yeah, but at present the research suggest that they don't pose a serious risk

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:00, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

Is this UK taxpayers problem?

(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:02, Reply)

natural selection innit, those that can afford to get the removed will survive
those who can't...
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:03, Reply)

..will need bigger coffins.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:10, Reply)

Then why are they replacing them at all if there is no risk?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:03, Reply)

People and the media kicking up a fuss.
There is a risk, they're not medical grade and should never have been used. However the risk is so low that there's not enough data to suggest a failure rate.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:05, Reply)

They're not fit for the purpous they were built for", statuary rights or something like that, isn't it?
Surly whoever did it should replace them, and claim it on their malpractice insurance?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:08, Reply)

yeah but only if the risk of failure is higher than the risk of an opperation
as I mentioned up there www.b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post1494289
(PsychoChomp, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:13, Reply)

legally they are the same as any other 'vendor' yes.
They should replace them, but not the NHS. The NHS should just remove them, and I'm still pissed off that they will have to do this in some cases. Besides, smokers and drinkers pay their tax don't they. There isn't a titty tax.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:15, Reply)

I think the NHS should replace them if they were put in by the NHS,
You can only get plastic surgery and reconstruction on the NHS not cosmetic, so these women have had breast cancer or something not just wanted bigger boobs.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:17, Reply)

Oh aye yeah

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:23, Reply)

this would be true
were it not for the fact there isn't one single medical reason to replace them, it's total press scaremongering. And press scaremongering that started in France, let us not forget. A country where you are allowed to be registered with as many doctors as you like in case the one you usually use won't prescribe you enough shit to shut you up.

It's like asking Texas and Arizona to advise on liberal immigration lawmaking, really
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:46, Reply)

Thank fuck
My moobs would cost me a fortune
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:18, Reply)

I always thought it was up to where-ever they were purchased from. Part of the purchase was putting them in, so part of the purchase should be about replacing them...
... and the practice's insurance should cover it... if it was done on the NHS, then they should do it, if it was done on BUPA, then they should (etc).

But taking what Chomp said up there, if the risk of replacement is higher than not, then it shouldn't be done at all.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:20, Reply)

I was referring to people who had them done privately but want the NHS footing the bill

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:23, Reply)

I'm not 100% sure the NHS should foot the bill, completely unsure of that, but I'm pretty sure the person who got it done shouldn't.
Everything I'm saying is on the basis of it being safer to replace than to leave them in.... but I think it was the manufacturer's fuck up, they should pay for it.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:57, Reply)

PIP no longer exists so that can't happen

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:58, Reply)

it's not safer to replace them than to leave them in
because ... here's the thing .. there's not even one tiny bit of evidence they cause harm.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 16:03, Reply)