To not understand why the NHS is picking up the bill for mistakes made with boob jobs?

[Hammy02]

Surely this is like buying something at ASDA and expecting to take it back to Sainsburys? It doesn't work like that. You bought something privately, it didn't work out... you take them to court?

My boobs weren't pip ones thank god, but I had them done in a BUPA hospital who announced they would replace any that might need to be done.
Failing that my next stop would have been to the credit card that I paid for them on, they cost over £100 and were not fit for purpose if the saline wasn't of medical grade so really I don't understand why the NHS is peoples first resort rather than last.

I saw someone with the PIP implants park
I'm a P&C space today, such a sense of entitlement!

But joking aside YABU, what do we do next refuse to treat addictions? Accident victims if it was their fault? Weight issues?

Yes they chose the implants

They didn't choose them to be faulty!

It's not right women should be expected to sit and wait it out, going by that logic why bother with smears or mammograms - we're probably all fine.

I would (in an ideal world - realistically it's never going to happen) like to see the private sector at least make a contribution to the cost of replacements. It's morally right for the NHS to be involved in the removal, but I feel very sorry for those women who decide they aren't put off for life and want replacements to potentially have to go through two operations due to cost never mind the return of any body issues they had in the first place which will likely be worse given what their breasts will have gone through.

My friend has PIP implants. She had both breasts removed to reduce her chance of breast cancer as she was high risk. She is 31. Now she has this to deal with.

The media are trying to make us think it is all about women's vanity, when for many women, including my friend, it is about health, self-esteem, confidence and more.

YANBU. Agree with KitchenRoll.

And sticking sacs of silicone or similar in your body for non-medical reasons to do with "confidence" (from having bigger breasts "sigh") is always seemed to me to be playing Russian Roulette with womens health, and now we find that it is so.

People might have had the implants for reasons other than vanity, but then presumably those reasons would have been good enough for them to get their implants on the NHS in the first place. Those women are entitled to have their implants changed on the NHS if they had the original operation done on the NHS.

If someone is a victim of a car accident or any other self inflicted illness or injury, then they actually have an illness or an injury. If there is an actual problem there, then of course the NHS should treat it. But when there isn't an illness or injury, then there is no need to have an operation on the NHS.

You can't compare it to mammograms or smears, the women affected by these implants will be entitled to their mammograms and smears in the same way as everyone else, and those things don't cost as much as operations or make sick people wait longer for operations they actually need.

Quite right OP. I also don't understand why the NHS is picking up the bill for childbirth. Surely this is like doing a bit of homebaking and expecting the bakery staff from Asda or Sainsburys to come round to check and take your buns out of the oven when they're ready. Shocking entitlement.

Nobody actually was able to answer my question on the other thread - as PIP implants were produced by a French company, would UK regulators have a jurisdiction to regulate them since the product was already regulated by the French body? I wonder if these implants fall under "free movement" of goods principle and escape additional regulation... and if this is the case, whether the responsibility to compensate for the failure lies also with the French regulator.

Anybody knows?

No idea bemybebe, all I know as medical implants they're regulated and approved, this whole thing obviously throws up some glaring holes in how quality is managed for any device and like edam pointed out earlier this could be the tip of an iceberg for anyone who has a foreign substance or device surgically placed in their bodies.

YABU the NHS is non-judgemental and should stay that way. It treats anyone in need.

YABVU.

If your health is at risk, you should be able to rely on the NHS to help you.

Presumably women-even vain ones, pay tax.
And of course many women had implants after a masectomy.

If you burned yourself badly on hair straighteners, or got an infection from ear peircing, or a tattoo parlour, would you expect the NHS to help you? Of course you would.

I think there is a different between using a hair straightener or having an ear infection, and having silicone surgical implants. The latter is obviously a serious risk and major surgery, and expensive to correct. Why are these women prepared to spend thousands on such surgery for vanity, but will not spend any money whatsoever on making themselves safe by removing them. Why aren't the private clinics insured anyway for this kind of risky procedure? Certainly the whole thing seems a legal nightmare - I can't believe the possibility of this problem arising (even with "medical" standard gel) had never been considered.

I don't think YAB entirely U because it is only right that it is questioned why the NHS foots the bill for this. Surely those who committed fraud and were negligent bear responsibility.

I wouldn't want anyone to have to wait for treatment, however. I simply think saying it is the NHS's responsibility financially is problematic because given how much more outsourcing there is likely to be to private providers, they need to be held accountable for shoddy, negligent and dangerous service.

They can sue after the fact, I am fine with that.. but those in the wrong should pay.

I understand the question, and I do feel a bit about cosmetic surgery for people w ho don't have medical reasons (mastectomy etc). Considering the bhs does ratin other treatments based on cost/benefit analysis, it's fair to question this. But I don't know the answer!

Well where do you want them to stop

they cannot turn people away through personal life choices. Would you turn a skier away who broke their legs because they didn't have to put them self in that position.

lots of illnesses based on smoking, eating and sports could all be avoided. but they are not and the nhs is there to look after our health. So if someone wanted a boob job and it goes wrong and they cannot afford to get it fixed private. Why wouldnt the nhs help?

A skier with broken legs has an immediate need for treatment. Someone with dodgy implants who might we'll never get sick from them has no immediate need at all. That's the difference.

SweetLilyTea Tue 10-Jan-12 23:32:11
YABU the NHS is non-judgemental and should stay that way. It treats anyone in need.

it doesn't, a lot of people are refused life lengthening drugs due to the costs.
also there are many cases where people have to go abroad for surgery as they can't get it done here due to cost.

That is a very good point Sevenfold, however, I still agree that these women should be treated.

I do find it shocking that life lengthening treatments are not given because of a cost-benefit analysis. But I don't really see why that means women should have industrial silicon left in their bodies due to no fault of their own.

It will be a 'finite' cost to the NHS, because there is a finite number of women who have this silicon in them. Whereas I suppose these very expensive life-lengthening drug treatments that are withheld by NICE are more of an unquantifiable amount.

Plus you could argue that it may be cheaper to treat these women now than treat the consequences of leaving them in. (Rupture/cancer etc)

Those who smoke pay for their own cancer treatment thanks.

A packet of fags is £6.30 of that the government gets at least £4.30 in taxes, so if someone smokes 200 a week which is average that is 43.30 a week in taxes for any treatment they may need in the future for cancer treatment.

Smokers subsidise the health service not drain it.

I'd be very surprised if the NHS didn't pursue the clinics/PIP's insurers for the cost of the corrective work through legal action. It certainly should, imho.

I suppose the NHS will sue the manufacturer. They can't really say 'you are a 'worthy' recipient of the surgery, but she isnt...', Besides, they are probably balancing the costs of extraction agains the care costs if they do burst or leak.

Not tattoo removal on the NHS...

The Harley medical group has come out and said they won't remove the implants (~13,000 pip implants)

Apparently there's an editorial in the BMJ today making the same point I raised - that medical devices are not subject to the same stringent safety regime as drugs are.

The private clinics should be MADE to pick up the tab for this.

I've had a bilateral mastectomy for cancer and am on endless NHS waiting lists for reconstructive surgery.

Why the hell should overstretched NHS surgeries be clogged up with people who were affluent enough to afford private cosmetic surgery in the first place?