[Closed] PIP boob jobs - should government pay?

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

[i]there was a case up here where the company that was responsible for the installation has now gone bust[/i]

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 matter

gone bust

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 - 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

+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 risks

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 chested

both 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.

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

I'm not arguing about whether people should be treated or not, I'm simply suggesting someone else (i.e. the manufacturer) should be liable for costs (i.e. answering the original question).

Removal on NHS, of course - we treat smokers, RL jumpers and mountainbikers who deliberately put themselves in peril and break themselves.

Interesting point.

I was originally thinking generally along the lines of 'not the NHS'.

But seeing as the NHS treats people who deliberately do stuff that they know might injure them, then surely the NHS should treat people who are now suffering due to no fault of their own.

The problem here isn't that they rupture (although that's bad news if they do), but the fact the PIP implants use industrial grade silicon rather than medical grade. So if they do rupture - it's MUCH worse.

they tell you it is safe as far [b]as they know[/b] 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?

MTBing, smoking, driving all carry potential harms to my health - any different in the NHS's eyes from having my boobs done ?

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.

The important words there are "if" and "risk"

So if they do rupture - it's MUCH worse.

Is it?

[url= http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice-clinical-research/clinical-subjects/patient-safety/mhra-advises-against-pip-implant-removal/5039694.article ]It is thought around 40,000 British women have the implants. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, however, said it was not recommending routine removal of PIP silicone gel breast implants in the UK.

In a statement it said: “We recognise the concern that some women who have these implants may be feeling but we currently have no evidence of any increase in incidents of cancer associated with these implants and no evidence of any disproportionate rupture rates other than in France.[/url]

I am not sure how sorry tbh as they had elective surgery that had potential risks

According to my notes I had elective surgery on my arm, the fact the bones were no longer attached was immaterial, because I walked into a hospital rather than being refered via A&E it was elective.

then any person who has had them installed should be entitled to have them removed regardless of how much it costs

some people seem to think that there is an infinite pool of money to draw from.

So we splash out all this money removing things that were mostly put in for cosmetic reasons, and refuse to treat some cancer patients because of lack of money.

Sounds fair...

some people seem to think that there is an infinite pool of money to draw from.

So we splash out all this money removing things that were mostly put in for cosmetic reasons, and refuse to treat some cancer patients because of lack of money.

I refer you to my earlier quote:

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.

I suggest some of you try to find out a bit more about all this, maybe, ooh, even talk to people who've had it done, see what they have to say; enlighten yourselves somewhat before making blinkered judgments.

I think too many simply go with media sensationalism about the likes of Jordan etc, and don't actually see the wider picture.

I suggest some of you try to find out a bit more about all this

see how I said mostly - what percentage are you suggesting that have it done for medical reasons?

So the categories are:

1) people who had it done on the NHS - must be for medical reasons
2) people who were refused having it done on the NHS - therefore cosmetic reasons
3) people who went private - highly likely to be consmetic otherwise they would have gone to the NHS unless the cost was trivial to them (so they can therefore pay to have them replaced)

Not breast implants, but DePuy hip joints which have failed.

"But the delay in the recall might serve as a lesson to other companies. Not only will DePuy have to pay for the cost of revision in the NHS, there is global litigation that, if successful, may cost the company many billions of dollars. The last major litigation against a hip manufacturer was against Sulzer in 2002, which resulted in a roughly $1bn payout and a major net loss that year for the company."

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2905.full nice bit of reading if your bored...

I'm not sure how it all works to be honest, but perhaps any company that provides surgical implants to the UK market should be forced to have some form of indemnity insurance, that can be called upon even if the company no longer exists.

I say treat the people now, it will be cheaper for the NHS in the longterm, and recoup the money off the company or insurance.

Appears like there are learning curves all over though in the NHS and non NHS areas....