 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Should the nhs at an estimated cost of 150 million stump up for the removal of dodgy implants,surely in the majority of cases the job was done privately so therefore should the removal be the same,austerity and all that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the nhs at an estimated cost of 150 million stump up for the removal of dodgy implants,surely in the majority of cases the job was done privately so therefore should the removal be the same,austerity and all that "
if they decided to have the operation then they should sort it out
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If government say they are not dangerous (report pending) but you are still concerned, have them removed the same way you had them implanted... Privately.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adcowWoman
over a year ago
kirkcaldy |
"if the items were faulty it should be the responsibility of the surgeon who put them in to replace them/remove them surely?"
I would agree , faulty implants surgeon and manufacturers responsibility and therefore down to them to pay cost of removal.
There are circumstances (reconstruction surgery for ladies who have had mastectomies) where exceptions are made and the implants are done by NHS and the bill covered by them .
But if the womans life depends on the quick removal of the implants would anyone begrudge them the treatment on NHS??????? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Correction:
In the case of corrective surgery, then if the NHS has implanted faulty units, they of course should remove them.
My objection comes from a radio interview where someone had found the money to have implants... Suddenly she was too poor to have the process reversed and actively called the medical specialist a liar... and made it clear that the NHS were responsible for her tragic state... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"good point _adcow, plus the NHS could always seek to recover costs from the other companies"
Would it not cost more to fight private surgeons' legal defence cases to recover monies from their clients? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"good point _adcow, plus the NHS could always seek to recover costs from the other companies
Would it not cost more to fight private surgeons' legal defence cases to recover monies from their clients?"
dunno - not a lawyer so have no clue how that works but surely the manufacturer should be made to foot the cost somehow?
so either claim from the surgeonwho claims fromt he manufacturer or claim straight from the manufacturer fom the off |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"good point _adcow, plus the NHS could always seek to recover costs from the other companies
Would it not cost more to fight private surgeons' legal defence cases to recover monies from their clients?
dunno - not a lawyer so have no clue how that works but surely the manufacturer should be made to foot the cost somehow?
so either claim from the surgeonwho claims fromt he manufacturer or claim straight from the manufacturer fom the off"
yet another reason for not having any un necessary cosmetic surgery you just never know what poison is being pumped into your body ...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" dunno - not a lawyer so have no clue how that works but surely the manufacturer should be made to foot the cost somehow?
so either claim from the surgeonwho claims fromt he manufacturer or claim straight from the manufacturer fom the off"
Nor me...
But it is when you have to fight claims that the money gets spent... IMHO.
Also... If an NHS surgeon corrects a private implant and something else goes wrong... Who is liable...? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"good point _adcow, plus the NHS could always seek to recover costs from the other companies
Would it not cost more to fight private surgeons' legal defence cases to recover monies from their clients?
dunno - not a lawyer so have no clue how that works but surely the manufacturer should be made to foot the cost somehow?
so either claim from the surgeonwho claims fromt he manufacturer or claim straight from the manufacturer fom the off
yet another reason for not having any un necessary cosmetic surgery you just never know what poison is being pumped into your body ......"
The Scouse woman on radio 5 Undead who discovered that her clinic had closed and re-opened under a similar name to avoid liability made the best argument against private medicine ever. She didn't know she was doing it, mind, and she sounded as if the most urgent operation she needed was to get her head out of her arse, but that's the way it is.
Why in the name of all that is sensible would you trust your body to someone whose only interest is making a profit? Thank heavens for the NHS....
Incidentally, I'd agree with the NHS operating on these women where there's a medical need, provided they promise to never vote Tory for the rest of their lives to make sure everyone else gets the safety net they want...
Oooooo, but political there, bit risky, the Mail readers will be after me, etc.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should the nhs at an estimated cost of 150 million stump up for the removal of dodgy implants,surely in the majority of cases the job was done privately so therefore should the removal be the same,austerity and all that "
More difficult than to answer with just a yes or no. What about treating people who have cancer through smoking? Or people with diseases caused by obesity? I don't think the NHS should pay for all removals if required but take each case on it's merits - ie.if the implants were needed as a result of a mastectomy. Z |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"good point _adcow, plus the NHS could always seek to recover costs from the other companies
Would it not cost more to fight private surgeons' legal defence cases to recover monies from their clients?
dunno - not a lawyer so have no clue how that works but surely the manufacturer should be made to foot the cost somehow?
so either claim from the surgeonwho claims fromt he manufacturer or claim straight from the manufacturer fom the off"
The manufacturer in France has gone under. The prime mover in the firm has fucked off pronto to somewhere else, and the whole firm appears to have been run by Hopalong Cassidy and the Silicone Valley Cowboys....
Add in some classic French government indifference and you have another classic chapter in 'why globalization is a really shit idea...' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Add in some classic French government indifference and you have another classic chapter in 'why globalization is a really shit idea...'"
Err... Would this classic indifference be the government which, in opting to remove the implants, have broadcast a warning to the global community...;-)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Surely like all goods if they are issuing a recall then it should be paid for by the company issuing a recall.. same when you purchase a car or a toy etc.
if they aren't issuing a recall then its up to people to take the risk and keep them or pay for it to removed if they are scared enough, and perhaps put in an individual complaint to the company to see if they could get a refund and compensation.
not ideal but if they arent issuing a recall not much else you can do about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You seem to have missed the part about the manufacturing company no longer trading......"
sorry i didnt read the whole thread i just posted to the OP's Q.. but in any case the insurance company for the manufacturer should still cover public liability for up to 3 years after the policy date, and more in some cases but im not entirely sure of the full legal aspect there.
same when you have an accident in a car that's why you have 3 years to start a claim against someone unless you are unfit to do so i.e through coma or incapacity
So depending on when manufacturing stopped and when the last implant was put in if a person claims then it sets a precedent for everyone else who has implants by that company to claim from the manufacturer who would be covered by their ( assuming they actually even had it) public liability/indemnity insurance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
But if the womans life depends on the quick removal of the implants would anyone begrudge them the treatment on NHS???????"
In some ways I would.
For every op to remove what they freely chose and paid to put into their body, another op or screening somewhere else for something else will not happen.
The NHS will already be and probably continue to be picking up the tab for the other complications caused by cheap implants... in cases where the silicone has ruptured from the implant and travelled around the body.... sometimes travelling as far as down the legs (don't they look a tit when wearing shorts)
It may well be selective interviewing, but so far I have not seen anyone asking for their implants to be removed... they've all expected them to be removed and 'replaced'.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
But if the womans life depends on the quick removal of the implants would anyone begrudge them the treatment on NHS???????
In some ways I would.
For every op to remove what they freely chose and paid to put into their body, another op or screening somewhere else for something else will not happen.
The NHS will already be and probably continue to be picking up the tab for the other complications caused by cheap implants... in cases where the silicone has ruptured from the implant and travelled around the body.... sometimes travelling as far as down the legs (don't they look a tit when wearing shorts)
It may well be selective interviewing, but so far I have not seen anyone asking for their implants to be removed... they've all expected them to be removed and 'replaced'.
"
The nhs already picks up the pieces all the time from private medicine.Companies keep the costs down because they know if anything goes wrong they can dump the patient at A&E. That needs to be tackled too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Guardian 6 January reported
"The British government gave a pledge to women who have had the Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) implants on the NHS – thought to be a maximum of 3,000 women out of a total of 40,000 British patients – that they could have them removed for no charge.
It cannot require the same of the private clinics, but said it expects them to make the same offer.
A Department of Health statement said: "The NHS will support removal of PIP implants if – informed by an assessment of clinical need, risk or the impact of unresolved concerns – a woman with her doctor decides that it is right to do so.
"The NHS will replace the implants if the original operation was done by the NHS."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just to add to the implant bit.... in the metro they were on about they have found some tesical inplants made of the same stuff.
So looks like another new scare comming up  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
But if the womans life depends on the quick removal of the implants would anyone begrudge them the treatment on NHS???????
"
No, because every person in the UK is entitled to NHS healthcare. It's the same as saying because one chose to do something dangerous, like mountain climbing or jumping out of a plane with a parachute, the NHS won't treat you if something goes wrong. As much as I dislike the NHS it's a system we have in place and it's supposed to be non-discriminatory for all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago
dirtybigbadsgirlville |
"Should the nhs at an estimated cost of 150 million stump up for the removal of dodgy implants,surely in the majority of cases the job was done privately so therefore should the removal be the same,austerity and all that "
Well they spend millions treating medical tourists so why not? Whats 150 million in the scheme of things?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
But if the womans life depends on the quick removal of the implants would anyone begrudge them the treatment on NHS???????
No, because every person in the UK is entitled to NHS healthcare. It's the same as saying because one chose to do something dangerous, like mountain climbing or jumping out of a plane with a parachute, the NHS won't treat you if something goes wrong. As much as I dislike the NHS it's a system we have in place and it's supposed to be non-discriminatory for all."
Quite honestly I cannot understand why the government has not obliged those who supply or individuals and groups who undertake dangerous sports to insure again accident and injury rescue and its subsequent treatment.
Those who can afford to participate in these sports can surely afford to insure themselves.
The NHS could then dedicate its, in my opinion, wonderful staff, to treating those of us who do not have enough money to afford private care for our ills or to undertake those extiting and adventurous sports. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
But if the womans life depends on the quick removal of the implants would anyone begrudge them the treatment on NHS???????
In some ways I would.
For every op to remove what they freely chose and paid to put into their body, another op or screening somewhere else for something else will not happen.
The NHS will already be and probably continue to be picking up the tab for the other complications caused by cheap implants... in cases where the silicone has ruptured from the implant and travelled around the body.... sometimes travelling as far as down the legs (don't they look a tit when wearing shorts)
It may well be selective interviewing, but so far I have not seen anyone asking for their implants to be removed... they've all expected them to be removed and 'replaced'.
The nhs already picks up the pieces all the time from private medicine.Companies keep the costs down because they know if anything goes wrong they can dump the patient at A&E. That needs to be tackled too."
Agree. A system needs to be put in place where we maintain "free at the point of treatment" but with a "condition" that the patient co-operate in claiming back the cost to the NHS from the people responsible for what went wrong or their insurers in the case of private medical treatment or dangerous sports for example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
