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.

Thistledew - the women may feel pressure, but they are not frogmarched to the clinic with a gun to their heads and forced to have the operation.

I feel pressure to buy my DD an ipad. I can say no.

I feel pressure to have more shoes. I can say no.

I feel pressure to do all kinds of things, but at the end of the day it is still my choice

I kid thee not I be fucked if my hard earned tax on my fags is going to give some bird a new pair of knockers that she didn't get on the NHS to start with. Oh when she wanted them she could pay for them, but jeeez god forbid the implants go tits up she wants it done for free, well fuck it matey nothing in this life is free. Sell something like a kidney to pay for them to be done.

YOu knew the risks when you had them done, you knew they would need replacing at somepoint send the old man out to do some more hours but don't expect us the tax payers to foot the bill.

"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." And where do you draw the line with that? And why is there no personal responsibility?

As a society there is pressure to do a lot of things. We feel pressured to own our own homes/have the best material goods/drive the nicest cars all in order to conform to a societal norm. And with that pressure comes the pressure to get into debt in order to afford all these things. So does that mean society should take responsibility when I get into more debt than I can afford and pay it back for me?

Just because you're under pressure to do something doesn't mean you have to give into that pressure - no-one makes these women have cosmetic surgery, often at vast expense.

fabby, you make out like your smoking is altruistic and saving nhs money
I think you know full well your taxation via cigarettes doesn't in any way meet costs of cancer treatment

but I suspect you like the arguing and are being purposefully obtuse

IM off before I get banned.

The kids dad headbutted me in the street and broke my nose (in front of my kids) when the NHS hospital found out i had private medical insurance they made me PAY to get it fixed if not fixed I wouldn't have been able to breathe.

£2,500.00 for my nose to be fixed, it looked okay I didn't want it done it was a necessity it still leans to one side where he head butted it.

IF I CAN PAY TO BREATHE I DON'T SEE WHY I SHOULD PAY FOR YOUR TITS, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING TAXPAYERS TO DO PAY FOR YOUR MISTAKE.

well, if we must talk about smokers, perhaps one should bear in mind that they put other peoples' lives at risk with their habit (through passive smoking) so I don't think there's a moral highground to be had there.

you seem some what het up fabby
sorry for your previous troubles but it does seem to be impacting upon your ability to talk sense here

Smoking really has nothing to do with this debate. Smokers don't get operations to prevent cancer that they might not even get.

So why should people that chose to take the risk of breast implants?

It makes me wonder why the NHS should have to find the funds for the implant removal when there are life-extending drugs being denied to people who are dying of cancer, due to cost? I know which situation I'd choose to give the funding to.

If those women have their implants removed by the NHS, then maybe the NHS should send them a bill every month to get back the cost of the operation. They should also make sure that the operations are removal ONLY and NOT remove and replace.

I've compiled a list of things I'd want to know about breast implants and surgery before I would undergo any:

1. The name and clinic address of a reputable cosmetic surgeon.
2. The implants being used and whether they are safe.
3. The substance in the implants.
4. The clinical grade of the implants and the manufacturer.
5. The how long before the implants are re-checked or need to be replaced (5, 10 or 15yrs).
6. How long the operation takes.
7. Whether the surgeon is a member of BAPRAS.
8. How long is the average recovery.
9. The cost of time off work and whether I can afford.

10. The cost of removal/replacement if the implants rupture (so I can start saving jsut in case). 11. The cost of the recovery for that and time off work 12. If there is pre-operation counselling to discuss how the patient looks, whether they are normal and actually need breast implants (this could make some women think twice about surgery which is not medically needed) 13. Has there ever been a product recall/scare on any other type of breast implants the clinic uses?

I'm tired ATM, so any of you can feel free to add any other points to the list .

I would actually be moved to protest against this happening, having endured NICE inspired rationing guidelines for life-restoring medication, medication which only costs £9k a year and enables me to pay more than that in tax. Rationed 'because the NHS can't afford everything.' 18 months of not being able to move, to work, to sleep, sit, anything without significant pain. To pour ineffectual other cytotoxic poisons down my neck to prove their ineffectiveness while waiting.

I would want to see some proper epidemiological modelling of this. A decent cost-benefit analysis. And they can't do that properly in the several months since this broke.

FabbyChic: Mon 02-Jan-12 22:02:15

Oh when she wanted them she could pay for them, but jeeez god forbid the implants go tits up she wants it done for free, well fuck it matey nothing in this life is free.

Loved the "tits up" pun on that one Fabby

I think the NHS should treat any woman in current need of urgent review. I don't think the NHS should do a mass removal (and definitely shouldn't replace them - that would be an unnecessary cost).

It should be on a case by case basis, and if there is no current issues with the breast implant then the women should be referred back to the clinics they received the implants from.

I don't think such a large group of women can be typecast, and the few that have been on the news aren't representative of all those women, so can we please stop assuming all the women who have had cosmetic surgery are vacuous and self obsessed. It's not always that straight forward.

I have noticed the massive pressures on the NHS, but we shouldn't stop treating those who have an immediate need.

wannaBe and changing - there is a difference between the pressures you cite to purchase material goods and the choices many women have made to get implants - the difference being that the implants are posing a risk to their health. I am not suggesting that the NHS should pay for enhancement implants in the first place.

When cancer patients are no longer denied life saving drugs and treatment for no reason other than lack of NHS funds, then I guess that's an option Thistle.

Reindeer I don't think there is any risk of those in immediate clinical need not being treated. I notice from the BBC reporting that it is the private clinic Transform who are citing a higherv failure rate as a pressure for 'something to be done'. Now why would that be? Wouldn't be so they can off load shed loads of angry customers on to the NHS for fixing would it?

BTW - if anybody reading this thread is thinking of using Transform please google extensively and think twice before you do so. Their reputation is not the best.

I would add to Avenged's list that you want to know about that clinician and institute's rate of post op infection and complications and you want to know what critical care back up arrangements they have. This surgery involves a GA after all.

Thistledew - I disagree. These women made a choice, if the implants were for cosmetic reasons. The operations they had were not funded on the NHS precisely because they were not medically necessary. I view the decision they made as a lifestyle choice, one they felt would enhance their lives, improve their self image, and all the other things people have said on here.

I understand that - it's not something I personally would do, but it's up to them if they feel that they want to go and do that with their own money, then that's entirely their free choice.

I just don't see why other areas of the NHS, areas of medical need should be squeezed and have budgets cut (which is what will have to happen to fund these removals) just so these women can all have implants removed which at the moment are causing no problems.

And I will say again, in my opinion, if you paid for them privately, sue the surgeon who put them in for using sub-standard products, sue the company if you can. But unless they rupture or cause imminent danger to life, then they should not be removed on the NHS.

I don't think we can as a civilised society allow anyone to suffer because of a bad choice or mistake that's impacted their lives medically.
Seeing it from fabbychicks perspective also in as much as boob enhancements for sheer vanity should be put at the back of the fixing list.
Shouldn't the company who made these falsies be made to pay for removal or replacement anyway?

These implants were cheaper alternatives implanted by private companies therefore they should be replaced by those private companies. Where the women can't get address through the private company the government should offer to replace the implants (if for cosmetic reasons) on the NHS and charge an interest free loan to those women. They bought a product, the product is faulty, if they can't get a replacement then they need to fund it's replacment.

The difference is that these women are not actually sick. We don't give smokers, alcoholics, over eaters surgery just in case. They get surgery when they are ill. The same as these women would be entitled to cancer treatment if they became ill.

But we do spend money on preventative treatments, you can get gym memberships on the NHS if you're over weight, gastric bands, psychological help for alcoholics etc. Blood pressure tablets are a preventative medicine for people who 'might' have a heart attack due to high blood pressure.

High blood pressure will do systemic damage - knackers your kidneys for a start - and there is excellent evidence to show how a higher BP relates to a higher risk of death. No such evidence in this case.

I think the answer is tighter controls on private healthcare companies. They need to foot the bill for any errors. The NHS should be able to charge the remedial costs of surgery to the healthcare companies or the companies should be fined. If they can't do this for any reason then the companies should face a windfall tax of £150 million and all the women have the implants replaced using that money. If that means these companies go out of business then tough.

Northernlurker

What about the overweight getting free gym memberships on the NHS. Or gastric bands?

Fabby Chic

Please read my post Mon 02-Jan-12 19:31:27 about smoking costing the NHS 2.6 billion a year!

I very much doubt that all 40,000 women will opt to have the removal on the NHS.

Note that all that is being talked about is removal, not replacement with a safer implant.

I'd guess that only those who are genuinely worried sick about these implants will take the NHS up on this offer.

Those who do not wish to be left with breasts that are rather less than they were before the implants will either keep the ones they have or pay for replacements.

I'd be surprised if the bill came to anything like £150 million.

BalloonSlayer, I've many friends who are genuinely worried sick that their breast cancer has come back, or has spread. The NHS won't fund scans to put their mind at rest and we're talking considerably less than the cost of removing these implants.

Why should these women have the benefit of the NHS paying for their peace of mind when women, already having gone through the hell of cancer, with a genuinely increased risk of recurrence, can't have the same comfort?