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 couldn't find any stats on how many women are estimated to have implants in Britain today but I have crudely extrapolated some figures from a quote I found.

"According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), there
were nearly 255,000 breast enhancement implant surgeries in 2003,
nearly twice the number done in 1998. Another 68,000 women received
breast implants for reconstruction following mastectomy due to cancer
or other disease."

I should think the number has increased again since 2003 but this info although American gives an idea of the percentage between reconstruction and vanity.

So around 74% of implants were for cosmetic reasons, albeit some pychological, in 2003 in the USA. Perhaps the percentages are similar here?

BUT if 255'000 a year on a population of 150 million women (approx) is 0.17% of girls/women each year are having them for cosmetic reasons.

Implants aren't intended to last life long are they? Don't you have them knowing at some point they will need replacing?

Off topic slightly, but smokers have contributed humongous sums into the country's coffers through the tax on their cigarrettes.

Where the implants are not currently posing a risk to the person, the primary responsibility to replace them should be with the organisation which put them in. Why is this any different to any faulty / not fit for purpose goods. Clearly where there is a current health risk, the NHS should be there to provide care.

Where the implants are not currently posing a risk to the person, the primary responsibility to replace them should be with the organisation which put them in. Why is this any different to any faulty / not fit for purpose goods. Clearly where there is a current health risk, the NHS should be there to provide care.

I agree with yonder.
I find it frustating that the NHS has to bear the cost of removing faulty implants but the NHS does have a duty to help people at risk of lifelimiting illnesses regardless of how that risk came about.

I don't see how it's even a viable argument to make these women pay for the removal of the implants themselves. It would just be stupid to leave the NHS with a massive bill for cancer.

I should add that if the implant is leaking it's presumably now an emergency, and they shouldn't be refused the removal on the NHS.

Much as if you break your leg playing Rugby, it's fixed immediately, but if you have an injury that isn't life-threatening/restricting your daily life then you go to the back of the queue to get it fixed (can't think of an example right now, but I know that a friend went privately for knee surgery for something caused by sport, which stopped him playing sport, but as it didn't stop him in other ways the NHS said it wasn't a priority to fix and he would be waiting years for it)

Why is the company that supplied them not footing the bill?

I thnk that you can't put a price on your health and the NHS should remove them but then recover the costs from the supplier or their insurers.

FYIYonderrevoltingreasant

Can i just draw your attention that Venezuela is removing the implants for free. Something is seriously wrong if the UK cannot provide the same level of treatment.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/28/venezuela-free-removal-pip-breast-implants

Like it or not the NHS is part of the welfare state and is there for all.

I think there is a difference betweeen cosmetic surgery and almost everything else actually. Smoking, playing rugby, climbing mountains, being fat are all activities/states that have a pupose other than to lead you directly in to the medical orbit. Yes they may leave you requiring 'fixing' but they are not in themselves discretionary medical procedures. Cosmetic surgery is, immediately and only, a serious medical intervention in to your physical state. Nothing else.

Hedge my God that's awful I cannot believe they would withdraw cancer treatment just because someone decided to access additional treatment and pay for it out of their own pocket. Especially when that poor woman and her DH had presumably been paying NI all their lives.

!!!

So many people do this - I can't get an NHS dentist where I am for about 8 mos so am going for a private check up in the meantime, but I'd be astonished if that one act debarred me from me any future NHS dentistry. Glad it's changed, but that was barbaric.

Bords - Venezuala has an obscene national inflation rate. We do not want to be endorsing their economic decisions!

I accept the point that the NHS is there for everyone and rightly so but why should the private, profit making organisation that provided the implant be obligated to remedy, in the first instance?

I accept the point that the NHS is there for everyone and rightly so but why should the private, profit making organisation that provided the implant be obligated to remedy, in the first instance?

alt yes I had cosmetic surgery to remove a potentially cancerous mole on my back because it was very large and cosmetic surgeon would do a neater job. That said, these are probably a minority of cases.

Surgery that is to remedy damage from cancer - or to remove cancer - is clearly a different issue. This thread is about breast implants and that was what I had in mind when posting - sorry should have made that clear.

I have a question for all you who think the NHS should NOT foot the bill

Who do you think should be allowed to have them removed

A women who had them post children who literally had two long empty breasts at waist length?
A women who had them because she had really saggy breast before birth?
A young girl who wants to aspire to be Jordan and is totally broke and can't now get them removed?
A women who had them post cancer/mastectomy but is a millionaire and could easily afford to have them removed herself?

There are a million variables and luckily we don't live in a society that discriminates and decides things like this on personal judgement.

Maybe we should stop treating sports men and women for any sports injuries unless they got a medal at the Olympics. Well they didn't need to do all that sport did they?

Presumably the company was insured, so why can't the insurance company pick up the tab?

NL - yes I knew what you meant, just agreeing with alt but I do think that if the implants pose a demonstrable health risk a woman should be able to get screening to know for sure, and removal if the risk is significant.

I mean, don't we get smear tests primarily due to the risk of getting cervical cancer from HPV which we could avoid through not having unprotected sex? I don't think screening + removal of danger is U.