Your Tits are not killing you, love.
Discussion
God knows why the medical practitioner that put them in isn't being told to sort it out at theirs or their PI insurances expense.
Admittedly the substance may not be toxic but pretty sure of they burst it isn't going make you healthier.
The medical profession have made profit of using substandard goods - therefore they should pay for any implant and replacement not the Governement.
Any other profession would have to pay for using bad product.
Admittedly the substance may not be toxic but pretty sure of they burst it isn't going make you healthier.
The medical profession have made profit of using substandard goods - therefore they should pay for any implant and replacement not the Governement.
Any other profession would have to pay for using bad product.
swerni said:
singlecoil said:
swerni said:
But surely if they can afford to smoke and drink then they can afford the treatment
Not my logic, singlecoil's
But your extrapolation.Not my logic, singlecoil's
It's just applying your rules to a different data set.
I think it's called "consistency"
When a business supplies goods as part of its trading activity, who has the responsibility for ensuring the "goods" or "materials used" are of merchantable quality? For normal products, the Sale of Goods Act makes the end supplier i.e. the retailer, the one who carries this responsibilty and must make the correction or provide a refund.
It seems that when sub-standard or non-approved materials are supplied as part of a medical procedure then the Sale of Good Act does not apply.
I would argue that modern cosmetic surgery "on demand" has moved away from a pure medical procedure and is marketed and promoted as a consumer service. If that is the case, the Sale of Goods regulations should apply.
It seems that when sub-standard or non-approved materials are supplied as part of a medical procedure then the Sale of Good Act does not apply.
I would argue that modern cosmetic surgery "on demand" has moved away from a pure medical procedure and is marketed and promoted as a consumer service. If that is the case, the Sale of Goods regulations should apply.
swerni said:
Don't try to be patronising, it really makes you look pathetic.
But if your more comfortable with that than having a logical debate, them so be it.
I'm not actually trying to have a debate with you, I simply put forward my own point of view and asked a question. You turned my question into something else. I took issue with that, as I am entitled to do. No need to get your knickers in a twist, why not, instead, put forward your own point of view?But if your more comfortable with that than having a logical debate, them so be it.
martin84 said:
Here's hoping. Personally I'm banking on a really big tree.
Nice. You see some idiocy posted in this section at times, but a "I'm right and hope you have a bad accident" really does put you on the top of the pile. Well done. You've finally excelled at something.(Incidentally, read back through your posts and recall who began taking this from reasoned debate to personal affronts, culminating in the above).
You are still ducking the King Solomon question. People like you always do. You live in this wonderful ideal world where everyone can get whatever they like regardless of who has to pay for it. People can do whatever they like and have to take no responsibility for their actions.
The previous Labour governments loved people like you. And the country will go bankrupt because of people like you who cannot face up to reality.
The facts of this topic are (regardless of the ifs, buts and maybes) that some women elected to put themselves under the knife at their own cost. The wrong product was used but it is no more harmful than other products, but it does have an increased probability of bursting (from what %age to what %age neither of us know, but I would guess small otherwise we'd have been reading about women with exploding tits in the press). The NHS will cover part of the cost for private patients who, frankly, can evidently afford to cover the whole cost if they're really worried.
In the overall scheme of things, that doesn't strike me as good use of "govt" funds (as you seem upset at references to who generates those funds) . I really hope one of your relatives doesn't have to go without a necessary treatment due to lack of funds in the NHS and because people like you couldn't face up to reality.
(Eric has a good point ref the Sale of Goods Act. Does it definitively not apply, as I would very much think it would...if the women could prove the product is not fit for purpose. If it isn't, then I cannot believe that line of approach would not work. If it is, then this is a non-story, Again, no matter what might have been).
swerni said:
I think the private practices should have to pay for supplying inferior goods.
If it is shown they were not negligent, then it goes back to the manufacturer, which as we know can't pay so it should come down to the country that company paid tax in, ie the French.
I agreeIf it is shown they were not negligent, then it goes back to the manufacturer, which as we know can't pay so it should come down to the country that company paid tax in, ie the French.
swerni said:
The point I was trying to make was you can't differentiate between one group of patients and another. Everyone has a right to treatment in this country regardless if you agree or not.
If you're going to start distinguishing between who should and shouldn't be treated, where do you draw the line? Smokers, drinkers, obesity, the self employed?
And my point is that I haven't said how I feel about any other group of people that can be said to have had a hand in causing their current health problem. Those discussions are for another day. If you're going to start distinguishing between who should and shouldn't be treated, where do you draw the line? Smokers, drinkers, obesity, the self employed?
What I am asking is why people who could, at one point, pay for something that they wanted rather than needed now find themselves unwilling to pay for something that they need? I'm already on record on this thread as having said that I've no argument with the NHS removing faulty implants, but as I understand it, these women want new implants as well, replacement rather than removal.
Edited by singlecoil on Tuesday 19th June 11:07
I don't no how they can say the pip are not carcinogenic when if you look at the individual chemicals the made the gel up. When 3 of them are.
The government just will not tell the truth about these implants they are fault and the gel inside was not meant to be inside the body . Even pip didn't put the sealing coat on the capsules to stop silicone bleed .
If a part on a car came back with 2% failure rate there would be a call back so why are they not doing the same with pip.
They said no lasting bad effects from this stuff . Do you think the ladies that are going in and out of hospitals agree with that. My wife at the beginning of the year spent 3 months with a cancer scare over these . And she didn't have them done for vanity reasons either before any one starts. And we still are not clear on what these lumps are. The hospital sent us away with no idea what they are either.
The government say that the pip are twice as likely to rupture than other makes of implant. Ask the surgeon's that are replacing them they say it a matter of time they will all rupture and the rate at the moment is over 30%.So the government are lying about that.
The government and the governing body that clear these over 10 years ago are responsible as much as the clinics . Not the women that paid for a good product that they didn't get. A car has to have a mot every year so why are medical things not check as much.
The clinic my wife used showed us an implant made from from a company call allergan which are a good implant then they put pips in with out telling us and that happened 100s of times.
The company also new they was some thing wrong with these implant back in 2005 i know that for a fact because the guarantees changed 3 time since 05 . In 05 there was a 10 guarantee then was changed too 6 years then in 09 was changed to 3 years that tells me that they new there was a problem and that as a way of getting out of it. My wife was one of the last ones to have these pips in late 09.
The government just will not tell the truth about these implants they are fault and the gel inside was not meant to be inside the body . Even pip didn't put the sealing coat on the capsules to stop silicone bleed .
If a part on a car came back with 2% failure rate there would be a call back so why are they not doing the same with pip.
They said no lasting bad effects from this stuff . Do you think the ladies that are going in and out of hospitals agree with that. My wife at the beginning of the year spent 3 months with a cancer scare over these . And she didn't have them done for vanity reasons either before any one starts. And we still are not clear on what these lumps are. The hospital sent us away with no idea what they are either.
The government say that the pip are twice as likely to rupture than other makes of implant. Ask the surgeon's that are replacing them they say it a matter of time they will all rupture and the rate at the moment is over 30%.So the government are lying about that.
The government and the governing body that clear these over 10 years ago are responsible as much as the clinics . Not the women that paid for a good product that they didn't get. A car has to have a mot every year so why are medical things not check as much.
The clinic my wife used showed us an implant made from from a company call allergan which are a good implant then they put pips in with out telling us and that happened 100s of times.
The company also new they was some thing wrong with these implant back in 2005 i know that for a fact because the guarantees changed 3 time since 05 . In 05 there was a 10 guarantee then was changed too 6 years then in 09 was changed to 3 years that tells me that they new there was a problem and that as a way of getting out of it. My wife was one of the last ones to have these pips in late 09.
Its going to court. With the clinic that did the surgery.
There original answer was that. Its not our fault the implants are faulty. If that's the cast its not the patient either so why should they have to suffer for it. And foot the bill to have them changed.
All the surgeon's where warned about these in there surgeon's journal years ago but they still carried on using them. Its there own faults they should own up to it.
It doesn't matter weather the ordinal company as gone. The government have some kind of responsibility. Its funny they have said that they are changing things so this doesn't happening again. isn't that putting ya hands up and saying we f--ked up in the first place.
There original answer was that. Its not our fault the implants are faulty. If that's the cast its not the patient either so why should they have to suffer for it. And foot the bill to have them changed.
All the surgeon's where warned about these in there surgeon's journal years ago but they still carried on using them. Its there own faults they should own up to it.
It doesn't matter weather the ordinal company as gone. The government have some kind of responsibility. Its funny they have said that they are changing things so this doesn't happening again. isn't that putting ya hands up and saying we f--ked up in the first place.
Edited by hollydog on Tuesday 19th June 12:15
This has been said before . To put it another way if a car part fails and the makers of that part are not in business any more its up to the company to put it right that puts the car together not the customer.The same applies to the implant. Also if its paid for on a credit card section 75 should apply. The government are just dragging there heals and cover there own f--k ups. The implant should have been tested more regularly i think that is going to happen now. They already no that the capsules where not made correctly that's enough for a clamp and that is enough to say they are faulty.
Yet again if its not the fault of the surgeons then its certainly not the fault of the customer.
The mhra should have done more testing they new there was something not right back in 05 some cosmetic surgeons warned them and they choose to ignore it.
Yet again if its not the fault of the surgeons then its certainly not the fault of the customer.
The mhra should have done more testing they new there was something not right back in 05 some cosmetic surgeons warned them and they choose to ignore it.
That is the main issue. Is the supplier of medical services and related materials subject to the same type of legal onus as a supplier of consumer goods?
In my opinion, they should be. However, the law is very unclear at the moment and these court cases may point the way to a change in the legislation covering "consumer driven" cosmetic surgery as opposed to pure "medical/health driven" cosmetic surgery.
In my opinion, they should be. However, the law is very unclear at the moment and these court cases may point the way to a change in the legislation covering "consumer driven" cosmetic surgery as opposed to pure "medical/health driven" cosmetic surgery.
hollydog said:
This has been said before . To put it another way if a car part fails and the makers of that part are not in business any more its up to the company to put it right that puts the car together not the customer.The same applies to the implant. Also if its paid for on a credit card section 75 should apply. The government are just dragging there heals and cover there own f--k ups. The implant should have been tested more regularly i think that is going to happen now. They already no that the capsules where not made correctly that's enough for a clamp and that is enough to say they are faulty.
Yet again if its not the fault of the surgeons then its certainly not the fault of the customer.
The mhra should have done more testing they new there was something not right back in 05 some cosmetic surgeons warned them and they choose to ignore it.
Thanks for that, but who is being sued? and is there any risk to your wife in the meantime?Yet again if its not the fault of the surgeons then its certainly not the fault of the customer.
The mhra should have done more testing they new there was something not right back in 05 some cosmetic surgeons warned them and they choose to ignore it.
bobbylondonuk said:
Why cant the individual doctors/surgeons be taken to court? The replacement will be put in very soon I guess!
Who do you sue?If you have a beef against a solicitor or an accountant, if you are suing, you usually attempt to sue the firm they work for, rather than the individual.
If the firm no longer exists, then, in some cases, individuals can be pursued through the courts.
Who is at fault here -
the practice the surgeon worked for?
the surgeon who carried out the operation?
the supplier of the sub-standard part?
Consumer legislation, if it applied, whould point the blame firmly at the door of the practice rather than the individual or the supplier.
We don't no the ricks no one will no for years. There are a lot of ladies out there with problems and a few have died but its trying to prove a link. My wife's has had lumps in one of her breasts the hospital messed us around and they sent us away with out knowing what it is . They just guessed.
I would imagine if any one tried to make a clamp on there life insurance about an illness the insurance company will try and get out of paying if the lady has pips in or had them in.
I would imagine if any one tried to make a clamp on there life insurance about an illness the insurance company will try and get out of paying if the lady has pips in or had them in.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff