to think that it's not for the nhs to pick up the bill to remove potentially faulty breast implants?

[wannaBe]

There are calls today for women who have had the faulty French breast implants to have them removed on the NHS. Apparently 40000 women have these implants, and to remove all of them would cost the NHS £150 million.

Now, if a woman has had these implants as part of reconstructive surgery following mastectomy then I agree that she should be able to have them removed. But other than that, if you choose to buy yourself bigger breasts (and let's be honest, leaking implants are not a new thing), then it isn't the nhs's responsibility to pick up the tab if there might be a problem.

If your life is in immediate danger then you would obviously need to have surgery on the NHS, but just on the off-chance? I think the company responsible should be the ones picking up the bill and don't see why the taxpayer should shoulder the responsibility for other peoples' vanity.

There is no evidence to prove these implants do or are likely to cause cancer. The silicone in them was tested some time ago and is not carcinogenic. Like with everyth

There is a risk with all implants though. Should the nhs fund any breast implant removal operation?

I realise there is a higher risk of rupture, but they have not proved that these implants result in a higher risk of cancer. So IMO the cancer risk needs to be taken out of the debate completely.

What happens when a breast implant ruptures? Surely you understand that there is a risk of rupture when you have the operation in th e first place?

Oops!

Like with everything, there's a lot of scaremongering being done by the media.

Thinking surgery to remove privately paid for breast implants where there is no problem is one thing and (as a person with PIP implants in my body right now as I BF my 6 month old daughter) something I agree with. There are some very spiteful comments aimed at women who have implants for cosmetic reasons in general though and that isn't called for.

The NHS will way up all the risks and benefits and costs. If there is deemed to be a risk, they will probably remove them.

Like midori says, a lot of this is scaremongering. How are the women going to "demand" the implants are removed? Refuse to leave the hospital til it's done? Are the surgeons just going to say "ok since you insist"?

Where draw the line then? no treatment for smokers, people who drink weekly over the limit, or obese people, all of whom are at an increased risk of cancer?
You either provide an NHS or you don't, and can't distinguish like that.

OK, if we accept they should be treated, which other group no longer gets NHS treatment?
Because the money is finite and that's the reality of it. Idealy the NHS would treat everyone, in reality they're lined up in order of priority - who do these women push in front of?

Plenty of people have told me that I should not be treated for my mental health problems because I should just pull myself together.

And that is why it is the NHS who decide who gets treated and not the general public. These women won't be treated "ahead" of anyone else. They'll be treated according to who is most at risk.

Why wouldn't they be? No one seems to be able to answer that apart from saying because it's their own fault, which is not a good argument.

Ladyasriel I think you're under a couple of misapprensions:

This issue is not about denying treatment for cancer. It's about removing and replacing implants used for cosmetic reasons which may or may not be potentially risk laden for the people who chose to have them. Totally and utterly different issue from people who have made certain lifestyle choices and subsequently developed a life threatening disease.

Secondly we have a ntional health service. We do not have a universal on demand health service that is funded by the procedure fairies to give you whatever the hell your whim desires. That applies to cancer patients, mental health pateints, chronic disease sufferers and the worried well alike.

ladyasriel - what I said was where the women have paid privately to have implants, if the implants are ruptured or causing imminent danger to life, as in cancer or other serious illness, then the NHS should remove them. And they should sue the surgeon who performed the operation for using defective/substandard implants, and the manufacturer (if they can ever find them which is a whole other issue)

But in order for these women to get their implants removed en masse by the NHS then other areas will suffer and there will be other people who require treatment who will not get treated as a result.

And that is unfair when the women chose to pay privately for surgery for which there was not a medical need.

But they won't get them removed en masse. That is not how the NHS works. It will be decided on an individual basis.

On the subject of the worried well...

I know a lot of clinicians who feel that the worried well are often the most vociferous complainers and time consumers whereas the seriously ill are usually accepting and apologetic for using so many resources.

I suspect there is a concern that media pressure may affect the decision about this

But yellow from what I saw on the BBC news the cosmetic surgeon was going to advise the government that ALL these women had their implants removed.

Which is a massive drain on scarce NHS resources for something that

1 - might very well be ok and give no bother

2 - these women chose to pay privately to have inserted

That's the point of the thread though, is it not? That is the matter under discussion yellow

This 'board' is recommending that all implants are removed, right now. All of them, no evidence of risk of cancer, but remove the lot at an estimated cost of £150 million.

worried well is a nasty pejorative term.

If we, as a society, have created a situation where women feel pressure to have unnecessary and risky surgery to confirm to an artificial ideal, then that same society should expect to pick up the bill when things go wrong for those women.

On an individual basis there are many of us who do not approve of cosmetic surgery for 'enhancement' reasons, but as a society, it is seen as desirable. There are also many more of us who tacitly condone it by buying magazines or newspapers that promote it as desirable, or watch TV program's that feature and idolise women who have had it done.

I agree that, if there is a clinical risk, the NHS will have to remove the implants, but I hope that they will be able to recoup most of the cost from the manufacturer and/or private surgeries who inserted them.

or a description of someone who is worried but well?

Interesting point Thistledew.

that's not worried well common usage it's usually pejorative and a bit pull yourself together

"Where draw the line then? no treatment for smokers, people who drink weekly over the limit, or obese people, all of whom are at an increased risk of cancer?" Actually, it's not unheard of for smokers/alcoholics to have stipulations placed on treatments. E.g. an alcoholic generally has to have been dry for a certain period before qualifying for a liver transplant, smoker/obese often have to commit to giving up/losing weight before being eligible for heart surgery, etc.

So actually, to an extent this kind of thing does already exist.

SM - I was using the term to reflect the portion of the population who make demands of the NHS based on a perceived entitlement not objective clinical need.

The company that manufactured them should pay for the surgery to replace them. The company will have professional indemnity insurance and so they should pay out.

Maybe it is where you are SM, but where I am, it says exactly ..what it says.

I would happily class myself as worried well because on occasion I have been. It's horrid if you feel something is wrong and can't find out what it is (because nothing is wrong) but it's also extremely common and some people cannot be reassured ever which makes it more of a syndrome for them.

I think your perception of how insulting it is, depends on your experience of it's use.

Well there you go
NL and I have very different interpretations of it

Smokers pay for their own treatment,as previously stated by me my 2oz of tobacco cost me 13.50 of that the government gets £8.50 odd,I smoke over one of these a week,so dont start giving me the bollocks about smokers, I have only ever had breast surgery to remove a lump and I went private, other than that I was steralised on the NHS. My kids of 23 and 18 have never needed operations, hardly ever went to the doctors I had private medical insurance and anything they needed was paid for.

They already elect not to operate on the elderly and inform due to age and longevity of life, they already elect not to operate on obese people.

Where do you propose they get 150 million from? Refusing to operate on babies, as it is they don't give cancer sufferers the best treatment possible as it is too expensive.

My mum had to suffer 8 heart attacks before they investigated and waited two months for a by pass. TWO FUCKING MONTHS. PUtting further risks on her life.

How dare anybody say that smokers should not be treated when the revenue from smoking more than funds any treatment of any smoker if they end up getting cancer, in fact I will prob end up funding one of these tit jobs.

Id like new tits but not at the expense of an elderly persons life, not at the expense of a baby unit.

Nice tits are for topless holidays, for better sex, people wear clothes and bras most of the time those who want nice tits do so to boost their own ego, their own sex drives the way they perceive themselves just a pair of tits.

The only surgery that should be given freely here is when someone has had to have a breast removed, that is the only time this surgery in this instance should be given freely without charge.

A1980 - the company has gone belly up I believe and Interpol are apparently looking for the head honcho. Insurance is an interesting one - I doubt very much they were insured to use industrial-grade silicon which might impact on any payout I suppose. The legal fallout will be fascinating.