http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16408192
Was on the news this morning. A guest plastic surgeon said he thinks the government should be responsible for stumping up the cash to have these removed and replaced with new ones - at an average cost of £16k per patient (assuming nothing goes wrong).
So, how do you feel about your taxes being used for this?
I think it should be on a boob by boob basis.
tricky, government licenced them for use so I guess they were saying 'these are ok to use'.
having said that the people who put them in must have liability insurance...
having said that the people who put them in must have liability insurance...
to save debate, shall we just agree to blame the French?
My response would be "Tough Titty"
Mine are staying in
there was a case up here where the company that was responsible for the installation has now gone bust
I didn't follow the link but just cause a company doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean their insurance can't be claimed against.
Reconstructive - Yes
Cosmetic - No
Next!
I didn't follow the link but just cause a company doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean their insurance can't be claimed against.
If they were done under the NHS the first time yes, if not then no.
Would have thought that it's just a Sale of Good Act matter and their contract was with the clinic doing the work.
Goods are not fit for purpose, therefore clinic should be responsible for replacement etc. As said, they may see fit to involve their insurers.
save debate, shall we just agree to blame the French?
They burn our LAMB'S so they should pay for our boobs !
I didn't follow the link but just cause a company doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean their insurance can't be claimed against.
Or indeed the Professional body they were members of.
government licenced them for use so I guess they were saying 'these are ok to use'.
This was the surgeons opinion... if the government say they're ok to use, they should stump the bill.
is there any difference between them getting their boobs repaired, and me going to hospital after falling off my bike? kind of double standards, but then, i dont think healthcare should always be free 
I don't think how, where or why they were installed in the first place has anything to do with anything.
If there is a known potentially serious health risk then any person who has had them installed should be entitled to have them removed regardless of how much it costs. What if someone's had them installed but can't now have them removed? Should they be exposed tot he dangers just because of money?
No.
Free removal on NHS, company who made them to be sued.
Anyone who has had them installed is still a member of our society, and as such should receive NHS treatment for any health issue regardless of all other factors.
I suspect this thread will be mostly blokes who know absolutely nothing about breast augmentation surgery, the reasons why people have it done, and the social and psychological issues that the patients face.
Bit like most arguments on here then. Carry on!
company that was responsible for the installation has now gone bust
That's punny.
I can't decide without photos.
Would have thought that it's just a Sale of Good Act matterdon't think so. if used in accordance with manuf guidance and any licenses, I think liability (Addit: for failure/harm) falls to the license holder (ie "manufacturer") and their insurance
gone bustI think you mean tits up
Not this again? This story is starting to get on my tits.
is there any difference between them getting their boobs repaired, and me going to hospital after falling off my bike?
Yes there is a difference between simply crashing and getting medical help. Pilot error.
If the Bike was flawed and caused the crash, irrespective of pilot control, that meant you needed medical attention then I would expect a claim against them to re-imburse for medical care, physio etc.
reconstructive on nhs then yes remove and replace
cosmetic paid for by your self - removal yes - but not replace-you can pay for that !
Why isn't the manufacturing company liable? Are they bust?
Reconstructive - Yes
Cosmetic - No
Free removal on NHS, company who made them to be sued.
if you google breast enlargement side affects i would assume you get a long list of potential side affects and some people took the risk willingly for no medical reason. Whilst I feel sorry for them I am not sure how sorry tbh as they had elective surgery that had potential risks.
Removal paid for by the NHS - yes
Replacement paid for by the NHS - no, unless for genuine medical reasons i.e. augmentation following masectomy. If it's purely cosmetic then replacement shouldn't be covered by the NHS
Removal paid for by the NHS - yesReplacement paid for by the NHS - no, unless for genuine medical reasons i.e. augmentation following masectomy. If it's purely cosmetic then replacement shouldn't be covered by the NHS
+1
elfinsafety +1
The cost to help dying patients with cancer is prob way higher than removal at a guess
Whilst I feel sorry for them I am not sure how sorry tbh as they had elective surgery that had potential risksIf I'm to undergo surgery the surgeon has a duty to inform me adequately of the risks before I give consent.
If the estimate of risk they gave (in good faith, based on UK govt/MHRA assessment and licensing) now turns out to be incorrect, is that really my fault ?
BoardinBob it is possible to have implants on the NHS for cosmetic reasons, its normally put down to either having mis matched sizing (i.e one bigger than the other) or depression caused by being flat chested
both of these procedures have nothing to do with physical wellbeing
you think they were told there was no risk of implants ever leaking as it has never happened?
You think they were unaware that sometimes products fail
I have had an organ donation it takes about 2 hours to listen to everything that could happen including stuff they could not possibly predict now = eg AIDS fronm blood transfusion for example
they tell you it is safe as far as they know but there is no guarantee With a boob job they are after all putting a foreign body subcutaneously into your body...why would anyone think this is risk free?
Surely this is a manufacturer issue. If Toyota manufactured cars with sticky throttles that could kill people it wouldn't be the dealers fault for selling it or the buyers fault for buying it, it would be the manufacturer's fault for making a faulty product. Simple. They may wish to claim back off their bio-compatibility testing company if they don't do their own in-house, but other than that the liability lies with them, not the NHS.
Replacement paid for by the NHS - no, unless for genuine medical reasons i.e. augmentation following masectomy. If it's purely cosmetic then replacement shouldn't be covered by the NHS
I suspect replacement could be done quickly and easily at the time of removal for sod-all extra cost other than parts and a dash of extra labour.
BoardinBob it is possible to have implants on the NHS for cosmetic reasons, its normally put down to either having mis matched sizing (i.e one bigger than the other) or depression caused by being flat chestedboth of these procedures have nothing to do with physical wellbeing
And that's a genuine medical reason, hence why I said "unless for genuine medical reasons i.e." then listed augmentation as an example. e.g. would have been better than i.e. in hindsight. My job involves making these very decisions, so I'm well aware of the various reasons other than vanity or glamour model aspirations.
government licenced them for use so I guess they were saying 'these are ok to use'.This was the surgeons opinion... if the government say they're ok to use, they should stump the bill
The government licences your car as safe to use through type approval and MOT, and your local pub to drink in, but its not their fault if use of the car / pub causes me problems.
Removal on NHS, of course - we treat smokers, RL jumpers and mountainbikers who deliberately put themselves in peril and break themselves.
Replacement - that is not what the NHS is for but there are always exceptions to the rule, and so there should be.
What I utterly cant fathom is how we can after all this time still have implants that rupture. I mean how frikkin' hard can it be to make a rupture proof silicone package.
Surely this is a manufacturer issue. If Toyota manufactured cars with sticky throttles that could kill people it wouldn't be the dealers fault for selling it or the buyers fault for buying it, it would be the manufacturer's fault for making a faulty product. Simple. They may wish to claim back off their bio-compatibility testing company if they don't do their own in-house, but other than that the liability lies with them, not the NHS.
The NHS doesn't treat people based on who's liable though. Important distinction. They treat based on medical necesssity and if it's medically necessary to remove the implants, then people are entitled to have then removed on the NHS.
However, the government should be looking to recoup some costs from either the insurer or other liable party.
What I utterly cant fathom is how we can after all this time still have implants that rupture. I mean how frikkin' hard can it be to make a rupture proof silicone package.
Probably quite hard, considering they're attempting to make something that "feels" and looks normal, i.e. it can't have ridges or hard spots, it can't be particularly thick or it'll be a noticeable lump etc, and it can't be too thin that it has the possibility that it bursts. It leads you down the condom route - most of the time they work fine and everyone's more or less happy, but sometimes they fail, usually the featherlite ones.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
