[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....

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 ?

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.