Your Tits are not killing you, love.
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18489448
I'm guessing our claim culture society is a bit dissapointed by these results....
But its good news for boobs, in general...
I'm guessing our claim culture society is a bit dissapointed by these results....
But its good news for boobs, in general...
It's on the face of it an incredibly perverse conclusion. The potentially horrific health problems caused by the way the body tries to eliminate un-encapsulated silicone cannot possibly be questioned. Yes technically, maybe it is not directly toxic or provably carcinogenic, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem if an issue on the cheap implants is a high rate of rupture/leakage, many women will be irreparably harmed before they notice a problem.
Women have been ripped-off by being sold sub-standard implants containing material not authorised for that particular use. The fact that they're not toxic or carcinogenic is a relief but it's only part of the story.
People on here get in a tizz if the petrol they buy isn't up to scratch.
People on here get in a tizz if the petrol they buy isn't up to scratch.
Perhaps we have been far too lax in allowing cosmetic surgery to grow as a pure commercial "business" - with all the attendant advertising and cultural hype that goes with a commercial product.
If it was purely looked on as a traumatic and invasive medical procedure with attendant risks perhaps people might have a different view.
If it was purely looked on as a traumatic and invasive medical procedure with attendant risks perhaps people might have a different view.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
not exactly the case though. Many would have been sat in very expensive offices with very well qualified doctors ( who had done plenty of NHS work) and being told there is no difference between the £6000 and £3000 implant. So they were sensible to go for £3000.I've no argument with the NHS removing faulty implants, but see no reason on earth why the NHS should pay for new implants to take their place (which of course is what the women concerned are hoping for).
One really good result of this whole fiasco might be that other women who feel their lives are adversely affected by what they perceive to be their small breasts might think twice before having them artificially enlarged.
One really good result of this whole fiasco might be that other women who feel their lives are adversely affected by what they perceive to be their small breasts might think twice before having them artificially enlarged.
Where the surgeries were performed by private doctors, those doctors should foot the bill for removal and or replacement. Afterall they specced the cheapest material they could find. Unless of course they warned these women that a cheap implant was more likely to rupture, but I doubt that was the case.
If I brought my car in for a service and the dealer fitted defective replacement parts, other knowingly or unknowingly to them, we would expect them to remedy the problem, not us personally nor a public body.
If I brought my car in for a service and the dealer fitted defective replacement parts, other knowingly or unknowingly to them, we would expect them to remedy the problem, not us personally nor a public body.
singlecoil said:
One really good result of this whole fiasco might be that other women who feel their lives are adversely affected by what they perceive to be their small breasts might think twice before having them artificially enlarged.
Any woman who violates her body to this extreme, simply so she can have bigger chest to show off with, deserves any and all the trouble she gets!And all this cojones about "I simply did not feel like a real woman with a small chest" is a pitiful excuse to have the op. Deal with it girl!
(Exceptions, of course, for women who have had mastectomies etc.)
King Herald said:
singlecoil said:
One really good result of this whole fiasco might be that other women who feel their lives are adversely affected by what they perceive to be their small breasts might think twice before having them artificially enlarged.
Any woman who violates her body to this extreme, simply so she can have bigger chest to show off with, deserves any and all the trouble she gets!And all this cojones about "I simply did not feel like a real woman with a small chest" is a pitiful excuse to have the op. Deal with it girl!
(Exceptions, of course, for women who have had mastectomies etc.)
k them and their stupid ideas about emulating page 3 girls. While we're at it - what about those saddos that have no arms and then go and get plastic ones? Give 'em a hook!The VAST majority of breast implants are not done on glamour models who go from G - HH......they are done for women with vary little breast tissue who feel as bad about their bodies as a mastectomy patient.
The troubling thing is it appears these women didn't go to a back alley in Estonia to get this done for £20, like the horror stories you hear about. Plenty of them went to well established, reputable British clinics and still ended up with problems. They did what everybody tells them to do and still had problems which sort of makes that back street Estonian clinic maybe worth the gamble, if the super dooper expensive British ones aren't much better.
Randy Winkman said:
"Back of Transit"? What the flip are you talking about?
Most of what we buy in the Western World isn't actually needed - does that mean it's OK for us to be ripped off?
No.Most of what we buy in the Western World isn't actually needed - does that mean it's OK for us to be ripped off?
But equally if I buy a TV or herbal remedy etc and it doesn't work out I do no expect the taxpayer to foot the bil to rectify it.
Whoever put them in should pay to take them out. If they won't, sue.
For NHS inserted ones, they should be done if there's an issue (or if recourse can be made via insurances etc then throw the net wider).
Murph7355 said:
But equally if I buy a TV or herbal remedy etc and it doesn't work out I do no expect the taxpayer to foot the bil to rectify it.
PH needs to stop talking about 'the taxpayer' as a mythical creature. I would guess plenty of the women in question pay tax also. Oh and a TV isn't likely to kill you. There's the difference.
Murph7355 said:
Whoever put them in should pay to take them out. If they won't, sue.
Well they didn't, because the clinics said it was the Government's fault for ok-ing the implants, so the NHS had to step in due to a genuine safety concern. We know now there wasn't as much danger as originally thought but a lawsuit would still be ongoing at this moment, its not a quick process. One would also assume these clinics can afford pretty good legal advice and to be confident enough to refuse to replace the implants I'm not sure how successful a lawsuit would've been. Their lawyers must've had this wrapped up pretty well.scenario8 said:
As an aside, do people not understand how difficult, time consuming and expensive it is to "sue"? One reads frequently in threads that people should just "sue" to solve a problem.
I can only assume they're solicitors - or have never set foot in Court.
How long it takes, how costly it is or how much of a pain it is, is irrelevant. I can only assume they're solicitors - or have never set foot in Court.
If you had them done privately and cannot get them to sort it through other means, then going legal is all you have left (with the inherent risk you may not win).
Doesn't small claims court cover up to 25k these days (if claimants can cope with being called "small" of course
).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff