implant drama
14 January 2012, 10:06 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's one of those stories that, if look behind the headlines, is all down to EU "regulations" again. See ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...egulation.html ...
Something else that we have no control over!
Dave
... As regards breast implants, these are covered by the Directive, the applicable standard being EN ISO 14607:2009 which refers to "Non-active surgical implants - Mammary implants". The particular requirements are set out in ISO 14607:2007.
The trouble is that these particular implants were manufactured in France and therefore came under the control of the French authorities. They actually shut the firm down last year, but not before 40,000 British women had been fitted with the implants.
Herein lies the problem. The British agency, ostensibly responsible for maintaining standards in the UK, is also obliged under EU law to permit the import and marketing of any device which bears a CE mark, even though it has no direct jurisdiction over the manufacturer.
Furthermore, unless it has direct evidence to suggest that there might be something wrong, the MHRA is not even allowed to carry out its own tests to ensure that imported products bearing the CE mark conform with the required standards.
Thus, the actual failure rests with the French authorities, who approved a substandard product, and allowed as many as 300,000 to be sold. But the ultimate failure rests with EU legislation which has created a system which is beyond the control of the British authorities, and enables substandard products to be marketed in the UK, with no domestic checks. ...
The trouble is that these particular implants were manufactured in France and therefore came under the control of the French authorities. They actually shut the firm down last year, but not before 40,000 British women had been fitted with the implants.
Herein lies the problem. The British agency, ostensibly responsible for maintaining standards in the UK, is also obliged under EU law to permit the import and marketing of any device which bears a CE mark, even though it has no direct jurisdiction over the manufacturer.
Furthermore, unless it has direct evidence to suggest that there might be something wrong, the MHRA is not even allowed to carry out its own tests to ensure that imported products bearing the CE mark conform with the required standards.
Thus, the actual failure rests with the French authorities, who approved a substandard product, and allowed as many as 300,000 to be sold. But the ultimate failure rests with EU legislation which has created a system which is beyond the control of the British authorities, and enables substandard products to be marketed in the UK, with no domestic checks. ...
Dave
14 January 2012, 10:12 AM
#7
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasnt these implants government approved? Therefore I can see why we should have to pay for them. Especially if Pip are in liquidation. Certainly not fair on the women to have to foot the bill IMO
Trending Topics
14 January 2012, 10:34 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameron should be demanding compensation from sarkozy, if the company had no suitable insurance then i would assume the directors are being held criminally responsable. It really is time we went to war with france. Scumbag ***** they are.
14 January 2012, 11:35 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
14 January 2012, 11:42 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought all implants had a certain life span and have to be replaced anyway. I think it's 10 years. I can understand if the NHS did the removal only for people who had them installed privately.
If the woman could afford to have them installed privately and knowing that at some point she would have to have another operation to put a new pair in, then I understand the NHS only footing the removal price.
If the woman could afford to have them installed privately and knowing that at some point she would have to have another operation to put a new pair in, then I understand the NHS only footing the removal price.
14 January 2012, 11:49 AM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought all implants had a certain life span and have to be replaced anyway. I think it's 10 years. I can understand if the NHS did the removal only for people who had them installed privately.
If the woman could afford to have them installed privately and knowing that at some point she would have to have another operation to put a new pair in, then I understand the NHS only footing the removal price.
If the woman could afford to have them installed privately and knowing that at some point she would have to have another operation to put a new pair in, then I understand the NHS only footing the removal price.
14 January 2012, 11:57 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
I also think its pretty unfair that the government would take them out without a replacement, imagine the monstrosity theyre going to leave behind on these womens chest, most of the women who have this surgery is for a confidence boost and its not always a matter of "being able to afford it"
Dave
14 January 2012, 12:00 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of two women who got implants just so they could become glamour models. If their implants are providing them an income, I can see why the tax payer wouldn't want to foot the bill.
14 January 2012, 12:00 PM
#15
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you miss the point Dave, I know it happens and I disagree with cosmetic surgery to boost confidence on the NHS. But this isnt a straight forward situation, these women have paid for a product that was government approved, the least the government can do is replace it. If you bought a brand new Impreza that our government approved for the UK roads then we found out they were a ticking time bomb but Subaru had gone into liquidation would you be happy with them just taking your car off you without a replacement?
14 January 2012, 12:03 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
I couldn't believe the cheek of the guy on the news during the week from one of the private companies in question. He was claiming that, since the government allowed them to use them, the government has a 'moral' responsibility to put it right for everyone. 
Right. So as long as the government lets you do something, you can shift all responsibility on to them... being a helpless victim like the rest?
However, from what we've seen on the news it doesn't seem like there is much of a legal case against the private companies? Which suggests that the contracts or the conditions under which the ops were agreed to do not have a 'comeback' clause for this sort of thing. If you're going to be getting an op like that, surely you make sure you have adequate protection against something like this?
It is a real shame, but I don't see why the govt should be putting this right, apart from in the case of NHS implants, which they seem to be doing if there is a problem.
Right. So as long as the government lets you do something, you can shift all responsibility on to them... being a helpless victim like the rest?
However, from what we've seen on the news it doesn't seem like there is much of a legal case against the private companies? Which suggests that the contracts or the conditions under which the ops were agreed to do not have a 'comeback' clause for this sort of thing. If you're going to be getting an op like that, surely you make sure you have adequate protection against something like this?
It is a real shame, but I don't see why the govt should be putting this right, apart from in the case of NHS implants, which they seem to be doing if there is a problem.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 14 January 2012 at 12:05 PM.
14 January 2012, 12:20 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't believe the cheek of the guy on the news during the week from one of the private companies in question. He was claiming that, since the government allowed them to use them, the government has a 'moral' responsibility to put it right for everyone.
Right. So as long as the government lets you do something, you can shift all responsibility on to them... being a helpless victim like the rest?
However, from what we've seen on the news it doesn't seem like there is much of a legal case against the private companies? Which suggests that the contracts or the conditions under which the ops were agreed to do not have a 'comeback' clause for this sort of thing. If you're going to be getting an op like that, surely you make sure you have adequate protection against something like this?
It is a real shame, but I don't see why the govt should be putting this right, apart from in the case of NHS implants, which they seem to be doing if there is a problem.
Right. So as long as the government lets you do something, you can shift all responsibility on to them... being a helpless victim like the rest?
However, from what we've seen on the news it doesn't seem like there is much of a legal case against the private companies? Which suggests that the contracts or the conditions under which the ops were agreed to do not have a 'comeback' clause for this sort of thing. If you're going to be getting an op like that, surely you make sure you have adequate protection against something like this?
It is a real shame, but I don't see why the govt should be putting this right, apart from in the case of NHS implants, which they seem to be doing if there is a problem.
I think it is arguable that if a private firm did the implant operation then they should put it right FOC to the patient and claim the cost back from the organisation which cleared the use of the implants.
Les
14 January 2012, 12:28 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we agree that the French government who approved the implants should foot the bill ? In that case seeing as we know they won't pay how about we invade the ******* now, today calais tomorrow Paris. I would happily volunteer for the army if I knew we were invading france.
14 January 2012, 03:44 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you miss the point Dave, I know it happens and I disagree with cosmetic surgery to boost confidence on the NHS. But this isnt a straight forward situation, these women have paid for a product that was government approved, the least the government can do is replace it. If you bought a brand new Impreza that our government approved for the UK roads then we found out they were a ticking time bomb but Subaru had gone into liquidation would you be happy with them just taking your car off you without a replacement?
Dave
14 January 2012, 05:24 PM
#20
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats fair enough and youve made the point yourself. Either way its not the patients fault is it?
14 January 2012, 08:29 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: burton on trent
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don,t agree the taxpayer should be paying... If the original op was done by the NHS and for medical reasons then fair enough but come on why should any taxpayer contribute towards a woman who want,s to get more attention by having big tit,s???
14 January 2012, 09:01 PM
#22
14 January 2012, 10:46 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
15 January 2012, 07:24 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although no expert, I am willing to have a feel of anyone's ***** with said PiP implants and give my opinion as to their safety (again I must stress I'm no expert! 
)
)
15 January 2012, 11:52 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we agree that the French government who approved the implants should foot the bill ? In that case seeing as we know they won't pay how about we invade the ******* now, today calais tomorrow Paris. I would happily volunteer for the army if I knew we were invading france.
Les
15 January 2012, 12:08 PM
#27
I thought all implants had a certain life span and have to be replaced anyway. I think it's 10 years. I can understand if the NHS did the removal only for people who had them installed privately.
If the woman could afford to have them installed privately and knowing that at some point she would have to have another operation to put a new pair in, then I understand the NHS only footing the removal price.
If the woman could afford to have them installed privately and knowing that at some point she would have to have another operation to put a new pair in, then I understand the NHS only footing the removal price.
NHS is there to fix you if they go wrong. So I have no qualms if the NHS pre-emptively removes privately installed implants if there is a risk (as the NHS would have to do it anyway if the ruptured, plus treat the after effects)...So long as they persue both the the manufacturers, companies and surgeons that are responsible for fitting for the full cost of removing them. Any directors who "bumps" their companies (be it suppliers or installers) to avoid being sued should have their family's assets seized and personally persued for the costs (well, HMRC and banks can do it, so why not the NHS?
).I'm pretty certain these companies offered guarantees on these implants, so should honour it if it was found that they are of poor or substandard quality. The surgeons should also be held liable for not ensuring the quality of the products they use. If they were lied to by suppliers then they should do their own legal work to recover costs (they can afford to unlike some of their clients they butchered).
But health wise (physically) there is no reason why the NHS should put in new implants. It also makes the NHS vunelrable too as any implant the NHS replaced would have to be gauaranteed and it also opens the doors for a free-for-all to all who want them replaced *****-nilly at zero cost. As they do need to be replaced anyway at some point.
So that is betterment at the cost of the tax payer, if you tried the same with an insurance claim they'd try to do you for fraud!
Removing but not replacing implants deters those who are out for something for nothing.
And also final note, silicone and its effects have long been notorious for their side effects to health. This is not a new thing- its been around since the invention of silicone implants over forty years ago!!
Yet despite this globally known and well documented problem with silicone in the body, women are still stupid enough to put this toxic susbtance inside their body
Beggers belief. Would a woman drink Diesel if she thought it would make her lose weight? So why shove your chest full of bathroom sealant!
Of course, those who had implants on the NHS (i.e as part of reconstructive surgery after masectomy etc.), should have them replaced on the NHS, but nobody else.
Last edited by ALi-B; 15 January 2012 at 12:11 PM.
15 January 2012, 12:08 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I keep saying, another reason to get the h3ll out!
Dave
15 January 2012, 12:43 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pleiades
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And also final note, silicone and its effects have long been notorious for their side effects to health. This is not a new thing- its been around since the invention of silicone implants over forty years ago!!
Yet despite this globally known and well documented problem with silicone in the body, women are still stupid enough to put this toxic susbtance inside their body
Beggers belief. Would a woman drink Diesel if she thought it would make her lose weight? So why shove your chest full of bathroom sealant!
Of course, those who had implants on the NHS (i.e as part of reconstructive surgery after masectomy etc.), should have them replaced on the NHS, but nobody else.
I agree. Paying thousand of pounds to have potentially poisonous foreign objects inserted into your body seems like madness to me. Especially when 44,000 women are being diagnosed each year with breast cancer.
It's not like ******** are the prettiest things to look at but you don't see men lining up to have them altered "to boost their confidence".
15 January 2012, 12:50 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know how I feel of course, need I say more?
Les