Pip implants - who should foot the bill

Reminds me of when I enquired about Cryogenics, they wanted £150,000.

I said you're joking, the Butcher's on the high street said he could freeze me for 50p a pound.

 

Lmao!

 

There is a big difference between a needed hip replacement and a private breast enhancement

If the breast enhancement was not a needed operation for medical reasons then tough, or at the worst case then the NHS shoud REMOVE but NOT REPLACE
These artificail women can then go about as they were born or PAY the correct price for correct implants

Jack McH

 

I don't understand what all the confusion is about. The law is very clear.

Its under the Sale of Goods act 1990 as amended.

Despite the name of the piece of law, it is not just about goods, but also services too.

Basically, when you buy anything in the UK, there is a contract of sale. That contract may be a formal written contract, or it may be an unspoken understanding, or anything in between. Regardless, there is a set of contract terms that always apply and can't be overwritten. These are called 'implied terms', and are defined in the Sale of Goods act.

One of the most important points in the law is that 'goods must be as described, fit for their intended purpose, and of serviceable quality'. Basically that means it must not be faulty, unless described as faulty.

When a seller breaches the implied terms of the contract, ie when the goods (or service) is not as described etc, then he/she is in breach of contract.

Another of the implied terms (written in the Sale of Goods act) describes what must happen when the seller is in breach. He/she must offer a refund, repair or replacement, at the buyer's discretion.

That means the buyer has the right to claim all their costs back, and no more.

Simple.

 

Dead right, clueless.

Jack, to have an implant that has been in place for some years removed means the woman is left with grossly abnormal 'bags' for breasts. Hardly an acceptable condition to leave them in. It wasn't their fault they were sold faulty goods.

 

Years ago Channel 4 did a programme on cryogenics. A budget service was available. This did not involve freezing an entire body. Instead, the customer could opt to have only his head placed in cold storage, in the hope that future generations would have learnt the art of reconstituting the remainder of the body from scratch. The head could simply be reattached to the new body with a bit of deft stitchwork.

One of the tv critics of the time dismissed this as pure silliness. Imagine, he wrote, having to spend all eternity wearing polo-necks.

 

OK, so these implants weren't of medical merchandable quality and therefore not fit for the purpose for which they were used - that I accept.

Apart from the fact that I can't begin to understand why you'd choose to have totally unncessary and highly invasive surgery purely on the grounds of vanity, as I understand it, these implants have been banned in the US since 2000. Yes, so sometimes the US over-reacts, but these women were so keen to have it done that rather than doing even a little research, they still chose to go ahead and agreed to have these particular implants.

The phrase 'caveat emptor' is the one which springs to mind and why I/we should be expected to pick up the bill for their stupidity is beyond me.

 

Quite so, shiney, and very well put.

The implants were much, much cheaper than the rest of the market which (as one person said on tv this am) that should have alerted the surgeons and hospitals to the possibility of them being substandard. And the fact remains that these supposedly bio-compatible devices were filled with industrial type silicone which is far from being bio-compatible.

But the important fact is that the patients didn't choose these particular implants, their surgeons did. Very few actually have any idea of the make of their implants just as patients who have hip or knee implants rarely know what type they have received and often don't even know if they are cemented or uncemented. In this country we are brought up to trust the surgeons and accept without question what they think is best and appropriate. That is why I still say the surgeons should be the ones responsible for this.

And another factor that cannot be easily dismissed is that, even for those who did have this surgery out of 'vanity', they have now moved into the arena of potentially serious complications which changes the whole thing. They had also been assured that even if the implant did rupture, the filling was a semi-solid "like a jelly baby" so just tear and there was no risk of it leaking out into the body. Totally wrong - it's a semi-liquid and readily enters the lymphatic system. So some women have developed painful glands all over their body which are full of this silicone, some have developed hardened and extremely painful tissue in and around their breasts. They need help.

There was a young lady on breakfast tv this am who said she has been having symptoms of pain and swelling and has been back to the clinic several times, each time the nurse has just told her not to worry! :DOH:

I'll be most surprised if there isn't a class action law suit under construction .....

 

If we sell a car on behalf of a client and it fails, it is our responsibility as the seller (ie; we issued the invoice to the purchaser) to sort it out and recover our costs from the previous owner - even if "sold as seen".

However, the government will not allow these healthcare providers to fail as that would not fit in with their plans for our NHS!

 

They can afford £4k to enlarge their breasts, Though they can not afford to pay to save their life ?
Or they can take on debt to enhance, but are not prepared to take on debt to save their life, odd outlook on life

They can have them removed, then if they want enhanced breasts again they can do what they did before, pay for them

Anything more than a mouthful is wasted anyway

Jack McH

 

Would be ace if they taste like jelly babies too so if it ruptured you eat it :D

 

Sorry to be boring a throw in a serious point, but...

I have no idea of the statistics, but sometimes breast implants are not purely about ladies wanting to look more well endowed (or being 'encouraged' by their husbands/boyfriends). Sometimes a lady will have had a perfectly fine pair for most of her life, and then tragically, through serious illness such as breast cancer, have to have one or both removed. As a bloke, I can't even begin to imagine how this must make the lady feel, but I know that in some cases the NHS pay for implants because the drastic measure has such a negative impact on the lady's emotional/psychological state that for her long term happiness and wellbeing, measures are taken to help the affected lady feel comfortable with herself again. This sometimes includes the use of implants to replace what had to be surgically removed due to life threatening illness.

 

It was stated earlier for VANITY purposes NOT for medical purposes

Having any of them removed is OK we pay for it, If for medical purposes then we replace, if for Vanity then they get them removed only with the option of paying for a replacement, after all they managed to find the money to get them enhanced, then find the money to enhance them again after we have saved your life
Though I suppose if you think about it needing them enhanced for vanity is a mental health problem of a feeling of inadequacy

What is the website for the extra inches again?

Can hubby sue for marrying a 38G when in reality it is 30AAA ?
Thank goodness they did not use Memory foam

Jack McH