Forum menu
There is no consensus on the expected longevity of an implant. Ten years is a rough estimate. For hip replacement, where similar failures have been seen, patients have waited for their next hip replacement. I suspect the same in this case. Immediate failure should be funded by whoever funded the implantation.
I say treat the people now, it will be cheaper for the NHS in the longterm
If this were true then I would agree with you, but I'm not sure that it is.
The experts seem to be saying that the additional risks from these implants are slight.
And before you say that any risk is unacceptable, then you should ask why people had the implants in the first place as no surgery is without risk - and clearly the people who had these implants were happy with the initial level of risk.
Cosmetic: removal yes, replacement no. Anyone who goes for replacement pays the full bill.
Following cancer surgury etc.: yes for removal and replacement.
[i]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. [/i]
Absolutely agree. I don't want to live in a country where healthcare is decided based upon ability for an individual to pay - for those that do please go live in the 3rd world (or USA).
The NHS is there to provide treatment to those who need it due to health problems (whether mental or physical).
There's a really judgemental tone on this thread which seems to be about women having breast surgery for what are deemed 'cosmetic' reasons. As Elf has said, there's a huge psychologic / societal / emotional complexity surrounding cosmetic surgery that most folks are probably unaware of.
But if you take the 'no, they chose it / paid for it' attitude, should the NHS treat:
- infections resulting from tattoos or piercings (which can be equally considered voluntary body modification)
- post-operative complications resulting from private abortions (many women opt for a private abortion)
- treatment for skin cancer arising from too much sunbathing (again, due to enhancing appearance)
etc, etc, etc
Surely it's better to focus on creating a society where people are valued for their individuality, thus reducing the psychological need for some cosmetic surgery, than to socially isolate women who have had breast enhancement and are now extremely worried about potential health dangers?
Nicole Kidman seems to get through life ok without much trace of breasts - and she rates pretty high on the sexy-o-meter...
The NHS provides healthcare to UK citizens so if these women have a problem which is affecting their health then they should be treated.
The NHS provides healthcare to UK citizens so if these women have a problem which is affecting their health then they should be treated
to the exclusion of people with serious health issues.
As I said - Nicole Kidman seems to cope - they should WTFU.
My nose is a little big and makes me self conscious - do you mind if I use some of your taxes to have an operation to reduce it's size???
Ditto Vanessa Paradis, Turnerguy. Watch Noce Blanche for the best arse in cinema history though.
Nicole Kidman seems to get through life ok without much trace of breasts - and she rates pretty high on the sexy-o-meter...
Because obvioulsy every woman that undergoes breast surgery does it so she can rate high on the sexy-o-meter of a youpron premium member like you.
Some people on here sometimes are so pathetic.
Mentioned this on the other thread but the wife had PIP implant done some years ago and they ruptured so we got Transform to remove them and replace with new (and bigger :D) ones for less than half the cost they would normally be.
I was pretty disappointed that they would not replace for free but they told us they would certainly remove them without charge for safely reasons but re-augmentation was not in there remit.
The problem is that when you have had implants in and for some time the tissue obviously stretches to accommodate the extra mass so to remove these and not replace will leave the breasts somewhat deflated. These new implants are supposed to be everything the PIP ones were and cross fingers that will be the case but who knows.
It's times like this that I'm glad my missus has got massive natural knockers
As patheitic as being so vain one feels the need for breast implants, Juan? Personally I find "enhanced" breasts a turn off. Flat yes, articficial no thank you.
To turn it around......I once helped one of our previous 'admin assistants' to get sorted on the process to get breast reduction. Huge boobs, which gave (a) low self esteem because men literally only talked to or about her boobs (b) back problems because of the excessive cantilevered weight.
She needed my help 'cause she had met utter dismissal from various GPs that it was a load of nonsense. Until we got her referred to a specialist who had plenty of experience and informed that it was a valid and common problem amongst 'very large' women.
So....do the STW wer-unintelligenti think this is worthy of taxpayers money?
*putting feet up, cup of coffee in hand*
Huge boobs, which gave (b) back problems
= problem - therefore NHS help is justified UNLESS women is 'very large' - then she should WTFU and lose some weight.
If she still has huge boobs once she is not overweight, then breast reduction is justified on the NHS.
So....do the STW wer-unintelligenti think this is worthy of taxpayers money?
If it's causing her pain and psychological problems then my opinion is yes. That can be considered medically necessary.
As patheitic as being so vain one feels the need for breast implants, Juan
Nope I was referring to turner's attitude...
Because obvioulsy every woman that undergoes breast surgery does it so she can rate high on the sexy-o-meter of a youpron premium member like you.
not my sexy-o-meter particularly - I don't really have one, unlike some friends that have "top-10 lists" 🙁
but surely you would not have 'cosmetic' surgery other than to look better ?
but surely you would not have 'cosmetic' surgery other than to look better ?
I had a friend who had breast reduction because of a) the back pain and b) the unwanted attention. 🙁
Could you qualify "better", please?
If she still has huge boobs once she is not overweight, then breast reduction is justified on the NHS.
That is immensley judgemental of you TG. A comment of grande haute cheval amongt TJ's finest.
Yes she was also big, but not obese. If you hit another chewawa and end up with a broken arm, would you accept NHS to turn you away until you had sold your bike?
Nope I was referring to turner's attitude...
what was wrong with my attitude - Nicole Kidman has had a lot of high paying jobs because of her looks (which lack breasts).
therefore why should any woman feel stressed about not have anything bigger than an A cup ?
If you are stressed about not being attractive to men without > A cups then remember she bagged one of the worlds most eligible bachelors.
Anyone with pyschological problems over this needs a readjustment in their views, not some bits of plastic stapled to their chests.
If the NHS should pay for anything it would be to see a shrink.
That is immensley judgemental of you TG. A comment of grande haute cheval amongt TJ's finest.Yes she was also big, but not obese. If you hit another chewawa and end up with a broken arm, would you accept NHS to turn you away until you had sold your bike?
Difference is that I bike to keep fit, which
1) possibly reduces my future burden on society by becoming overweight/obese
2) allows me to work long hours and pay lots of taxes so fat and obese people can have surgery to fix their problems because they can't be arsed to put the effort in and keep themselves in shape.
hitting that dog was not my fault - getting fat was very likely your friends fault - and if not please provide evidence that she stuck to 1500 calories a day...
cos·met·ic (kz-mtk)
n.
1. A preparation, such as powder or a skin cream, designed to beautify the body by direct application.
2. Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect.
adj.
1. Serving to beautify the body, especially the face and hair.
2. Serving to modify or improve the appearance of a physical feature, defect, or irregularity: cosmetic surgery.
3.
a. Decorative rather than functional: cosmetic fenders on cars.
b. Lacking depth or significance; superficial: made a few cosmetic changes when she took over the company.
If the surgery of for other reasons, it is not cosmetic surgery - is it?
Difference is that I bike to keep fit,
well if that is the only reason you cycle then just stick to a home trainer then.
TG, do you also take a cold shower and self-flagellate each morning fof good measure?
One day you overdo it a bit on the bike and have a heart attack because you have a genetic pre-disposition to this. Quite a common thing I understand.
In that event, do you mind if all the fat people stand around being as sanctimonius as you about your stupidity for not sticking to a brisk walk?
How do people feel about the highest number of PIP implants being sold in latin America with the majority of recipients being very young, often having the implants as a sixteenth birthday present from their mother (who wants to [s]sell[/s] marry them well).
We should be questionning the morals of the whole industry.
In that event, do you mind if all the fat people stand around being as sanctimonius as you about your stupidity for not sticking to a brisk walk?
They probably wouldn't know what a brisk walk was - or maybe they had read about them once but decided that it sounded like a bad idea.
We should be questionning the morals of the whole industry.
or the values of society - where Kerry Katona can make a living being a role model for women and a size 10 model is fat.
Both society and the industry then.
Why is this an NHS or not problem?
Shouldn't those implants inserted privately be removed in the same institutions?
At no cost to the patient or the taxpayer?
The NHS can remove and replace those implants put in by the NHS, but to suggest that private medicine has no obligation is somewhat disingenuous..
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.
I am a heart surgeon with the NHS so I am trying to keep as much bias at the door as I possibly can. So I will simply say that the above statement is absolutely correct and that this is the very core of the NHS and so it should be.
Why is this an NHS or not problem?Shouldn't those implants inserted privately be removed in the same institutions?
At no cost to the patient or the taxpayer?The NHS can remove and replace those implants put in by the NHS, but to suggest that private medicine has no obligation is somewhat disingenuous..
It's got nothing to do with liability or obligation.
The NHS provides healthcare services to UK residents who are in need of medical care.
If someone needs medical care as a result of a faulty medical appliance, the NHS can't deny them the necessary treatment because they had the medical appliance installed elsewhere.
Where do you draw the line? Someone has lifesaving surgery overseas by the only person qualified to do so. Years later they fall ill again and require urgent medical assistance. Do you deny them care because someone else did the original work?
I agree entirely. But the private healthcare system also have a duty of care and should also be stepping up to the mark in this case; the NHS is not the only place corrective surgery can take place, so why is it just a question of NHS or nothing?
The private healthcare system have been open to 'helping' out the NHS in terms of waiting lists before, why is it ok for them to ignore this?
I keep reading that as "RIP Boob jobs" and it makes me sad.
I actually know one of the plastic surgeons who's been on the radio regarding this issue and frankly I think they've already got a shed load of money and are simply trying to get the gov to pay them more - rather than fixing the job at their own expense.... which is what should be happening.
Would I be able to get penis reduction on the NHS? I keep getting emails where they promise guaranteed procedures, but I don't trust them.
the private healthcare system
This is common, thinking like it is some cohesive body working to a common goal - they are but the goal is money. There is no such thing, it is a term used to describe the disparate group of individuals who are all after the filthy lucre.
Precisely why the NHS and all those that sail in her as so precious.
Would I be able to get penis reduction
The forum could usefully use some of that
Bupa have stopped using a few BMI hospitals this year as they keep pushing up costs far above inflation, apparently.
Seems to be the same with vets, or that was the excuse given to my wife regarding her cat insurance.
Given the success of the American guy whose missus was handy with a knife you'd find American woman queueing up to pay you to let them do it, Don.
Bupa, although private, is a not for profit organisation
Would I be able to get penis reduction on the NHS?
We have the tools to do the job but we've never had a need to use them.
...and how many of these implants are BUPA responsible for removing and restoring?
The NHS has a duty of care to everyone, but each individual institution involved in inserting these implants has a duty of care to those involved, and should be making plans, now, for any corrections required.
Healthcare, as perfectly demonstrated by this whole sorry mess isn't just about cash...
Only if their breasts offer free public access in return.
No more public subsidy for private pertness, it'll
be like Railtrack all over again.
40,000 women in the UK with implants from PIP, 95% of which were put in privately.
It's a private sector problem, not an NHS one.
If they had it done under the NHS then they should replace them but if done elsewhere then they should go back to who did the job.