Forum menu
With the exception of breast reconstruction post cancer ABSOLUTELY NOT
If women pay to have bags of chemical placed in their chests, as a PRIVATE medical procedure; then they can pay to have them taken out.
My advice see your expensive private surgeon on speak to them...
I say no. Yes there is a psychological impact to SOME women with a small chest however, if you can take the decision to have it done privately and pay for it to be done privately then you hAve to have to a slush fund if something goes wrong. Stuff goes wrong with implants all the time and the NHS don't pay for it so it shouldn't be pressured by the media to do so this time round.
People have accidents all the time, on bikes, in cars off ladders etc but they are accidents that should be helped by the nhs, yes the nhs picks up the bill for smoking and booze rJelated stuff but cigarettes and booze also ensure a lot of money goes into the nhs to. Fake boobs in private clinics lines the pockets of rich surgeons.
If it was reconstructive on the nhs then yes, the nhs has the responsibility to rectify just like the private clinics therefore have to take responsibility for something that ultimately is their responsibility
...and let's not forget, the reason for removal is in case of a potential problem, not to deal with an actual health issue. If we say the NHS should take on this issue, maybe we should keep orthopaedic beds open for every mountain biker, keep respiratory beds free for every smoker, keep maternity beds open for everyone who will be having unprotected sex this year.
Consider too, that a good surgeon, experienced in this area, could do about 4 operations a day, each of which would need a bed for 2-3 days in hospital. Plus district nurse follow up, plus the inevitable although small incidence of post op complications....
If the private healthcare companies involved in this can charge for putting them in, they can take them out and replace them too. Cherry picking; you occasionally get a bad one...
All the clinics who put them in must have insurance policies to cover this eventuality. The ladies who have them must have a case under the Sale of Goods act as they were sold a product that did not meet approved standards.
There's no way the government should fund this apart from those that were put in by the NHS for breast cancer patients etc.
I guess the insurance companies will recover any costs through increases on other policies so we'll all pay for it in the end anyway.
Unless because of medical / reconstructive reasons they were used then no. These women were able to find the money to have them put in because of vanity then they should find the money to have them removed, it's hard luck really!
No . Should be directed to the service provider... Transform / nuffield etc. most reputible plastic surgeons never used these implants..... If you pay for a cheap boob job u have to wonder why the low cost!
Were children with thalidomide denied NHS treatment because it was someone else's fault?
Thalidomide is not an equivalent example. It was never used as an image enhancer and as such all treatment for that should be and has been covered. The implant treatment carried out for medical reasons on the nhs should be covered. However those who had it done privately for cosmetic reasons should approach their plastic surgeon
What's the problem. Surely if someone is ill through no fault of their own, they get treatment. Even if fault of their own, people make themselves ill for all sorts of reasons, they get treatment. It's this brilliant thing we all pay for to help each other out. Or is someone on here gonna draw a chart of the Deserving Ill at the top (green) and Undeserving Ill at the bottom (flashing red) and all the areas of brown inbetween so we can stroke our beards and decide on peoples lives by monetary and moral value? If someone is ill it is up to us as a society to try help right? even if it is exploding fake tits. That's how my simple brain sees it.
Were children with thalidomide denied NHS treatment because it was someone else's fault?
Tut tut rearrange; point I've missed the
Numb nuts
Well the decision of the French to pay for the removal was always going to have its knockers.
To be fair, they're just trying to make the breast of a bad situation
crikey - Member...and let's not forget, the reason for removal is in case of a potential problem, not to deal with an actual health issue
Aye, because prevention is famously much worse than cure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/health-16444162
The trouble in this case is that the prevention involves another anaesthetic and another operation, both of which carry risks. It's not a simple, straightforward business.
NHS have said they will pay for implant removal if needed - great, let's further stretch an already underfunded service. What's going to suffer for his extra expense?
I think these women have had these things put into them, and probably had no real decision about what they were or what alternatives were available.
I think that the NHS ones should be done free by them, and the private ones should be done for free by the private companies.
As long as the women don't have to pay.
Anyone see that **** of a Paxman-wannabe newsreader on BBC1 just now, giving the NHS Surgeon a hard time about offering to remove privately done implants? Really made my blood boil. And that woman...
and let's not forget, the reason for removal is in case of a potential problem, not to deal with an actual health issue.
I think thats a very god point
If someone presented do the doctor with a suspected ruptured implant, I'd expect it to be treated immediately on the NHS without argument whoever put it in.
if they presented worried about the fact that they had an privately funded implant, and there was a (maybe) 5% risk that it might possibly rupture in the future, and they wanted it removed because they were worried about it, I don't think that should be the NHS's problem.