18 2 mins 10 yrs

Breast Implant Removal Surgery, Saint Joseph Hospital, Paris, France - 05 Jan 2012

OK, this is one I haven’t covered yet but it raises some interesting ethical issues that you may want to discuss. It concerns the fact that a large number of women have had breast implants produced by a French company and that some of those have proven to be defective, creating a health hazard. There are around 40,000 women in the UK who have had these dodgy implants and it raises quite a few questions;

1. Should the NHS pick up the bill for putting right implants that were put in my private practitioners? If not, and if the woman cannot afford to get the original surgeon to put right what is wrong, shall we let these women die an agonising death.

2. If the implants were put in on the NHS, then the Government has said it will pay to have them replaced free of charge. Yet the fault is not that of the NHS so why is it paying up without seeking recovery of costs from the manufacturer of the silicon implants?

3. Those women who paid to have the implants done privately, also pay taxes for the NHS. So WHY are they to be denied the services of the NHS to address the health  issue?

It’s a complex issue but at the heart of it are two words – caveat emptor. My feeling is that those who put the flawed implants in should be required to take them out, at no cost.  But I wonder did the women sign a contract with an opt out clause? I also think that the firm that made these flawed implants should be prosecuted as it is a very serious matter and they should be made to pay for their failure.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

18 thoughts on “LET THE BUYER BEWARE…

  1. If the operations were done here then either the clinic or supplier would be obliged to make good their negligence – if the implants were deemed to be a risk.

    The reporting on this case hasn’t cleared up confusion, in my opinion, with reports that the French supplier will only pay for French women, but that’s a nonsense. European law doesn’t allow that. The BBC piece states:

    “It is thought 95% of women had the operation privately, 5% on the NHS.

    The French authorities have offered to pay for implants to be removed due to a high risk of them rupturing.

    Czech and German health authorities both recommended on Friday that women in those countries with PIP implants should have them removed.”

    Goodness knows why the NHS is getting involved. It’s a matter of contract law, negligence and rectifying a wrong, by the sounds of it. The NHS has no need to be involved.

  2. Of course everything has to be done to ensure that private organsiations involved are made to deliver their financial and medical responsibilities , but the NHS exists whether you like it or not to deal with medical needs of all British residents as they arise. If women want the implants removed let the NHS carry out the procedures and then NHS trusts should sue the appropriate private organsiations for costs incurred.

  3. I’m a leg man myself. Large or even medium tits don’t impress me.

    So,

    Babes who desecrate their bodies with tattoos, piercings or “enlargement” surgery in order to satisfy some twisted egotistical mental disorder should be ignored, at least and placed in an institution if necessary.

    These misfits are weak, undisciplined irresponsible sub-humans.

  4. this is not complex at all the company that manufactured the defective product needs to pay, why isn’t that in your list?

    Is the company defunct? if so who bought it’s assets?

  5. I do think in all seriousness, that Eddie does have a point which of course he puts in that unique diplomatic way of his.

    Women should not be so shallow and pathetic as to think that they are worthless unless they have bouncing balls on their chests. Do they have no self esteem or respect for their own worth. Hopefully this whole silicone scare will help to reverse the trend for women thinking the only way they can get a man interested in them is if they fill their bodies with bits of plastic runbber and silicone gel. It’s about as progressive feminist and ’empowering’ as the old tradition of Japanese women crippling themsleves and binding their feet to satisfy the culture for small and dainty apendages below the ankle.

  6. Eddie my wife had both her breasts removed this year, she didn’t do it for vanity or because I wanted her to get big tatas. She will now go through a year of stretching what skin she has left so that implants can be inserted. It is slow and it is painful.

    A womans breasts are like a mans balls, they are part of what they are. If the implants they put in my wife are defective should she die? Should a defective product kill her when the cancer didn’t?

    Not all these woman received these implants simply for esthetics. You need to broaden your perspective my friend

  7. Troll

    I wasn’t at all referring to the necessary surgery that Monica or any other cancer or accident or other genuine medical reasons that patients have for this surgery. I am only referring to what I think is the sad and debasing reasons that perfectly healthy women who think they are worthless without having bigger tits. But even in those cases I don’t at all advocate them not being given medical help to remove defective implants.

  8. Colm,

    I reckon you are being unkind to our Japanese friends, as the foot-wrapping process was very common in the old China, and the removal of the wrappings was one of the very, very few good things which came from the Communist take-over.

  9. Eddie! Eddie! You can’t go around shouting the truth like it’s not some offensive affront to feminist intellectuals everywhere! Women have every right to disfigure themselves and should obviously have such disfigurement paid for by everyone else. And when they change their little minds (as they sometimes do) or get frighted (as they sometimes do)their right and proper political weight will ensure that the elite political class and the high moral MSM, will wholeheartedly support them.
    It matters not that implants are a totally unnecessary, dangerous, and risk filled choice for a lifetime. That same political choice which has brought the West to it’s knees must be exercised to make the taxpayer bear the burden of the whole unnecessary venture.

  10. I would imagine that majority of the 5% or so who had the operation on the NHS didn’t do it for aesthetic purposes and was probably some degree of corrective or reconstruction surgery. Those women should be allowed to have those implants removed and replaced at the cost of the NHS. The NHS should then be able to reclaim those costs from the French company who purchased it.

    Additionally those women who are known to suffer health problems from these implants should also get it done on the NHS. If someone had them done at a private clinic and has suffered no ill effects of it then I don’t believe it should be done on the NHS. What they decide between themselves and their clinic is a matter for them to decide and a matter for their solicitors.

  11. To my mind it should be relatively simple.

    1. If a woman, for medical reasons, recieves breast implants through the NHS then the NHS is responsible for rectification. If the implants that the NHS has used are substandard or unfit for purpose then the manufacturer of the implants should be sued for reimbursement and related costs by the NHS.

    2. If a woman, for cosmetic reasons, recieves breast implants from a Private Clinic or Hospital and the implants are not fit for purpose then her recourse is to approach the Private Clinic or Hospital in question and sue that Clinic/Hospital, the Clinic or Hospital then suing the Manufacturer of the product.

    3. If the manufacturer of the unsatisfactory item is no longer in business then it should be a matter for the Courts to determine responsibility in order that a satisfactory outcome be obtained.

    Of course, if the product i.e. the implant, has CE approval then things might get a little complicated and Britain may well be asked to pay more than its fair share. Pete Moore, above, indicates that the French Supplier will only pay for French women but that such an action is against EU Law. We will see.

  12. Artificial boobs look and feel weird.
    (Fortunately silicone nipples haven’t caught on.. 🙂 )
    Female attractiveness is not based on boob size, but on personality and demeanour.
    As it is for all men and women.
    Sexual attractiveness is all part of the pleasure of the human reproductive process, for making babies and ensuring our future.
    Enduring relationships are based on mutual appreciation, respect, shared interests
    -and lastly, and leastly sex.

  13. 40,000 people £15,000 a time for surgery – £600 Million. Not even a premiership manager would pay that for a bunch of tits.

Comments are closed.