Your Tits are not killing you, love.
Discussion
JuniorD said:
The long term risks are one thing and people consider it to greater or lesser degree however the risk associated with PIP implants is an immediate short term risk which few would have chanced had they known....
This isn't what is being stated though.The "official" verdict, from people we have to assume are qualified to make such statements, is that
- these implants are not life threatening (carcinogenic, toxic etc)
- however, they do have double the risk of bursting
That does not make them a short term risk per se. If 1 in 100 (I'm making the figures up here - don't know the real failure rate) burst after 10yrs for a "quality" version, it means that 1 in 50 of the PIP will. If 1 in 100,000 quality ones burst after 6mths, 1 in 50,000 of the PIP will.
Now, as per the quality product it's eminently feasibly that some will never burst at all. And it's feasible that some will burst after a much shorter length of time. The probability is just higher. It guarantees/pre-determines nothing.
(I've just seen figures which suggest a quality implant has "up to" a 14% chance of bursting at 10yrs and a PIP 30%....so the outright figures in both cases are higher than my hypothetical example above, but the point still stands. Why anyone would put anything inside their body when nigh on 2 in 10 are expected to burst (even quality ones) after just 10yrs I do not know!).
Eric Mc said:
Maybe people should have been a little more cautious about putting themselves under the surgeon's knife when it wasn't always necessary?
Invasive surgery should never be a consumer commodity.
Especially when it is for pure vanity, which most cases are.Invasive surgery should never be a consumer commodity.
Plastic surgery and modification are almost an epidemic nowadays, especially in the United States of Whatever, and of course it will catch on in the UK as sure as night follows day.
Yes, it is the Daily Wail, but still....
Wail said:
Last month a survey by teen web-site WOWGO.com found two-thirds of girls aged 12 and 14 wanted cosmetic surgery. Most wanted fat removed from their stomach and hips, or breast implants. Both procedures are regarded by surgeons as inappropriate for teenagers unless there are overriding medical or psychological reasons.
In the U.S., plastic surgery is common among teenagers - more than 24,000 had operations last year, including 2,000 girls under 18 who had breast implants. Plastic surgery for teenagers is rarer in Britain, but is thought to be increasing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8214/Chi...
In the U.S., plastic surgery is common among teenagers - more than 24,000 had operations last year, including 2,000 girls under 18 who had breast implants. Plastic surgery for teenagers is rarer in Britain, but is thought to be increasing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8214/Chi...
I know that there is no established link between these implants and cancers or threat to life, however to have them burst and leak silicone into one's body is distinctly not f
king cool on a number of fronts. Plenty of other nasty problems can arise as a result. These women have got the stty end of the stick through no fault of their own. I don't agree that the NHS should foot the bill for rectifying the problem where private clinics were involved but it is absolutelty not right that the private clinics was their hands of the sorry situation.
To me, the reasons why the women chose to have implants does not enter the equation and does not make them culpable for the substandard implants they received. Women wanting nice tits to make them feel good is not really any different from a bloke wanting a flash car or a woman with nice tits on his arm.
king cool on a number of fronts. Plenty of other nasty problems can arise as a result. These women have got the stty end of the stick through no fault of their own. I don't agree that the NHS should foot the bill for rectifying the problem where private clinics were involved but it is absolutelty not right that the private clinics was their hands of the sorry situation.To me, the reasons why the women chose to have implants does not enter the equation and does not make them culpable for the substandard implants they received. Women wanting nice tits to make them feel good is not really any different from a bloke wanting a flash car or a woman with nice tits on his arm.
JuniorD said:
To me, the reasons why the women chose to have implants does not enter the equation and does not make them culpable for the substandard implants they received. Women wanting nice tits to make them feel good is not really any different from a bloke wanting a flash car or a woman with nice tits on his arm.
Even though they are artificial? That would be the same as having an BMW328 with M3 badges on it.Eric Mc said:
Too many uses of the words "could" and "might" (not "mite" by the way - that's a little creature that can cause skin problems - oh wait).
Did people really go ahead with these procedures without really thinking about the long term risks associated with them?
Sorry no guarantees in life apart from paying taxes and death. Did people really go ahead with these procedures without really thinking about the long term risks associated with them?
singlecoil said:
JuniorD said:
To me, the reasons why the women chose to have implants does not enter the equation and does not make them culpable for the substandard implants they received. Women wanting nice tits to make them feel good is not really any different from a bloke wanting a flash car or a woman with nice tits on his arm.
Even though they are artificial? That would be the same as having an BMW328 with M3 badges on it.Most women dont get tits done because they have a great rack and want to bigger - this isnt 328 to an M3. This is a skate board to a Ford Focus for many! It's why the people who say "real ones are better" miss the point - real nice ones are better! It's like telling an amputee a real arm is better than a fake one....he doesnt have the real arm option!
And lastly, rightly or wrongly, in 2012 fake tits are not a scam where the guy is tricked into touching something nasty when he expected "real" ones! Done right, fake tits are fine - and a HUGE number of women who appear in (insert any magazine) Top 100 will have them (even if you dont know - posh spice style is not the norm!) In reality they are no more consider an "artifical" part of a person than teeth veneers, make up, fake tan, etc, etc.
I remember a TV show a while ago - they asked a load of blokes "fake or real" - 90% said real. They then showed a load of blokes topless women and most picked the one who (unknown to them) had fake ones.
JuniorD said:
I know that there is no established link between these implants and cancers or threat to life, however to have them burst and leak silicone into one's body is distinctly not fking cool on a number of fronts. Plenty of other nasty problems can arise as a result. These women have got the stty end of the stick through no fault of their own. I don't agree that the NHS should foot the bill for rectifying the problem where private clinics were involved but it is absolutelty not right that the private clinics was their hands of the sorry situation.
.
I'm not wishing to sound argumentative for the sake of it but surely it was of their choice to have invasive surgery that carries risk. Admittedly that risk wasn't necessarily known at the time, but it was and is still known that this type of surgery does carry risk.king cool on a number of fronts. Plenty of other nasty problems can arise as a result. These women have got the stty end of the stick through no fault of their own. I don't agree that the NHS should foot the bill for rectifying the problem where private clinics were involved but it is absolutelty not right that the private clinics was their hands of the sorry situation..
You also state that you don't agree the NHS should foot the bill but you did state earlier that the Government were culpable (my words) as the NHS had carried out corrective surgery on those patients they had used PIPs on. Again I disagree, that does not indicate culpability on the overall scheme. I'm only guessing here but I would assume NHS procedures were less cosmetic and more psychological or even necessary medical procedures.
It is interesting as to where does liability lie, and again I'm guessing, but I would suggest that if a danger should be be proven (and I appreciate the difficulties etc) then the clinics would have to bear ultimate responsibility as the supplier is no more. However what we have here is a fear and concern that things may not be right. To use an automotive analogy (of sorts) the cambelt isn't going to automatically catastrophically fail, its life is reduced from 80,000 miles to 50,000 miles. Regrettably until a few belts fail catastrophically no insurance company (or judge??) is going to insist that it is replaced after a few miles.
As has been said many times, if it were me, I would pay to have the belt replaced for the peace of mind and pursue the cost after/if it was nec.
Tiggsy said:
singlecoil said:
JuniorD said:
To me, the reasons why the women chose to have implants does not enter the equation and does not make them culpable for the substandard implants they received. Women wanting nice tits to make them feel good is not really any different from a bloke wanting a flash car or a woman with nice tits on his arm.
Even though they are artificial? That would be the same as having an BMW328 with M3 badges on it.Most women dont get tits done because they have a great rack and want to bigger - this isnt 328 to an M3. This is a skate board to a Ford Focus for many! It's why the people who say "real ones are better" miss the point - real nice ones are better! It's like telling an amputee a real arm is better than a fake one....he doesnt have the real arm option!
And lastly, rightly or wrongly, in 2012 fake tits are not a scam where the guy is tricked into touching something nasty when he expected "real" ones! Done right, fake tits are fine - and a HUGE number of women who appear in (insert any magazine) Top 100 will have them (even if you dont know - posh spice style is not the norm!) In reality they are no more consider an "artifical" part of a person than teeth veneers, make up, fake tan, etc, etc.
I remember a TV show a while ago - they asked a load of blokes "fake or real" - 90% said real. They then showed a load of blokes topless women and most picked the one who (unknown to them) had fake ones.
singlecoil said:
I don't believe the BMW analogy is flawed in the slightest, in fact, the more I think about it, the more perfect I realise it is. In the end, it's not really a question of how the breasts, or the women that have them 'look', it's what people know about them that matters. Consider two pices of antique looking furniture. One is a fake, and the other is real, but no-one can tell the difference. Does it matter? Well, that's a personal POV thing. To me, it would matter, but anyone who doesn't care about that sort of thing should go ahead and book their wife or girlfriend in for a 'boob job'.
Just read the small print first and be 100% cognisent of the risks 
Boshly said:
I'm not wishing to sound argumentative for the sake of it but surely it was of their choice to have invasive surgery that carries risk. Admittedly that risk wasn't necessarily known at the time, but it was and is still known that this type of surgery does carry risk.
You also state that you don't agree the NHS should foot the bill but you did state earlier that the Government were culpable (my words) as the NHS had carried out corrective surgery on those patients they had used PIPs on. Again I disagree, that does not indicate culpability on the overall scheme. I'm only guessing here but I would assume NHS procedures were less cosmetic and more psychological or even necessary medical procedures.
It is interesting as to where does liability lie, and again I'm guessing, but I would suggest that if a danger should be be proven (and I appreciate the difficulties etc) then the clinics would have to bear ultimate responsibility as the supplier is no more. However what we have here is a fear and concern that things may not be right. To use an automotive analogy (of sorts) the cambelt isn't going to automatically catastrophically fail, its life is reduced from 80,000 miles to 50,000 miles. Regrettably until a few belts fail catastrophically no insurance company (or judge??) is going to insist that it is replaced after a few miles.
As has been said many times, if it were me, I would pay to have the belt replaced for the peace of mind and pursue the cost after/if it was nec.
I do agree about surgery carries risks. But the stuff they put inside you really after 40 years of implants should be the right silicone. The governing bodies should have been checking these things more regularly not just trusting the manufacturer and they are at the end reasonable for letting this go on for too long with out checking them.You also state that you don't agree the NHS should foot the bill but you did state earlier that the Government were culpable (my words) as the NHS had carried out corrective surgery on those patients they had used PIPs on. Again I disagree, that does not indicate culpability on the overall scheme. I'm only guessing here but I would assume NHS procedures were less cosmetic and more psychological or even necessary medical procedures.
It is interesting as to where does liability lie, and again I'm guessing, but I would suggest that if a danger should be be proven (and I appreciate the difficulties etc) then the clinics would have to bear ultimate responsibility as the supplier is no more. However what we have here is a fear and concern that things may not be right. To use an automotive analogy (of sorts) the cambelt isn't going to automatically catastrophically fail, its life is reduced from 80,000 miles to 50,000 miles. Regrettably until a few belts fail catastrophically no insurance company (or judge??) is going to insist that it is replaced after a few miles.
As has been said many times, if it were me, I would pay to have the belt replaced for the peace of mind and pursue the cost after/if it was nec.
What ever is said about it being safe or not the silicone is still wrong and the capsules where not made correctly. And there are still ladies getting ill from this. Short term or long term.
hollydog said:
What ever is said about it being safe or not the silicone is still wrong and the capsules where not made correctly. And there are still ladies getting ill from this. Short term or long term.
There's no doubt that the materials used were far from ideal. I personally have no knowledge of whether or not there are any women ('ladies' sounds a little affected in this context) who are ill as a result, but, accepting that there are, then surely the issues are whose fault is it, and what should be done about it? I cannot see why the British Government should be blamed, they can't be expected to have a sufficiently skilled representative constantly supervising the production in a foreign country.
It seems to me that the people who are to blame are the manufacturers, and their demise means that unless they had product liabilty insurance there is no-one to sue. I do hope that there are no women who, suspecting that they are ill, are leaving things as they are while they wait for someone else to sort it out.
singlecoil said:
There's no doubt that the materials used were far from ideal. I personally have no knowledge of whether or not there are any women ('ladies' sounds a little affected in this context) who are ill as a result, but, accepting that there are, then surely the issues are whose fault is it, and what should be done about it?
I cannot see why the British Government should be blamed, they can't be expected to have a sufficiently skilled representative constantly supervising the production in a foreign country.
It seems to me that the people who are to blame are the manufacturers, and their demise means that unless they had product liabilty insurance there is no-one to sue. I do hope that there are no women who, suspecting that they are ill, are leaving things as they are while they wait for someone else to sort it out.
Yes you are right but in this case the company has gone. And the British government are partly to blame for letting it go on for so long. A top surgeon informed the hmra back in 05 and they ignored it. So that makes them partly responsible.I cannot see why the British Government should be blamed, they can't be expected to have a sufficiently skilled representative constantly supervising the production in a foreign country.
It seems to me that the people who are to blame are the manufacturers, and their demise means that unless they had product liabilty insurance there is no-one to sue. I do hope that there are no women who, suspecting that they are ill, are leaving things as they are while they wait for someone else to sort it out.
The government has now said that thing have been changed so something like this doesn't happen again. So that means they are putting there hands up and admitting then messed up.
hollydog said:
The government has now said that thing have been changed so something like this doesn't happen again. So that means they are putting there hands up and admitting then messed up.
Making sure that something doesn't happen again doesn't automatically mean that the body making that assurance is responsible for that thing having happened in the first place.singlecoil said:
hollydog said:
The government has now said that thing have been changed so something like this doesn't happen again. So that means they are putting there hands up and admitting then messed up.
Making sure that something doesn't happen again doesn't automatically mean that the body making that assurance is responsible for that thing having happened in the first place.Materials were provided to the manufacturer without a cert to say it was 'medical' grade, the manufacturer then put them together and certified them and they met the criteria so were ultimately allowed to be fitted in the UK. So they met the criteria to satisfy the medical regulators in the UK, these are not the government. The government can then force a regulatory body who is not performing to change the criteria.
At the end of the day the research has pointed out that the material was just not certified (it is the same substance, beds or implants), the construction on the other hand was the problem.
singlecoil said:
Tiggsy said:
singlecoil said:
JuniorD said:
To me, the reasons why the women chose to have implants does not enter the equation and does not make them culpable for the substandard implants they received. Women wanting nice tits to make them feel good is not really any different from a bloke wanting a flash car or a woman with nice tits on his arm.
Even though they are artificial? That would be the same as having an BMW328 with M3 badges on it.Most women dont get tits done because they have a great rack and want to bigger - this isnt 328 to an M3. This is a skate board to a Ford Focus for many! It's why the people who say "real ones are better" miss the point - real nice ones are better! It's like telling an amputee a real arm is better than a fake one....he doesnt have the real arm option!
And lastly, rightly or wrongly, in 2012 fake tits are not a scam where the guy is tricked into touching something nasty when he expected "real" ones! Done right, fake tits are fine - and a HUGE number of women who appear in (insert any magazine) Top 100 will have them (even if you dont know - posh spice style is not the norm!) In reality they are no more consider an "artifical" part of a person than teeth veneers, make up, fake tan, etc, etc.
I remember a TV show a while ago - they asked a load of blokes "fake or real" - 90% said real. They then showed a load of blokes topless women and most picked the one who (unknown to them) had fake ones.
t, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!Tiggsy said:
Two bits of furniture - one is real but st, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!
You can say that I can't, but I did. I can see that you are not getting my point, but don't know how else to explain it to you.t, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!Let me try a more direct method. I don't care what size a woman's breasts are, if I care about her personality. I have long been happily married to a woman who is happy with her body the way it is. Were I not married, I would much prefer a woman who had small but real breasts to one who had a couple of bags of silicone inside her body. I accept that you hold a diferent view.
singlecoil said:
Tiggsy said:
Two bits of furniture - one is real but st, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!
You can say that I can't, but I did. I can see that you are not getting my point, but don't know how else to explain it to you.t, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!Let me try a more direct method. I don't care what size a woman's breasts are.
Tiggsy said:
singlecoil said:
Tiggsy said:
Two bits of furniture - one is real but st, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!
You can say that I can't, but I did. I can see that you are not getting my point, but don't know how else to explain it to you.t, the other a reproduction of a stunning piece. Again, you can't compare apples with oranges because, pre-job, the women dont have mellons!Let me try a more direct method. I don't care what size a woman's breasts are.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff