PIP breast implants - your opinion?

With Shirley that is.

If the NHS has provided them then the NHS should remove them. If they've been done by a private clinic then either the clinic (preferably, because surely they'd have insurance to cover them for this sort of situation?) or the recipient of the implants should pay. Simples.

I'm assuming that breast cancer cases would all be covered by the NHS but if not then I would make an exception for them but otherwise nope. You choose to increase what you've been given naturally, you put up with consequences.

On a different but related note I wouldn't pay for gastric bands on the NHS - if you can afford to eat so much you're in need of surgery then spend it on the operation instead. Or better still reduce what you eat and take some exercise and lose the weight naturally.

I'm such a tight b*stard :)

product liability insurance?

this morning, he can't force the companies to pay. Where there are clinical problems the NHS will pay and that is what NHS is about. Interesting this morning Ed said that this sort of capitalism (breast implants weren't mentioned) whereby a quick buck can be made with no responsibilities, will be done away with under a new Labour Government. Aren't these implants tested to some degree? Then again you can get botox injections in my dentist. Vanity holds no bounds.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, people should be able to trust the government to regulate this type of procedure.

With that in mind, the NHS should remove any that people are worried about for free, if the person wants them replaced then they should pay the additional (I assume it is better from a medical point of view to have one not two operations).

If the original company operated outside guidelines and best practice and used unsuitable/unsafe products then the NHS should seek to recover its costs from that company.

If the regulations are so weak or non-existant that the companies acted within the law then governmant should foot the bill. After all we pay excessive salaries and expenses to MP's and the law making echelons of the civil service for them to pass appropriate laws to protect us, if they fail to do so then they must face the consequence.

From a personal perspective, I can't see (other than for reconstructive purposes or extreme psychological ones) why any woman would want this operation: as a male they leave me cold.

I wasn't very interested in this story until I heard radio coverage while driving to see a client. This raised some very interesting and disturbing points and after that I read more of the coverage.

Apparently the French company which provided the faulty products was an equal opportunities fraudster -they also supplied prosthetic testicles made of non medical grade silicone as well as breast inplants.

It's appalling to think that victims of breast cancer and testicular cancer should have had their lives put at risk a second time.

Another issue is that if the implants rupture, then the silicone can have severe toxic effects and leave the patient with health problems for life . My initial image of a rupture was a sort of short term comic book catastrophe rather than a long term serious health problem . Once the silicone has got into the body at large, it is apparently very difficult to remove it and depending on where it ends up it can cause a wide range of problems.

It seems to make some sort of sense to act now to remove implants if there is a high risk of rupture on medical and cost grounds. The snag is that no one seems to be very sure what the rupture rates are over the patient's lifetime - I suspect that most of the patients who have had this treatment are still alive and have decades left in which further problems could emerge. 

If you buy goods, it typically comes with a manufacturers warranty for defects, etc, lasting several years.  Some of the warranties offered on cars are quite long now - Kia offers 7 years for example.

I don't know if the manufacturers of the implant did offer a warranty, my understanding is that they probably did (or would have) but they are now out of business.

The question here seems to be who should stump up the costs of rectifying the manufacturing fault in the case that the manufacturer has gone out of business.  I for one agree that the private clinics shouldn't necessarily be financially responsible.  That's akin to blaming Kwik-Fit for a manufacturing fault with your tyres.  If the clinics are offering their own "extended" implant warranty on top of the manufacturers warranty, then they should charge more money to cover the costs they might incur in offering that enhanced protection - which they did not.  They are simply offering a Kwik-Fit service for implants with no extended warranty cover.

I think people are muddling their own personal ethics with business.  Ethically it seems like the clinics should take responsibility, but in pure business terms there is no reason whatsoever why they should, and if the matter was less emotive (i.e. not a health issue) nobody would see what the fuss was about.

to kwik fit then, with respect, you are wrong. The first port of call is the clinic. If it can be proved that the implants were not fit for purpose then the clinic would have to stump up then they would, in turn, have to sue the next one up the line.

The NHS has quite rightly said that where there is an actuall health problem they will remove and treat but not replace.

However I would have thought that in any cosmetic operation there is always a disclaimer that the patient has to be made aware of and sign.

You've only got to look at what botox does to some people to realise that the risks sometimes outway the benefits.

I don't think the Kwik fit analogy is right -the clinics are more in the position of the shop that sells you faulty goods -they have to deal with you and then deal with the manufacturer. It's more like buying a car and finding that someone has fitted the wrong tyres .

Apparently some of the clinics are standing by their warranties and saying that they will review, replace and remove .

only saying that now cos they know how much business they will lose if they don't.

If a shop sells you defective goods, it is only responsible for the first month, as far as I know.  After that, you have to go back to the manufacturer.

@John - you say I am wrong.  I assume you mean that legally you feel the clinic is obliged to cover these costs.  Is that based on a legal understanding of the position (which is apparently different to the view reached by the Harley Medical Group's lawyers)?  Or is that just your opinion?

It seems to me that what should have happened (don't know if it did or not) is that the warranty period of anything placed in your body (implant, hip replacement) should be made clear together with who is providing that warranty, at the time you get the treatment.  I suppose it didn't go down like that, and as such it's a grey area.

that whatever a company says or does it cannot affect your statutory rights. In this case if the goods weren't of merchantable quality or not fit for purpose then you have a right to go back to the clinic and say "oi sort it out". Then it's up to the clinic to sort it out with the manufacturers.

Any warranty would assume that the goods are of merchantable quality and fit for purpose.

I would think the reason that the lawyers are saying what they are saying is to avoid hefty claims.

The government have done the right thing by saying the NHS will sort out any health problems.

The products were used with approval from the authorities (whoever they are is not important) and as such the clinics were relying on the advice of this government department. The clinics will argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for using a product which was passed as fit for purpose by the approving authority.

That being said, and leaving aside those people who had a medical need for an implant to the NHS, no one forced these women to have elective surgery with all the risks incumbent, including product failure. These women should pay for removal / replacement at their own cost.

In the interim should one of these implants leak the NHS should step in and remove, but seek costs from the patient/clinic/insurance warranty whatever.

... anyone having these procedures for vanity reasons alone can claim diminished responsibility?

If the government licenced these implants I think the NHS must remedy the matter at no cost to the private companies or patients.

After all, what is the point of the licencing otherwise?

It has already been said by various health professionals that the NHS looks after people who have almost smoked or drunk themselves to death, so this situation shouldn't be viewed as any different.

Generally speaking, I am in favour of some sort of levy on the whole cosmetic surgery industry. There have been other examples of their work being substandard, implant or not and the NHS having to sort it out. I agree that many people don't actually need the work for health reasons and I don't see why the taxpayer shouldn't demand some sort of cushion upfront from the private clinics just in case things don't work out. (A bit like the travel industry levy).

And also the government should make a bit more effort in the licencing area. Heads should roll in whatever government department failed here. Of course, pigs might fly.

... I have always thought that private clinics, hospitals etc should pay a training levy ring-fenced for the NHS, based on clinical wages, whether by payroll, consultancy fees or invoiced by a service company, etc ... Similar to the CITB levy, but at a reasonable rate of say 25%.

This would re-imburse the NHS for the expense of training doctors and nurses only to have the best creamed off by private firms!

It would appear that the diminshing of responsibility is accompanied by an increase in bust measurement. Why, it's just double entry.

... double K entry in extreme cases!

Jordan was an accountant.

About "PIP breast implants" whatever you shared here seems to me pretty outstanding from all side and as far as I came to know about this issue I'm impressed. Thanks dude. :)
urgent care houston