[Sunnycat]

Agree with Betteboop (as usual!)

[greengoddess]

The company no longer exists, so no-one to sue to recover the costs.

The surgery might have been elective, but the women involved didn't choose to have faulty/sub-standard implants inserted into their bodies. The government approved them - without any rigorous testing presumably? - so they are responsible. I think the government should pay to have them removed, though I am not sure they should pay for new ones. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, the implants themselves are not the pricey part of the operation, so if the women are having the others removed, could new ones not be slipped in at the same time? I mean, they don't need to line up an entirely new operation, so perhaps the costs will be lower?

Regarding the PP's point that the same could be said for smoking - we actually do pay for lung cancer treatment and so on through the public health system. So I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be.

[Done]

shouldn't all surgeons have to remove them at their cost. even though they didn't know the product they were supplying was not what they thought, they were the ones that installed it.

i know it's a very different to buying something at a department store, but if the product goes wrong, I take it to the department store not the supplier. The department store then deals with the supplier.

And yes the supplier is no longer around, but is that not what the doctors insurance is for?

[jo074]

shouldn't all surgeons have to remove them at their cost. even though they didn't know the product they were supplying was not what they thought, they were the ones that installed it.

Some are - a friend's are leaking and her surgeon is replacing them for free.

[AvadaKedavra]

shouldn't all surgeons have to remove them at their cost. even though they didn't know the product they were supplying was not what they thought, they were the ones that installed it.

i know it's a very different to buying something at a department store, but if the product goes wrong, I take it to the department store not the supplier. The department store then deals with the supplier.

And yes the supplier is no longer around, but is that not what the doctors insurance is for?

The surgeon doesn't buy the implants. Women are often given a choice of implants and then a recommendation. The women then 'buy' the implants - they are billed separately for it and the surgeon does not make a profit or get any incentive for using one over another.

Should taxpayers pay for people who ride BMXs and fall off and break their arms? Or people who drive their cars a bit fast and crash them. Or people who weren't watching where they were walking and tripped and broke an ankle? Or people who eat too much and end up with diabetes. Or people who have a couple drinks and fall down some stairs and get a head injury. Or people who choose to have children (child bearing is pretty high risk, after all). We have something called universal health care for a reason. It's universal. And blame free. That's the point.

The company that makes them does exist (the distributor has separated the two arms of their business, but wouldn't have been liable anyway. The givernment can choose to sue the parent company if they want. And many surgeons ARE doing the procedure for no out ofmpocket cost, but the private hospitals of course still bill for the bed, theatre time, etc.

[fezzy]

If lives are at risks then the gov *should* pay like they pay for health care for those with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, serious injuries from carrying out 'dangerous' activities etc etc that are a direct result of their lifestyle and choices.

[PinkSurvivor]

Yes. These women had implants that were assessed and found safe by our government. Women got them believing them to be safe.

Whether someone had reconstructive or cosmetic surgery is irrelevant.

Agree

For the record I am impressed with my breast reconstruction and the government covered it but obviously because of mastectomy so its a little different. I am so grateful they are willing to give me and other women the ability to get our confidence back, and be able to feel like a woman again!

[powertripper]

Another example of why vanity surgery should be illegal. Absolutely ridiculous.

[bakesgirls]

I think they should pay.

Ignoring the debate about reconstructive v elective cosmetic surgery, the govt. would save more money removing them now, then treating people long term for side effects caused by the dodgy implants.

[trishalishous]

I think they should pay.

Ignoring the debate about reconstructive v elective cosmetic surgery, the govt. would save more money removing them now, then treating people long term for side effects caused by the dodgy implants.

Good point. on the financial side it may end up cheaper to treat people now.