PIP Implants

[Kilted Ginger]

WTF, you elect to have and pay for surgery for the sake of vanity, turns out later, the unregulated industry used the cheapest components available and now there is a VERY small chance these components might fail and possibly cause some medical issues.
Go back to where you got them and get them out, if you want them replaced (for vanity) then find the money again.
DO NOT expect the nhs to use my money to sort out a problem you created.
I'm so sick of this "news story".

You buy something, it breaks, if its still under warranty get it replaced, if not buy a new one. get over it. OMG:smt107

[Bluepete]

I love the fact that these three http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1470277_in-limbo-anguish-of-women-who-received-pip-breast-implants-at-northenden-clinic-that-went-out-of-business decided to get implants instead of huge amounts of cosmetic facial surgery!

Tough t1tties!

Pete ;)

[timwilky]

Some people probably have these provided with reconstruction following a mastectomy. That aint vanity, more sanity.

I have to say though I think the private clinics are correct. They used officially approved implants. The government regulators failed to do their job properly and the clinics are expected to foot the bill.

[dizzyblonde]

+1 Tim. If you have an implant in that situation, to have a second bout of demoralisation is appauling, 'some' ladies put their trust in someone to make them feel a woman again, and have been let down tremendously.

[andrewsmith]

+1

For what Tim and DB said.
It was the Government(s) health approval departments that certified these as safe and the Plastic Surgeons have used them in the thousands

[Biker Biggles]

But if the regulators actually do regulate the same people who are whinging now squeal loudly about government interference and elf n safty gone mad.Cant win methinks unless you are a Harley Street private clinic who wont be paying up.

[dizzyblonde]

Personally If I'd lost a pair of b00bs to cancer, and I'd had these implants for whatever reason/recommendation it may be, I'd want them to be replaced.

I have seen one lady on local news with them in, and she has been ill for some considerable time, so much so, she is wheelchair bound..

Now look away now lads if you don't want graffic detail, but when a woman breastfeeds it can only be likened to be kicked in the nuts fifty times over, every day, hour on end....now think how it would feel if you'd gone through something ten times the power due to some life taking illness to be given a second chance with some funny looking gell stuff, only to be slashed back down when something goes wrong.


I wouldn't like it....I wouldn't like it at all.

[DJFridge]

Agree with all responses above too (sorry Kilted). I was all for the private surgeries that did the original work having to redo it at their own cost until I heard it pointed out today that they were using, in good faith, impalnts approved by the Dept of Health. If what was in the implants had changed (and what PIP put in them to cut costs is the real scandal) it was the responsibility of the DoH to know and act accordingly.

I feel very sorry for anyone who has those implants. The fact is nobody actually knows what the failure rate is because it isn't properly reported. And then, even once you know that, maybe, 5% could fail, you have to weigh your chances of being one of that 1 in 20 against the very real risks associated with any surgical procedure in the event that you decide to have them swapped for safer ones.

[SoulKiss]

Simples.

People who wandered in and said "I'd like bigger boobs please" should have their surgeons pay.

Those who went through a procedure following the advice of a medical professional following a diagnosis that it was in their best interests for their future wellbeing should be sorted out on the NHS.

IE Jordan should pay, mastectormy patients shouldn't.

Just saying "The government approved these, so its not my fault, even though I bought based on price" doesn't cut it in my book (and many of the surgeons whining are VERY wealthy individuals).

Thats like an electrician buying cheap fittings in a poundshop, rather than quality kit. Sure they are both legal, but one will generraly be better than the other, and probably WONT come with 1p change from a quid.

[Sabarius]

Leaving the morals of 'should they be replaced or not' aside because that obviously is a complex and emotive subject, I still don't see why the NHS should foot the bill on this one.

Ok it's not quite the same but if my tv from currys turns out to have an inherent fault I go back to currys, they don't get to pass me off onto a third party. What currys do about it, who they blame or get compensation from isn't my issue, so long as they sort it.

[-Ralph-]

If the NHS put the thing in, they should take it out, but the manufacturer should be made to recompense the NHS.

If a private clinic put the thing in, because somebody paid for it out of vanity, then I don't care who pays for it, so long as it's not taxpayers money, the manufacturer, the patient and the clinic can all go sue each other and let the courts decide for all I care.

[DJFridge]

If the NHS put the thing in, they should take it out, but the manufacturer should be made to recompense the NHS.

If a private clinic put the thing in, because somebody paid for it out of vanity, then I don't care who pays for it, so long as it's not taxpayers money, the manufacturer, the patient and the clinic can all go sue each other and let the courts decide for all I care.

You think the lawyers aren't already rubbing their hands in anticipation? Nobody wins except them once people start suing each other. Even more so in this case because you can't sue the manufacturer - they've already gone bust (no pun intended, I assure you, because it just isn't funny).

[Specialone]

Simples.

People who wandered in and said "I'd like bigger boobs please" should have their surgeons pay.

Those who went through a procedure following the advice of a medical professional following a diagnosis that it was in their best interests for their future wellbeing should be sorted out on the NHS.

IE Jordan should pay, mastectormy patients shouldn't.

Just saying "The government approved these, so its not my fault, even though I bought based on price" doesn't cut it in my book (and many of the surgeons whining are VERY wealthy individuals).


Thats like an electrician buying cheap fittings in a poundshop, rather than quality kit. Sure they are both legal, but one will generraly be better than the other, and probably WONT come with 1p change from a quid.
Agree 100% ( thats twice tonight)
I also agree with the health minister, NHS wont leave private patients out to dry and will take the offending ones out if required but wont pay for replacements.

Too many private practices use the NHS to their gain and now wanna stand back when there's a problem, you supplied them, government approved or not, you fix it.

[-Ralph-]

I didn't say they should sue each other, I just said I couldn't care less if they do.

Manufacturer's gone bust? Oh well, tough titty then! (pun intended) ;-)

[metalmonkey]

What happens, if the company that put the implants in, has stopped trading and is no more which was also part of the news report?

I'm sure the lawyers are waiting in the wings to make loads of cash.

[Kilted Ginger]

For the first few responses see the first half dozen words of my post.

IF YOU ELECT TO HAVE AND PAY FOR SURGERY FOR THE SAKE OF VANITY.

Therefore the argument about necessary replacement after cancer etc is a waste of your and my time. If the NHS fitted them they have already said they will replace them. Which covers all the NECESSARY implants.

My frustration is with those, I bought this(part of the decision is based on price), it may possibly present some future risk so i want someone else to pay for a replacement for me.

Lets see I buy a new lawnmower, 7 years later it comes out there may be the possibility of a defective part failing and causing me some harm, do i take the lawnmower to a repair shop and get part replaced, or replace the lawnmower in full or do i shout and scream to the press that i want the goverment to give me a new lawnmower because the one i bought had a kite mark on it.

You buy a luxury item, it fails, you replace it. end of.

[Kilted Ginger]

Some people probably have these provided with reconstruction following a mastectomy. That aint vanity, more sanity.

I have to say though I think the private clinics are correct. They used officially approved implants. The government regulators failed to do their job properly and the clinics are expected to foot the bill.

To clarify, Dizzy, Andrew and DJ. the government already stated it would replace all implants fitted by NHS, they also said if the private firm had gone out of business they would REMOVE the implants if the woman wanted them removed, they will not however replace them with new ones, so worst case mrs i dont wanna pay goes back to her natural size.

[Dicky Ticker]

Nobody is mentioning the health risks of the additional surgery here,it isn't quite like having a local anesthetic and a filling replaced,it is major surgery and carries a certain degree of risk.
That being the case and should anything untoward happen who then becomes responsible if all these women have replacements under the NHS.
I have two friends who have both had implants recently,one after breast surgery on the NHS and the other by a private clinic for cosmetic reasons.
We hear all about the total number of implants but very little of the number that have gone wrong and of that number what % are PIP against other suppliers.
It is a sad state of affairs but I don't believe that we the British public should be held responsible for somebody having cosmetic surgery for their own vanity by going to private clinics ,who inturn used cheap implants and made lots of money.

[shonadoll]

I agree if done for vanity, NHs shouldn't foot the bill. Reconstruction and cancer treatment, absolutely. It's funny how all these women interviewed could afford the thousands for surgery for a non essential procedure, yet can't afford to have them removed if they're scared of health implications

[Jabba]

The real bad guys here are the manufacturers.

They submitted products of a certain specification to the regulators and they were approved. The regulators did their job and the surgeons used products approved by the regulators.

However, the manufacturers then substituted medical-grade silicon for industrial-grade, lower spec silicon and didn't tell anyone. The regulators and surgeons thought they were using approved products.

We need to remember also that "medical devices", eg silicon implants, replacement hips, etc, do not go through the same rigorous testing that pharmaceuticals do. Therefore, there is a greater likelihood of problems coming to light. This risk will have been explained to patients, NHS or otherwise.

The "whip 'em out" advocates need to remember that there may not be a problem with every single installation of these products and that there is a not inconsiderable risk with the removal surgery; this risk may be greater than leaving the implant in place.

Who pays? I vote for taxing bankers bonuses ;-)

[DJFridge]

Nobody is mentioning the health risks of the additional surgery here,......

.....even once you know that, maybe, 5% could fail, you have to weigh your chances of being one of that 1 in 20 against the very real risks associated with any surgical procedure in the event that you decide to have them swapped for safer ones.

Sorry, thought I had

[timwilky]

I am sorry but I really hate the arrogance in this thread.

You can afford to buy breast implants so therefore you can afford to get them removed or replaced.

Vanity because you are not happy with what nature didnt give you.

Nobody goes in for surgery for an unsafe procedure. You expect qualified surgeons, approved procedures and implants. The system has screwed up.

A fraudulent company has run amok. European rules meant a French implant was approved for use within Europe. if the NHS will not cover the cost of a lack of supervision. Europe should.

[Red ones]

I think the argument about who pays is actually being missed here.

The argument is that even if you paid to have the implants for cosmetic reasons through a private surgery, it is still the Government that ultimately approves the product. If the Government say it is safe to use and it turns out that advise was wrong, then does the advising body have a responsibilty to correct the problem?

[-Ralph-]

Not if Jabba's post above is true, and the manufacturer changed the product following approval. This then becomes a different product, which has not been approved at all, and the manufacturer is being very naughty by selling it under the guise of an approved product.

[tactcom7]

Who says if you can afford to have it done then you can afford to have it re-done?
People might have been saving years, took out loans or finance etc for the procedure.

Maybe people didn't have them both done, perhaps it was to 'even things out' to give people
more self confidence.

It is a sad fact that it is easier to get a product such as an implant or hip replacement
trialed and fitted in Europe than it is in say, the US. More clinical trials with as of yet unapproved
devices are carried out over here. Manufactures make an item, Product A, then it is changed
slightly to Product B. As it is so similar they aren't required to re-test it, then Products C and D come out
which were like B which is near as dammit the same as A so nothing gets checked.

Surgeons and manufacurers aren't even legally obliged to make people aware when a product
fails, only morally so.

[littleoldman2]

Who says if you can afford to have it done then you can afford to have it re-done?
People might have been saving years, took out loans or finance etc for the procedure.

Maybe people didn't have them both done, perhaps it was to 'even things out' to give people
more self confidence.

It is a sad fact that it is easier to get a product such as an implant or hip replacement
trialed and fitted in Europe than it is in say, the US. More clinical trials with as of yet unapproved
devices are carried out over here. Manufactures make an item, Product A, then it is changed
slightly to Product B. As it is so similar they aren't required to re-test it, then Products C and D come out
which were like B which is near as dammit the same as A so nothing gets checked.

Surgeons and manufacurers aren't even legally obliged to make people aware when a product
fails, only morally so.

Seems like good reasons not to go under the knife unless there's no other choice.