Your Tits are not killing you, love.
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
How long it takes, how costly it is or how much of a pain it is, is irrelevant.
Its very relevant when the things you've bought might kill you in the meantime.Murph7355 said:
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).
Not in this country because we have the NHS which has a duty of care to citizens. You really are quite moronic arent you? Comparing an operation to a television is folly from the start. The difference is a botched operation might kill you, a television with a remote you don't like wont. These people did what all the advice says to do, they went to reputable practices in the UK and paid good money. They ended up with something possibly dangerous so the NHS rightly stepped in to remove them just in case. The reputable, expensive practices refused to take responsibility and instead blamed the Government for giving the ok for the products to be used. The mere fact these very rich practices - presumably with access to very good legal advice - were confident enough to say foxtrot oscar to claims to remove them would suggest their case is pretty rock solid and legal action wouldn't have worked.
So if the women lost their case what then? You expect them to be killed by the products they've bought? We know now that wouldn't have happened but what if they were dangerous? Are you saying if the legal option didn't work then the NHS and righteous 'taxpayer' should leave them all to die? When you pay good money and do the right thing - by not going to a back street foreign clinic on the cheap - you do expect some guarantees and protection. In your Britain we'd have left them to die.
Eric Mc said:
If the aren't harmful - why do they distinguish between "industrial grade" compared to "human grade"?
If neither do you any harm, why not use the cheaper version all the time?
It's just technical approval, something that hasn't gone through the approval process could still be fine. It just hasn't been assessed.If neither do you any harm, why not use the cheaper version all the time?
Gardeners have lost lots of useful pesti/fungicides because of EU regulation, they're perfectly safe, but it just isn't worth the expense of getting them ratified.
The lack of certification is what helps make the 'industrial' silicone cheaper I expect.
So it's not been certified, Therefore no one REALLY knows whther it is safe or not. If they were TRULY concerned, why didn't they run tests on the stuff similar to the tests they use during the normal certification process.
Did the current English report (not binding in Wales or Scotland it must be emphasised) apply the same level of testing and approval required for certification?
Did the current English report (not binding in Wales or Scotland it must be emphasised) apply the same level of testing and approval required for certification?
singlecoil said:
Tiggsy said:
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.
Do you have a verifiable source for that assertion?I personally doubt many women with small tits feel as bad as any woman who has had a mastectomy.
MMM not toxic no other implant if ruptured goes like this. 
Its discusting that the goverment are covering their own arses & to protect the insurance companies & cosmetic companies , At the end of the day if they rupture inside your body your body reacts against it , surely its toxic . They havn't even mentioned about implant bleeding which other makes of implant don't do that. The ladies still didn't get what thay paid for. Lets see in 10 years time when ladies fall ill from this. Government will have to pay up then.
Its discusting that the goverment are covering their own arses & to protect the insurance companies & cosmetic companies , At the end of the day if they rupture inside your body your body reacts against it , surely its toxic . They havn't even mentioned about implant bleeding which other makes of implant don't do that. The ladies still didn't get what thay paid for. Lets see in 10 years time when ladies fall ill from this. Government will have to pay up then.
Eric Mc said:
So it's not been certified, Therefore no one REALLY knows whther it is safe or not. If they were TRULY concerned, why didn't they run tests on the stuff similar to the tests they use during the normal certification process.
Did the current English report (not binding in Wales or Scotland it must be emphasised) apply the same level of testing and approval required for certification?
Eh? That's the whole point of the thread, they HAVE now checked it for nasty properties and found it 'OK'. My contribution was to point out the rupture/leakage risk is higher, free silicone gel in the body (of ANY grade) is a disaster, the body doesn't like it, can't eliminate it, it migrates and causes lots of horrible problems and disfigurement. The fact it isn't toxic per se or carcinogenic isn't much comfort.Did the current English report (not binding in Wales or Scotland it must be emphasised) apply the same level of testing and approval required for certification?
voyds9 said:
Just another example of people wanting things on the cheap and then being upset with the quality.
I think they're upset with the legality rather than the quality. As far as I'm aware all patients were happy with the surgery at the time but were later informed they'd been given something not legal for use in humans. Also we're talking about Harley Street here, hardly 'on the cheap' is it? You don't expect this sort of thing when you use a practice of such worldwide renown, you expect better. If they'd had it done in a back alley in Armenia then I'd see your point, but they didn't.
martin84 said:
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.
If someone can afford to have their breasts augmented, they can evidently afford to have the operation reversed/reapplied (assuming the original supplier won't pay). After all, you do realise all breast implants have an expected life?
Incidentally, if you read (listen to/have someone read it to you) the news these are not likely to kill you. Do you have statistics on how many people are killed by TV sets each year versus PIP implants, smart arse
martin84 said:
Murph7355 said:
How long it takes, how costly it is or how much of a pain it is, is irrelevant.
Its very relevant when the things you've bought might kill you in the meantime.martin84 said:
Murph7355 said:
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).
Not in this country because we have the NHS which has a duty of care to citizens. You really are quite moronic arent you? Comparing an operation to a television is folly from the start. The difference is a botched operation might kill you, a television with a remote you don't like wont. Again, they are not likely to kill you.
Now, the operation itself might. But then that's not the topic of the conversation. And again, the ladies concerned put themselves through that voluntarily. Know the risks or don't play the game.
martin84 said:
...
These people did what all the advice says to do, they went to reputable practices in the UK and paid good money. They ended up with something possibly dangerous so the NHS rightly stepped in to remove them just in case. The reputable, expensive practices refused to take responsibility and instead blamed the Government for giving the ok for the products to be used. The mere fact these very rich practices - presumably with access to very good legal advice - were confident enough to say foxtrot oscar to claims to remove them would suggest their case is pretty rock solid and legal action wouldn't have worked....
Ergo the people having the operation did not do their homework well enough (certainly not to the extent they should have when putting their health on the line). These people did what all the advice says to do, they went to reputable practices in the UK and paid good money. They ended up with something possibly dangerous so the NHS rightly stepped in to remove them just in case. The reputable, expensive practices refused to take responsibility and instead blamed the Government for giving the ok for the products to be used. The mere fact these very rich practices - presumably with access to very good legal advice - were confident enough to say foxtrot oscar to claims to remove them would suggest their case is pretty rock solid and legal action wouldn't have worked....
They evidently went to somewhere with no professional indemnity insurance, paid for an expensive and potentially dangerous operation with no sort of insurance to cover issues with it and lucked out when the reputable place (what background checks did any of these people do?) they had the operation chose dubious materials that ARE NO MORE DANGEROUS than others available save for an increased risk (are you familiar with probability) that they may burst. Which isn't believed to be a fatal thing, but uncomfortable. Then again, the op they put THEMSELVES through was probably more than a bit uncomfortable for a while.
Thankfully the English NHS is at least not covering the full cost of rectification for private patients. Though if one single person has to go without cancer treatment, or perhaps a premature kid dies due to lack of funds that were spent on this sort of operation, how would that make you feel?
Sorry, forgot. Sitting their in your pants jumping up and down on your seat frothing at the mouth you are under the illusion that the NHS has an infinite amount of money to pay for an infinite amount of operations. You tool.
martin84 said:
...
So if the women lost their case what then? You expect them to be killed by the products they've bought? We know now that wouldn't have happened but what if they were dangerous? Are you saying if the legal option didn't work then the NHS and righteous 'taxpayer' should leave them all to die? When you pay good money and do the right thing - by not going to a back street foreign clinic on the cheap - you do expect some guarantees and protection. In your Britain we'd have left them to die.
Nope. I expect them to cough up and pay for the operation to be corrected. If they spent their very last penny on the original op that makes them even more mental than I would have originally thought. If they didn't, they can pay for it.So if the women lost their case what then? You expect them to be killed by the products they've bought? We know now that wouldn't have happened but what if they were dangerous? Are you saying if the legal option didn't work then the NHS and righteous 'taxpayer' should leave them all to die? When you pay good money and do the right thing - by not going to a back street foreign clinic on the cheap - you do expect some guarantees and protection. In your Britain we'd have left them to die.
Thankfully for them there are more people like you in the NHS thinking it's a bottomless money pit and they are agreeing to pay for at least the first part of the op (or all of it if you're Welsh - which is interesting as I thought Wales was one of the poorer parts of our nation).
You sound like you are excluding yourself from the ranks of the "righteous taxpayers". Which half do you not belong to? Or is it both?
As above, if you (sat there on your chair) had to decide between someone getting cancer treatment (let's make it a really on topic one and say breast cancer) or someone who of their own free will had breast augmentation and wanted it reversed (no burst bag, no health problems, just "worried" after they read the Daily Mail out to their pal Martin in his pants on his chair), which would you choose?
Fatuous scenario? Are you even remotely aware of the deficit we're running? Or the size of our National Debt? Do you really, REALLY think that this will all be OK if we tax the bankers a bit more? Do you think that decisions like this will not have to be made at some point, probably sooner rather than later? Because if you don't, I'm not sure which one of us is being more moronic
martin84 said:
They didn't know that at the time did they? Wasn't it best to just remove them? Better safe than sorry?
The second the private patient was told by the private surgery that their private operation might have been compromised by a private company supplying duff product, they could have done many things including- approach the private company who did the op to unwind it
- approach the small claims process to force the private company to unwind it
- pay for another private op to unwind it (this time taking care to read the small print)
All of which would have set their mind at rest no doubt, and removed any risk no matter of the scale in comparison to having had the surgery done with the correct product (do you know what the probability of a non-PIP bag bursting is?).
Still, they didn't, they waited and now the NHS will front up some of the cost. Happy days for them. They've paid their dues after all. Let's just hope that money's not need elsewhere eh
I notice you don't fancy playing King Solomon. But then I seem to recall you've mentioned before you don't like making tough decisions. Easier to dig one's head in the sand and pretend...
Murph7355 said:
The second the private patient was told by the private surgery that their private operation might have been compromised by a private company supplying duff product, they could have done many things including
- approach the private company who did the op to unwind it
The company refused.- approach the private company who did the op to unwind it
Murph7355 said:
- approach the small claims process to force the private company to unwind it
Takes too long when we're dealing with a matter of possible life and death. We know now it wasn't that serious but we didn't know then. And as I said earlier, for the Harley Street clinics to be confident enough to refuse corrective surgery then they must know they'd be able to win any court case and pin the blame on the Government. If the law indeed says the Government is at fault for these implants being implanted then it is the NHS's job to correct it whether you like it or not.Murph7355 said:
- pay for another private op to unwind it (this time taking care to read the small print)
Pathetic suggestion. Why should the customer have to pay twice because the first place used illegal material?Murph7355 said:
Still, they didn't, they waited and now the NHS will front up some of the cost. Happy days for them.
Oh yes I'm sure they're very happy, popping champagne and everything 
Earlier you compared this to buying a television which you're not happy with, which was quite idiotic. A television won't kill you. Ok you can say these implants won't kill you blah blah but nobody was sure of that at the time.
When you crash your car into a tree I do hope the paramedics leave you there. After all you chose to get in the car
martin84 said:
Oh yes I'm sure they're very happy, popping champagne and everything
Earlier you compared this to buying a television which you're not happy with, which was quite idiotic. A television won't kill you. Ok you can say these implants won't kill you blah blah but nobody was sure of that at the time.
When you crash your car into a tree I do hope the paramedics leave you there. After all you chose to get in the car
I've tried to be polite to you in previous debates, no matter how lacking in reality your angle is, but you really are a fEarlier you compared this to buying a television which you're not happy with, which was quite idiotic. A television won't kill you. Ok you can say these implants won't kill you blah blah but nobody was sure of that at the time.
When you crash your car into a tree I do hope the paramedics leave you there. After all you chose to get in the car
kwit.1) These are not going to kill anyone. I will bet you cash that more people have been killed with TV sets than by PIP implants. (Not that this was the thrust of those arbitrary personal purchases though).
Whether the fatality rate from the PIP (or lack thereof) is good fortune or not we will never know. The fact of the matter is we know that no one has died. We now know, or are at least led to believe (on the assumption that you also wear a tin foil hat), that they are no more likely to kill you than any other breast implant.
Ifs, buts and maybes. We know these things now so move on.
2) They paid to put them in. If they are fearful of their lives, then pay to get them out again plus haste. Don't wait for the "government" to sort it out for you if you're genuinely concerned.
3) When I crash my car into a tree, I am covered by insurances that could (and indeed should IMO) pay for the full costs of recovering me, treating me and seeing me back to health. I know that my chosen pastimes are potentially dangerous, I cover myself as much as possible and you would not find me bleating on here, pandering to your dungaree wearing opinions that the government should sort me out. After all, I've paid into the system FFS.
Always assuming I do actually crash my car into a tree you cretin.
Now. About that King Solomon proposition? Still not wanting to answer it?
Murph7355 said:
I've tried to be polite to you in previous debates, no matter how lacking in reality your angle is, but you really are a fkwit.
Really? So....kwit.Murph7355 said:
Are you jumping up and down in your seat all red faced yet?
Murph7355 said:
Sweating profusely and starting to dribble?
Murph7355 said:
Sitting their in your pants jumping up and down on your seat frothing at the mouth
...is your definition of polite is it?I'm not sure the man who compared a television set to an operation has the right to comment about anybody elses 'angle' lacking in reality.
Murph7355 said:
These are not going to kill anyone. I will bet you cash that more people have been killed with TV sets than by PIP implants. (Not that this was the thrust of those arbitrary personal purchases though).
Irrelevant now. As I said we know this information now. At the time all we knew was they'd used implants supposedly not fit for purpose, filled with the wrong grade silicone which may cause severe problems if they rupture. Working on that information the NHS removed them. You cannot judge a decision made then based on what you know now. So stop stamping your feet about how we know they won't kill anyone and quit with pathetic remarks about TV deaths v PIP deaths. I already know PH is a heavily right wing and frankly abusive website, but strawman arguments infuriate me even more.Murph7355 said:
they are no more likely to kill you than any other breast implant.
We didn't know that then.Murph7355 said:
They paid to put them in. If they are fearful of their lives, then pay to get them out again plus haste. Don't wait for the "government" to sort it out for you if you're genuinely concerned.
I'd rather the NHS do it than the patients end up going to some sort of hack because they can't afford another Harley Street operation. As I said they've gone to reputable UK based firms, they've not gone to a back alley in Estonia. If I go to Saville Row I don't expect to have to do the thread count myself.You're just another one of these outdated morons who thinks Government should take everything and do nothing.
Murph7355 said:
Always assuming I do actually crash my car into a tree you cretin.
Here's hoping. Personally I'm banking on a really big tree.hollydog said:
Its discusting that the goverment are covering their own arses & to protect the insurance companies & cosmetic companies , At the end of the day if they rupture inside your body your body reacts against it , surely its toxic . They havn't even mentioned about implant bleeding which other makes of implant don't do that. The ladies still didn't get what thay paid for. Lets see in 10 years time when ladies fall ill from this. Government will have to pay up then.
A couple of questions that arises from your heartfelt comments above-Why is it the Government's fault?
and
If the women concerned were able to find the money to pay for these cosmetic procedures when they were NOT necessary, how are they now unable to find the money now that they ARE necessary?
swerni said:
If the NHS aren't going to treat these people, can they also stop treating fat people, smokers and alcoholics.
These people know the harm they are doing to themselves and yet expect the tax payers to bail them out.
If you can afford to pay or your own cigarettes then you can afford to pay for your own cancer treatment.
Same goes for gastric bands.
Misleading analogy Mr S. If the implant leaked and caused issues then the NHS would provide whatever treatment would be deemed necessary. That's the same as a fat/smoker/alcoholic being treated for a secondary or 'contributed to' ailment (Blood pressure/cancer/liver failure). These people know the harm they are doing to themselves and yet expect the tax payers to bail them out.
If you can afford to pay or your own cigarettes then you can afford to pay for your own cancer treatment.
Same goes for gastric bands.
Granted in some extreme situations the NHS provides preventative treatment but very few and far between. Extracting these implants, I'm guessing would be preventative; replacing them would be one step further still.
I would also suggest gaining weight, becoming addicted to smoking or alcohol, is not such a conscious or quick thing until you are 'addicted' whereas having a breast enlargement is a single rational (???) decision where you are able to assess the risk. But I accept this is another debate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff