The expert opinion at the end of the article is interesting.
Her account may well be her understanding of what's happened, but scientifically, I don't understand how her account can be accurate, as to the causes of what has happened. I realise an article in the Mirror is not going to outline someones medical history particularly well, but it doesn't quite make sense how implants lead to a clitoris being removed. The expert mentions lichen sclerosis, which can just happen.
Surgeons offer reconstruction after mastectomy, and often women want it. I would. Not because I'm vain, but because I like my shape the way it is, and would want to limit the damage cancer did to my sense of self. It's not pushed in any way, to have reconstruction. There was one deeply unethical surgeon, who did 'breast sparing mastectomies', but he's now behind bars.
If she had her clitoris removed in error, then that is a major issue, more so than the implants, and I would imagine she has been given a large pay out for the poor practice, not that that in any way makes up for it. It's odd that they don't mention that in the article, that she's sued the NHS, as I would do were my clitoris removed.
I think that The Mirror's poor journalism, and the subjectivity of the account, is unlikely to be giving the full story.