licensed one.

Which, as I said, is not therefore a "mistake" by the cosmetic surgeons or the companies they work for.

Throw into the mix that the Royal College of Surgeons have offered to undertake any removal/replacement surgery FOC for both private & nhs patients, it does make you wonder just how much the bill would be.

Emma had her tits done in Belgium at a little over half of what a UK clinic was charging and that included Eurostar and three nights in a Brussells hotel, so somebody must be making a packet somewhere.

The implants had been passed safe by a German licensing organisation but you have to wonder if they were passed safe and then the spec changed. I could well see claims hitting the doors of the French & German governments too

Vanity boobs should be removed at the clients expense, they raised the money to pay for them putting in so now is the time to remortgage the house again and pay for them taking out.

It does highlight what happens when you put the healthcare of your citizens in the hands of businesses who are more terrified of losing money than caring for their patients.

To an extent, I agree, but any company that doesn't do their own checks of something as important as this and relies on government information (with all the lazy good-for-nothing public sector workers) as a base for their business deserves all they get. Smacks of taking money and denying any responsibility for the outcome.

Did Lansley (not someone I want to defend) carry out the operations?

Why should my tax go to bail out another irresponsible private company?

[url=http://www.thelocal.de/national/20120112-40069.htmlSome interesting points here.[/url

Amen brother.

Actually, now is the time for the companies that made money out of them to behave responsibly. People didn't have implants in the expectation that there would turn out to be a health risk because the manufacturer used an inferior material.

Let's put it another way: if you bought a new car, in the full belief that it was safe, good, etc etc, and then it was revealed that it wasn't safe, because the manufacturer had used inferior materials on the brakes, would you expect to foot the bill for a replacement car?



Agreed.

Nope, but I wouldn't expect the government to foot the bill either.

Agreed. Similar to the banks in that regard: happy with capitalism all the time they're making a huge profit, turning to the state to bail them out when it all goes (pardon the pun) tits up.