Breast Implants

[jd_here]

Is the Government correct in refusing to fund the removal of faulty breast implants that were fitted for cosmetic reasons?

[EDDIE51]

Diffrent question lazygun, arms are doing what they are intended to do killing and injuring people. You can't sue someone / or some organisation for selling something that does what it was intended to do.
Boob implants were not supposed to be made of industrial filler which is what the supplier used, there is a clear case of negligence but the company has gone bankrupt.

[TWR]

Is the Question about Arms?

[TWR]

Why is it when someone puts a post on this site, some side winds the orig Question? is this a part of CH.B.?

[LazyGun]

OK Eddie, I take your point - but this is what TWR posted

"This should be paid by the French Goverment, as the product was imported from France. "

So, is TWR saying that any dodgy product sold to the public should be underwritten by the government of the country of manufacture? Cos thats how I read it, and i would not agree with that at all...why should the taxpayer have to subsidize poor practice, or worse, rogues and villians?

[EDDIE51]

Lazygun We are singing from the same hymn sheet here.
Of course the governments should not pay. I this case it is very 'convenient' that the supplying company has gone 'tits up' (pun fully intended) , there may be a case for claiming from the suppliers insurance assuming they had any .

[boxtops]

sorry VHG, you misread me. The Government has assessed the risk, and only patients who had NHS procedures are being reviewed - those who had private treatment eg breast implants for personal satisfaction should pay if there is no problem evident but they just want them taken out.

[boxtops]

anad PS, some of the clinics where these implants were inserted privately have since closed down - no point in trying to sue them....

[TWR]

So if I read your reply right the NHS should see to the cost? Bullsht, with respect to the women that had these implants done, people made money out of the rubbish product namely PIP ( French) some people re/ private surgeons implanted the product without first checking them out & made money, so why should the NHS pay?

[LazyGun]

Who is saying that?

[boxtops]

No, I am saying that where an implant was done on the NHS, e.g. following breast removal, for clinical reasons, and the implant is starting to break down and cause potential problems to the woman, the NHS will take it out and replace it with something safer.

I seem to remember something similar happening a while back with hip joints that were corroding - they were replaced.

[daffy654]

Nobody is saying the NHS should pay (except for those reconstructions after mastectomy). I would like to see the clinics pay.

[boxtops]

Surely PIP would have had product insurance in place, which could still be claimed on, even those the company has gone? the insurance was still in force at the time the implants were manufactured, apparently not to standard.

[TWR]

PIP sold the product & paid tax to the French Government, it was sod all to do with the NHS, the French Government collected the tax, the Company has gone out of Business so the bill should be footed by the French, but saying that they know the bloody idiotic clowns here will pay the bill.

[boxtops]

..but the NHS purchased the implants from PIP, TWR (and working in the NHS I know how complex their procurements processes can be) so they obviously bought inserts which we now know didn't meet clinical criteria. If I bought a faulty cooker off a shop who'd bought it off a commercial factory, I'd expect the shop to replace it, not the factory.

[EDDIE51]

TWR no one on this thread is saying that the NHS should pay , apart from where an implant has caused a medical emergency. Even then it is only expected to remove the defective implants not replace them.
If European doctors had to have malpractice insurance as is the case in he USA none of this would have happened.

[TWR]

I was with them myself Boxy, but in the Mental health are, back to what I stated, PIP knew this product was not used for the purpose of it's intention, ( Not for Personal use) they sold the product knowing that this product was inappropriate & as found, so as I see it they are Guilty of either false information, or they have deceived the NHS by stating they can be used for body Implants.

[boxtops]

That's fair comment, TWR.

[TWR]

If I've read your reply wrong Lazy, I'm sorry, I think you know where I'm going Eddie & you are right with your comments.

[EDDIE51]

The whole point is that PIP have gone bankrupt TWR .
If they were still in business it would be them that picked up the tab. They were clearly negligent. It would have been a 'cast iron' case against them.

[LazyGun]

It was deliberate malpractice from PIP, not a shadow of doubt. I was staggered to read casual criminality that the owner and senior directors exhibit - even now, it seems trying to defend a deliberate tactic of industrial grade silicone because it enhanced their profitability. No a shadow of thought for the receipients, nor any remorse at the possible health risks and mental damage they have caused.

Telegraph has an interview with them - link posted on the first page...