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.

bemybebe we have our own regulators who should have done this research - I think each country has to do their own. That's what happened with the valproate case - the drug was first French, the pharma taken to court was multinational, but the damage was done to babies in the UK and the group action against the pharma failed because the UK government stopped funding because they thought they wouldn't win the case.

They claimed the company didn't know about the damage. The drug was 25 years old and still nobody was brought to book. The taxpayer has to pick up the pieces via services for these children throughout their lives, amounting to around 6 million per child. The pharma still pockets 24 million annually from the NHS for that drug alone. In this country the government knows it hasn't got the balls or the cash to fight big pharma, or even little pharma.

Aren't the private companies who carried out these procedure carrying Public Liability and Indemnity insurance anyway?

The NHS can't fund the removal of everybody's implants but haven't they said that they will help the ones that can't be helped by the companies they went to?

The fault isn't with the companies that carried out, the fault is with the company that makes them. The manufacturer ('we were told to hide the buckets of industrial silicone before the inspectors came round') is at fault, clearly. My guess is their insurance should pay.

"we have our own regulators who should have done this research"
I am not sure if you are right here spend, I have a suspicion that this is no longer the case due to free market within the EU (free movement of goods), so our regulators have no jurisdiction over the product already approved in the other EU memeber country

would love to hear from a professional if this is the case though

MHRA in this country - but if that's the case bemy, that doctors are free to use any European approved product, gord help us.

I do not know spend, that was my question and if this is the case, whether France with be held liable for all this shit.

There was a programme on R4 the other day and they said the inspectors give the factories 10 days notice. Also that implants are considered a product rather than a drug and so come under a different set of controls.

In the valproate case (was also a product liability case - not medical negligence) there was a lot of talk about European Articles which should have had an impact and supported the victims. But to be honest I think now they're making it up as they go along.

I only hope this becomes some kind of warning to our dear Dave that privatising the NHS while Europe is turned upside down is just not a good idea.