Viking Warrior Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Not sure if there has been a thread on this topical subject. A number of models have been on various media stes stating the NHS and Government should pick up the tab for having PIP's removed and replaced, Why . They saved up to have breast enhancements, it wasnt a medical necessity to have them done . So why should the govenrment and tax payers money be used. I know there are some medical reasons why it was done and fair but I do not agree with paying for those who have done it to enhance their looks. What are other posters views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Public or private doesn't make a jot of difference in this case. If there ultimately are genuine safety concerns then the people who fitted them have a responsibility to take them out again. I'm assuming when you have breast implants the fitter is under an obligation to fit something that is safe as opposed to sticking any old lumps of plastic in a woman's body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Public or private doesn't make a jot of difference in this case. If there ultimately are genuine safety concerns then the people who fitted them have a responsibility to take them out again. I'm assuming when you have breast implants the fitter is under an obligation to fit something that is safe as opposed to sticking any old lumps of plastic in a woman's body. The clinics contend that the material used was passed safe by UK medical authorities so it is not their own fault. But then again car manufacturers seem to stump up the price of a recall programme when third party components are proven faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 The clinics contend that the material used was passed safe by UK medical authorities so it is not their own fault. But then again car manufacturers seem to stump up the price of a recall programme when third party components are proven faulty. This is an interesting debate because if any company submits something to medical authorities and has it passed, it is pretty hard to then blame the company for any subsequent issues. These authorities exist for medical devices and procedures because of the potential health issues that can arise, whereas as long as a car passes an MOT, there is no such need for specific devices and parts to pass government tests. Liability should probably be shared to a degree but by default, if a government agency is partly to blame, then that is going to funded by the tax payer, because we pay for the government departments. A private company would have liability insurance for this kind of thing, the government has the taxpayer. I don't agree at all, but we are all supposed to trust these authorities to test things on our behalf, and if we can't do that...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 I find it very interesting that the material used was apparently deemed as safe by the UK medical authorities. The industry I work in is extremely stringent when it comes to standards and certification, but, there is no absolutely hard and fast rules as to what is fine and not fine, it is down to their customer's auditors to have the final say. So, the question would have to be for me, have the goalposts changed? Or, is this just a massive grey area which can be argued ad infinitum? As a personal thought though, sure any bodily implant presents a risk of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 I think the point with PIP inserts is that a lot of the units are manufactured from different components to those that were given approval,isn't that what the owner of the company said,cost cutting measures due to prices being forced down by clinics and all that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 As I see, it the women that had these put in should have them replaced by whomever installed them, be it a private practice or the NHS. The practice or NHS then recoup the money from the manufacturers. In the event of the private clinic having gone bust (do you see what I did there ), then the NHS should remove (not replace) them in the event of them becoming problematic, to prevent any health risks. I would guess that a large proportion of these implants were for purely cosmetic purposes, so I don't see why the NHS (ie the tax payer) should foot the bill for someone elses vanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 The NHS is an emergency service so I feel that if there is a serious health issue then they should step in, but should seek reimbursement from those responsible. I'm not sure how urgent these repacments are. There are an awful lot of people waiting for new hips, amongst other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jones91 Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Don't breat implants have to be replaced after 10 years or so anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryoman1965 Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 To look at it a different way, would the NHS pay for treatment that was caused by smoking? That is a life style choice and is not nessasary....just the same as a boob job. I am a smoker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 To look at it a different way, would the NHS pay for treatment that was caused by smoking? That is a life style choice and is not nessasary....just the same as a boob job. I am a smoker Pretty sure they'll treat smokers for lung cancer tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Well it seems to me that the owner of the company was a bit of a crook, so whose to say that the sample he sent to be approved was kosher and then supplied defective parts. I have a massive issue with the private clinics not taking responsibility to remove the "elective" implants. That's why they have professional indemnity insurance. Also why should the taxpayer bail out these plastic surgeons, they made a lot of money from performing these operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 I paid for my former wife's breast implants. When we divorced my solicitor asked me what I wanted from the estate. I asked for access to her breasts every other weekend.He wasn't amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 To look at it a different way, would the NHS pay for treatment that was caused by smoking? That is a life style choice and is not nessasary....just the same as a boob job. I am a smoker Exactly, and the NHS also treat people who're ill from getting ****ed or hurt themselves in dangerous sports - is it any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 I can't help thinking that plastic surgeons should be insured against such problems as faulty implants like hips and breasts and also drugs and side affects. If I make a mistake and smash a motorbike into a tree there is no limit on the money that would be spent on me. If through no fault of my own I contract cancer or start losing my sight there are financial limits on my treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 There is also possibly more risk renplacing the implants prematurely that leaving them in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 The NHS should not be judge and jury imo. Just get these ladies sorted and let the legal bods fight over the bill I say. Life first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 As I see, it the women that had these put in should have them replaced by whomever installed them, be it a private practice or the NHS. The practice or NHS then recoup the money from the manufacturers. In the event of the private clinic having gone bust (do you see what I did there ), then the NHS should remove (not replace) them in the event of them becoming problematic, to prevent any health risks. I would guess that a large proportion of these implants were for purely cosmetic purposes, so I don't see why the NHS (ie the tax payer) should foot the bill for someone elses vanity. I agree with you in principle on this, but the flaw in our argument is that for the NHS to refuse the removal etc, there might be greater costs incurred in the event of health issues following leakage etc. ie the need to weigh up costs of prevention rather than cure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Surely there is some sort of contract breach here, surely somewhere there is a point which guarantees the patient will actually get what they pay for put in them and not something else?! So surely someone(i.e the clinics or the manufacturer, though I know the manufacturer has gone under now) is liable to be sued to get them out?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 I hope they all get bigger and better ones, don't want our national average cup size to drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Surely there is some sort of contract breach here, surely somewhere there is a point which guarantees the patient will actually get what they pay for put in them and not something else?! So surely someone(i.e the clinics or the manufacturer, though I know the manufacturer has gone under now) is liable to be sued to get them out?! Providing they were not misinformed as to the nature of the implant then it would be difficult to argue a breach of contract, the implants supplied had been approved by the statutory body so its not cheap implants used illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 I paid for my former wife's breast implants. When we divorced my solicitor asked me what I wanted from the estate. I asked for access to her breasts every other weekend.He wasn't amused. Made I laugh. Hearing about this topic day in ,day out, in the media is beginning to get on my tits to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 12 January, 2012 Share Posted 12 January, 2012 Providing they were not misinformed as to the nature of the implant then it would be difficult to argue a breach of contract, the implants supplied had been approved by the statutory body so its not cheap implants used illegally. Hmmmm, good point. If the manufacturer hadn't gone under they would be the obvious ones to sue for the damages as they would surely know they were using the wrong kind of silicone... but it's hard one now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 13 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2012 One of my concerns about this, is not so uch who pays but. If the NHS are forced to remove and replace breast implants then this will snarl up the sustem andleadto other operations being postponed in an already over stretched NHS surgical system. If the NHS end up undertaking these ops then those women who chose to have cosmetic enhancements should go to the bottom of the que and not begiven priority. Unless there is a llife threatening health problem then they should be given a very low priority. After all its only the french that are suddenly moaning and they have a history of whinging Oh I will be mighty ****ed off if my Knee replacement op gets postponed yet again because some model gets her breast implants changed before my knee replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 FWIW I think the NHS is absolutely right to remove and replace implants where it has been done by the NHS consequential to breast removal for cancer. But I think the private customer should have the right to demand replacement under the Sale of Goods Act. I think some clinics have said they'll remove the implants FOC but that the private patient should pay for replacement implants if that's what they want. I don't understand why women pay for this surgery in the first place so I guess I'm not all that sympathetic to those who've undertaken purely cosmetic surgery. Clinical neccessity is an altogether different matter. But do bear in mind that some men have breast surgery too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 FWIW I think the NHS is absolutely right to remove and replace implants where it has been done by the NHS consequential to breast removal for cancer. But I think the private customer should have the right to demand replacement under the Sale of Goods Act. I think some clinics have said they'll remove the implants FOC but that the private patient should pay for replacement implants if that's what they want. I don't understand why women pay for this surgery in the first place so I guess I'm not all that sympathetic to those who've undertaken purely cosmetic surgery. Clinical neccessity is an altogether different matter. But do bear in mind that some men have breast surgery too. I agree, there has got to be something legal somewhere which leaves them liable to get it taken out at the very least. Though of course the problem of the supplier being bust makes it harder. Cosmetic aside, and whatever you think of it(vainity or not), if someone pays for a product they should get what it is advertised as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Bottom line is the placcy surgeons don't want to give up any of their 200k a year salary. Make em pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 14 January, 2012 Share Posted 14 January, 2012 FWIW I think the NHS is absolutely right to remove and replace implants where it has been done by the NHS consequential to breast removal for cancer. But I think the private customer should have the right to demand replacement under the Sale of Goods Act. I think some clinics have said they'll remove the implants FOC but that the private patient should pay for replacement implants if that's what they want. I don't understand why women pay for this surgery in the first place so I guess I'm not all that sympathetic to those who've undertaken purely cosmetic surgery. Clinical neccessity is an altogether different matter. But do bear in mind that some men have breast surgery too. Massive can of worms there though R, can a larger sized person with heart problems go back to McDonalds etc demanding a refund because the product made them fat? or an alcoholic revisit his/her local store because they have become ill? or indeed a skiier who has had a nasty fall contact the mountain??? It's all about risk and tbf if we all employed Rick Analysis we wouldn't eat/drink or do anything!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 14 January, 2012 Share Posted 14 January, 2012 I would guess that a large proportion of these implants were for purely cosmetic purposes, so I don't see why the NHS (ie the tax payer) should foot the bill for someone elses vanity. 100% agree, why should the NHS bale out private individuals and companys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2012 Share Posted 14 January, 2012 Massive can of worms there though R, can a larger sized person with heart problems go back to McDonalds etc demanding a refund because the product made them fat? or an alcoholic revisit his/her local store because they have become ill? or indeed a skiier who has had a nasty fall contact the mountain??? It's all about risk and tbf if we all employed Rick Analysis we wouldn't eat/drink or do anything!!! I sort of agree with you there Jill but.......... If these (men and) women chose to have these implants for purely cosmetic reasons, then the NHS can't be expected to pick up the tab because some of them might go wrong. A leading plastic surgeon was on TV this morning saying that there was, indeed, little risk of things going wrong. The NHS is taking ethical responsibility to remove and replace implants where it carried out the original procedure and that's right. It has also said it will REMOVE implants carried out by private clinics but will not replace them. The private clinics should take the same moral and ethical stance as the NHS at their own expense. After all, they make a f***ing fortune from doing all these procedures on people. The eventual outcome will be that there will be a huge clampdown on cosmetic procedures and that can only be a good thing. As someone pointed out earlier, the private clinics / surgeons will have extensive PII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 14 January, 2012 Share Posted 14 January, 2012 100% agree, why should the NHS bale out private individuals and companys!!! I've already made a point on this, in reply to the post by Dimond Geezer: I agree with you in principle on this, but the flaw in our argument is that for the NHS to refuse the removal etc, there might be greater costs incurred in the event of health issues following leakage etc. ie the need to weigh up costs of prevention rather than cure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 14 January, 2012 Share Posted 14 January, 2012 But I don't think the NHS should have to cover the costs for private companies and individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now