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.

I think obviously they should be removed on the NHS, because they are a health risk! I strongly disagree with the mad women on the facebook support group (was spying, haven't got fake tits) who think the NHS should replace them- because otherwise their tits will be saggy...

MIl has these- not from mastectomy but she had a non cancerous tumour removed which needed fairly destructuve removal and chose to have them put in to enlarge when she was having the treatment.

Because of circs there is no way she could afford to have them removed now; FIL left her, she retired etc.

Now I am not in contact with her and have no ideas what she will do or is considering but I can't see how the State can say 'you lot that way = goodies you get it covered; you lot that way = baddies and if you can't cover it you have to take the 8% risk of rupture and a leak of non medical silicone into your body'. For a start if 1% of that &% gets cancer how much will that cost?

MIL paid for the private surgery so she could have the implants when the surgery itself would have been NHS covered; she ahd them redone after a year because of somethingw rong with the initial implants (not sure what before my time).

And yes

solution is that all private med companies pays into a fund to cover each other should the need arise

Like the ABTA way picks up travel companies mess and sorts out people trapped abroad

Although probably not an exact comparison as I don't know details but hopefully YKWIM

Wibbly, the health risk is disputed. Even the chap calling for the wholesale removal denies there is any risk of cancer, even if they do rupture.

Med companies should replace them. If not, then sadly the NHS should. Much as they would fix me if I injured myself taking part in extreme sports, through drinking too much, or driving too fast, or smoking.

I think plastic surgery industry is very happy to feed into the cancer risk hysteria as it is free marketing for their services whether in the end NHS pays or not.

NN and your assertion that NHS "should" replace implants is based on what medical evidence?

'thinks you can insert a lump of silicone into living flesh without consequences (including cancer) is an imbecile'

The difference is that the impants weren't the medical grade silicon, but dodgy inferior material.

So not what the women chose or absed risk factor calculations os; theyw ere conned like everyone else.

But yes- removal NOT replacement.

hmmm not sure how I feel about this. Some people are denied life saving drugs on the NHS because of cost yet £millions is potentially going to be spent on women who simply wanted bigger tits..... I think maybe the women should be made to contribute something towards the cost of the removals / checks for sure. If they could afford the few grand it cost to get them in then they can afford something to get them checked and / or removed.

I do wonder, if the NHS funds the removal, how many women will manage to find the money to have replacement implants done privately?

It's easy to see why the likes of Transform are all for this wholesale removal, without any medical evidence to back it up.

Unquestionable most steaight impants are for women who 'simply wanted bigger tits'

But not all

There are cosmetic surgery reasons that are not linked to malignancy but to damage during pregnancy, or failure to grow during puberty, or significantly asymetric breasts. They in turn come with psychological trauma and in some cases day to day difficulty- finding clothes that fit, for example. Not life threatening no, but not pure vanity either.

I'd support windfall taxes, compulsory insurance and various other ways of clawing the money for this sort of thing back- but if there is any risk of cancer or rupture then it surely is cheapest to remove now before the other bills (cancer treatment, benefits, foster care, etc) pile in?

If there is no big discussion however of how this sort of thing can't be financed in the future it would be deathly wrong.

Unquestionably most straight

Tsk at my typos

The suppliers of these implants should be liable.
However, if someone's life is at risk then someone needs to do something,.. so failing all else the NHS should do it while everyone is trying to wriggle out of it.
I cannot understand why women want implants for cosmetic reasons,.. be much better to get psychotherapy instead. ;-)

Davsmum not all women who have implants have psychological problems you know. I chose to have my initial implants ( have had two enlargement surgeries) because I wanted bigger boobs. I wasn't insecure about my appearance at all and lets face it, boobs aren't a hugely

Damn phone, done it again...

Boobs aren't a hugely important part of most peoples lives.

wubblybubbly if women can afford replacement implants then there would be no need for them to use the NHS for removal and undergo two surgeries and two GA's. Removal and replacement is not very different cost wise to 'just' having implants fitted.

I can see why women wouldnt just want removal though, but that doesn't mean I think the NHS should fund anything other than in the case of rupture/where there are health implications.

Then we agree I think Midori.

I don't think anyone should be denied treatment on the NHS on the basis of clinical need. I just don't see any evidence of clinical need to have these implants removed where there is no rupture or any suggestion of cancer risk.

I agree, which is why I am not panicking or putting myself through further surgery when there's no need. If they rupture, I'll decide what to do at the time (I have said this up thread but in that case my original surgeon will remove and replace free of charge) but even then I wouldn't rush to get replacements seeing as it would possibly mean cessation of breastfeeding, which is safe even with a ruptured implant.

Some people might find it hard to believe, but not all women who have implants 'just to get bigger tits' are self obsessed idiots with a huge sense of entitlement and one very small brain between them...

It wouldn't be for me midori, despite having had a mastectomy, but I respect your choice. It's good to hear from someone directly affected by these implants and get your angle on it. You sound incredibly rational, despite the media frenzy.

Haven't read all the posts, so don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but if you do a cost-benefit analysis it may be cheaper for the NHS to remove all the implants now than to deal with the health problems once some of them start leaking. Even if only 5% start leaking, that will involve a lot of cost, I imagine.

It's a bit like fitting a gastric band in someone who's obese - yes, it's expensive, but not nearly as expensive as treating the obese person who has diabetes, cancer and other obesity-related illnesses.

So if these women get cancer should they also be refused treatment? I would think removing the implants would be cheaper than cancer treatment. Apart from anything the government allowed these implants to be used,licensed them, and gave permission for the doctors involve to pactise so if it turns out the government was wrong to do this then they should foot the bills.
Also if we refuse women treatment for things related to cosmetic surgery do we refuse them treatment if they get ill as a result of taking contraception, wearing high heels, allergic reactions to make-up, driving too fast, drinking smoking, sexual diseases, pregnancy etc. Very few things the NHS deals with are not in some way caused by the patient's actions. The NHS should remove them, and the NHS should then sue the doctors who used them, who are then in turn free to sue the company. The doctors were happy to take money for putting them in, they should foot the bill for removing them.

hedge,
I amy be wrong, but I thin the NHS were told they were acting illegally by barring people from using the NHS if they also used private healthcare.

kelly just in case you did not see it - there is no scientifically proven link to cancer.

I think it is a wider issue anyway. For as long as I have worked in Health, private companies have been happy to take people's money but then fall short on aftercare leaving the NHS/Social Services to mop up the aftermath. Peachy's idea of a private healthcare ABTA sounds great. E-mail your MP to suggest it!

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

If the implant does not rupture then there is no risk. I know there is a risk of rupture that is higher than with other inplants but 92% do not rupture.

Surgery always carries a risk so takking out all implants exposes all the women to a risk, monitoring doesn't.

Why not offer ultrasound screening and remove any that have ruptured passing the cost of U/S on to the manufacturer (there have to be some assets / bank accounts).

A proper monitoring service would cost, but not cost as much as surgery and would actually be safer.

I agree with you OP.....

They should go back to the clinics that carried out the original procedures and get the implants removed free of charge (if they were made of the industrial type silicone used in the french cases).