Private sector wants public to foot the bill (again)

ESKIMO

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Not sure what you're on about to be honest. There will already be insurance in place, so anyone wanting their implants removed should just issue legal proceedings against whoever put them in. They can all band together in what the yanks like to call a class action, I'm sure someone will do it on a no win no few basis. If there is a valid case the insurance will pay out long before it gets anywhere near a court, and if there isn't a valid case then I don't see why the govt should pay instead.

I imagine the issue of compensation will ultimately lye with the Product Liability Insurance, which by definition is designed to associate with the lifetime/legacy of the product - not the French PIP company which subsequently went bump.

Yup, the class action lawyers are out in force. And guess what, the party involved are requesting 'membership'. I'm afraid they're not confident enough to pursue on NO WIN NO FEE. I can post name of firm if required to anyone who is interested.

chewmylegoff

No I meant professional indemnity insurance actually, but I might mean public liability insurance if that is the right answer..

macaque_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16510507

The Harley Group fitted more PIP implants than any other private medical group. They now refuse to remove these unsafe implants & want the NHS to do their dirty work for them. They allege that

Amazing to think that the company did have the resources, the surgeons, & the operating facilities needed to do the surgery when they had people queueing up to pay for the operations.

If this is a consumer agreement, then surely the Harley group also had the responsibility to ensure that the implants were suitable for the purpose, & therefore they still bear the responsibility.

Wonder which way this will go....

There is one problem with this post. It is not the public sector who are footing the bill, it is the tax payer.

daveyjp

ILW wrote: »

Is it not a legal requirement to carry public laibility insurance?

If you have an asbestos roof on your garage do you sue the builder for using a product which at the time was deemed safe, or the manufacturer of the product which was later found to be a killer?

In this case the surgeon will argue he is the builder and who will wait years for it to go through the Courts?

leveller2911

AIUI the implants were never medically tested to see if they were safe as such but they carried the CE mark http://www.ce-marking.org/what-is-ce-marking.html

CE Marking on a product is a manufacturer's declaration that the product complies with the essential requirements of the relevant European health, CE Marking on a product is a manufacturer's declaration that the product complies with the essential requirements of the relevant European health,They don't actually go through any stringent medical testing.

IMO the buck stops with the EU and the Private Cosmentic clinics .If I buy a new car it also carries the CE mark but if that car has a fault I don't expect the Taxpayers to pay for the remedial work its down to the manufacturer.

I'm self employed and carry Public Liability insurance with £5,000,000 worth of cover which includes cover for faulty products and it costs me about £220-00 a year.

ESKIMO

No right answer, is there? All insurance is voluntary (except car insurance).

Koicarp

This story has been going on for ages, just not in the news, I get a couple of MHRA email alerts per week, usually with lots of stuff I'm not interested in- this from the MHRA webite: "We have continually monitored the safety of these breast implants. In March 2010 we advised clinicians not to implant these devices and at the same time advised patients who were concerned about their PIP implants to consult their implanting surgeon". I'd suggest any used after March 2010 should be sorted by the private clinics, the rest by NHS.

pararct

Koicarp wrote: »

Some of those "daft bint's" will have had augmentation after removal of breast tissue due to cancer.

I think we all have sympathy for those who have had this done as a result of cancer or other life threatening condition. These women should be offered free removal on the NHS.

Those that did it for cosmetic reasons should follow the legal route or pay for removal themselves..

vivatifosi

mcfisco wrote: »

I've no issue with the NHS removing the implants and [if poss] recovering the costs from the clinics

I do - however - have an issue with them replacing them for new ones

I'm in two minds on the first point but in strong agreement on the second. My mother had breast cancer and was told that the NHS in our area would not routinely fund reconstruction surgery for older women, instead giving prosthetic breasts. It would therefore be grossly unfair if women were allowed free reconstructive surgery when women with a life-threatening illness have already been told no.

silvercar

So at what point is the NHS obliged to step in:

a) when there is a risk of the implants leaking ie now
b) when they are leaking
c) when the leaks are causing blockages/ ruptures
d) when the patient turns up in casualty in agony?