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.

As soon as you bring in supposedly moral arguments about cosmetic implants you muddy the waters and open up all sorts of new questions and issues. Can we be sure that all of the women who had cosmetic implants did so entirely of their own free will, and are necessarily in a position today to do anything about them themselves, for example? And if leaving them in, long term, does cause more cancer, might this not cost far more in treatment than whipping out the implants as quickly as possible? And finally, as the regulator and final arbiter over the healthcare industry, do we not pay our taxes to ensure that the department of health properly monitors and regulates all potentially dangerous aspects of healthcare on our behalf, and bears responsibility if they fail to do so properly?

I read commentators in the Daily Mail raging against the idea that cosmetic implants be dealt with at the taxpayer's expense. It doesn't seem to have crossed their minds that they could end up paying a hell of a lot more in treatment if they leave people to their own devices.
Durham Giant
If I decided to follow your argument to its only logical conclusion I would see no reason to put my hand in my pocket to pay for any medical bills you may incur by what I deemed your own behaviour, choices, lifestyle etc. So if you've ever sat in a smoky room you can forget cancer treatment. If you've chosen to drink contaminated tap water (even if you were assured by the authorities that it was safe) well that's your lookout - there's plenty of bottled water available. As for crossing the road and getting run over by a bus - well perhaps you should look where you're going - you'll get no sympathy from me. And don't even think of getting involved in any kind of sports and come crying to me when you get yourself injured. Oh no - it was your choice and I find it morally unacceptable by my own private, secret moral code. Naturally if you suffer obesity-related health issues as a result of not exercising, well tough luck, you should get out more.

You will need deep pockets when I rule the world, because I reckon I can probable wriggle out of any responsibility to offer you healthcare whatsoever, simply by making it a moral rather than a health issue before deciding what I do and don't approve of...
I am writing this as somebody who fought for 6 months to get the right treatment for back pain. The NHS would not believe me when I told them it was not muscular they would not send me for an MRI scan because it cost too much. I eventually paid for my own but it was too late and I became paralysed. The NHS saved about £600 on the MRI scan only to spend tens of thousands on my 10 month stay in hospital with costly drugs 6 times a day 9 MRI scans and treatment for the rest of my life.
Just get the job done!

I understand the argument and of course in your example the manufacturer would issue a recall and correct the error, but if the manufacturer had gone into liquidation then I'd assume that the owners would have to pay for the repair themselves (don't know for sure because I don't think its ever happened to a car manufacturer).

The delicate issue here is that there are two extreme cases for breast implants, reconstruction after surgery (often cancer related) and pure vanity, and not all reconstruction jobs were done under the NHS. I don't think there are many who would argue that the NHS shouldn't be removing vanity implants unless there is an urgent medical case and health is at risk, it really is up to the providers to correct their error in the same way that when a TV set goes wrong you take it back to Comet and not Panasonic.

Must admit I've having a chuckle at all the right wingers and anti-statists suddenly queuing up to demand that the taxpayer steps in to bail them out. Lansley's in a no-win situation here. Shame.

Lansley is saying that the NHS should repair the damage ... i.e. he's effectively saying that it's OK to go private when there's profit but it's an NHS responsibility when there's a cost.
But are we surprised that Lansley, a past recipient of electoral expenses from a director of a private health company, takes that view?
No conflict of interest there surely?

My view is that the private companies (where British) should be forced to do the repairs for free and pay up large sums of compo for the inconvenience and stress.
Obviously, if and when emergency complications have arisen, or where the private firm has gone bust (oh dear, another bosom pun) and disappeared, or where the private firm is going to pay the NHS for the work, then and only then should NHS resources be used for this.

The argument about whether the government licensed the implants is totally irrelevant and is merely a smokescreen.

But they did, they turned out to be faulty. The products those private clinics use still have to be tested and licensed by the state. In other words they had the Department of Health stamp of approval, so to speak. As such the blame must shift away from the clinics, who've purchased a product in the safe reassurance that it's passed strict safety tests and is approved for medical use, to those who carried out (or didn't) the appropriate tests and checks.

Interestingly in the factory (where the implants were made) in the south of France, employees have testified that they would come in to work one day, and find the supplies and the set-up changed. The industrial grade silicone had been replaced by one of a medical quality. Once the inspectors had left, the process was reversed. Also, the implants that were used for selling purposes - ie sent to those who wanted samples - were always of the highest quality.

My point still stands though. I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who was using a product deemed OK by a penpusher. Yes the government checks appear to be flawed, but if companies are not doing their own checks of products they use, they are at fault. This isn't a faulty biro someone has bought, it's an invasive medical procedure that the companies are charging a lot of money for.

Government licensing isn't the same as a goverment guarantee of quality.
When the manufacturer is swapping the spec all the time, how can it be?

Boob jobs should be free on the nhs anyway. Provided the recipient is good looking enough for them to beneficial to society.

As for removal of dodgy ones, I think first call should be the surgeon that put them in and if any are no longer in business the nhs should help out.

The car point is interesting - I bought a new rover 2 weeks before they went bust, so all the warranty became invalid not unlike these poor ladies who have a potential time bomb in their chest. It is not just the manufacturer who has gone bust but also the clinic who performend the surgery.

I would have thought all concerns would have insurance to cover this stuff, the problem will be getting insurance to coff up and the opportunity cost of having personnel and facilities tied up doing this remedial work.

I want to be quite clear – I think that the private companies are using excuses to save themselves accepting financial responsibility for their role in the situation. I don't think they should be allowed to do that.

However, as I have also tried to make clear, removal is not just a matter of cosmetic choice, but may well be of medical need.

Such payments do happen in a number of situations, though – such as the compensation to victims of crime that is paid by the state.



So into which category does what Cod'ead described Emma as undergoing fall?



Health would appear to be at risk.

I would add, since we seem to have a large number of male posters here condemning women for "vanity": are you all saying that there are absolutely no pressures on women to conform to certain physical types and that it's a totall level playing field (if you will) as to social and cultural pressure on women?

Normally you would expect the clients/patients to go to the nhs or private medical group that "fitted" the implants and demand corrective surgery. The nhs/private medical group would then seek compensation from the suppliers of the implants. However the suppliers, PIP, appear to have gone broke. The question then is why aren't the private medical groups adequately insured for that eventuality?

The chairman of the Harley Medical Group was pushing the "its the governments fault, they licensed the implants" argument yesterday and insisting they didnt have the resources to carry out 13,000 corrective operations. But if they cant get the government to accept that argument and they dont undertake the corrective operations, why would anyone ever use their services again? Surely they'll go broke if they dont make sure that their clients/patients are properly looked after? Or is just that cosmetic surgery is one of those businesses that are easy to close down and then start up again iunder a different name?

Good faith? I would presume that private providers used that supplier, and continued to use it, because they were cut-price. I have no idea as to how much of a saving each made per implant, but wonder whether the saving was passed on to the customer. Big providers were Transform, and Harley medical group. HMG (for example) say that PIP implants were "not the cheapest on the market" but do not explain why they chose them. Were the implants charged out to the customer at cost price? Or did clinics make extra profits?

More to the point, did any clinic say to their customers "[iAlthough we will be fitting you with PIP implants, please note that as these are approved by the MHRA, we accept NO responsibility whatsoever for them. We are charging you £X for them, true, and we ARE making an extra £Y profit be reselling them to you, true, but if they turn out to be actually substandard hazardous crap, you'll have to sue the government, as we don't see why we should bear any responsibility whatsoever for the implants that we have chosen to use and have advised you to let us insert into your body as perfectly safe. We get them from this guy in France, who sells them much cheaper than average, but we don't need to ask any questions, as he's got his licence so that will do for us.[/i."



I don't believe they did.

In fact, I have no reason to disbelieve [url=http://forum.sofeminine.co.uk/forum/f52/__f21607_f52-Pip-implants-yes-they-rupture-and-in-the-first-few-years.htmlTHIS LADY[/url, who in October 2009 posted on a forum what appears to me to be dynamite. One thing which immediately stands out is that, far from any disclaimers, her PIP implants "came with a 10 year guarantee".

So that's all right, then.

I'd say that men are under similar pressures these days as well.

I think there is a distinction to be made, though, between a woman who has had augmentation surgery because the size of her breasts was causing her psychological trauma, and a woman who 'just wanted to be bigger'. That's not to say that they shouldn't both be entitled to the same recourse when it goes wrong, however.