We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Private sector wants public to foot the bill (again)

124»

Comments

  • corbyboy
    corbyboy Posts: 1,169 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture
    It seems unfair that the private industry is able to pass the buck to the MHRA. The private clinics don't fund the approval process so they shouldn't be allowed to profit from the fruits of tax payer funded research.

    They should have to fund their own approval process before they can use any medical devices.
  • Le73Uq86Uv
    Le73Uq86Uv Posts: 336 Forumite
    edited 12 January 2012 at 9:49PM
    ILW wrote: »
    The is no defintive proof that the implants are unsafe.

    The NHS should tell any daft bint that comes to them for removal that she has to pay, or sue the private clinic that took her money in the first place.


    I fully agree with you.

    Why should we use tax payers money to pay for breast implants.

    When the ConDems have finished this is what the NHS will be Private then where will they go?.
    Signature removed club member No1.

    It had no link, It was not to long and I have no idea why.
  • Le73Uq86Uv
    Le73Uq86Uv Posts: 336 Forumite
    edited 12 January 2012 at 9:47PM
    silvercar wrote: »
    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?

    None of them.

    The patient should go back to where they contrated to have them fitted.
    pararct wrote: »
    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..

    Exactly.
    silvercar wrote: »
    If you had a pacemaker fitted years ago with private health insurance and then the pacemaker failed, would it be right for the NHS to refuse to replace it?

    If you chose private go back private.
    Signature removed club member No1.

    It had no link, It was not to long and I have no idea why.
  • I volunteering at my local hospital to perform triage on the unprecedented numbers of women flooding into hospital concerned about their breast implants. Someone needs to conduct the initial examinations to free up medical staff for their vital duties.

    I know. I'm selfless.
    1. The house price crash will begin.
    2. There will be a dead cat bounce.
    3. The second leg down will commence.
    4. I will buy your house for a song.
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    Not sure what you're on about to be honest.
    It's about whether clinics can legally rely on the stuff they use having got government approval, or whether they are legally obliged to subject it at their own expense to the same sort of approval process that's supposed to have been done already.

    If government approvals aren't legally reliable, then the business is dead, because neither clinics nor insurers can afford the risks.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • silvercar wrote: »
    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?

    All bar part a) probably.

    If you supply goods that are faulty or not fit for purpose then normally the seller has to put it right.

    Is there something special about private health operations that they are exempt from contract law ?
    US housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 2005
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    pqrdef wrote: »
    It's about whether clinics can legally rely on the stuff they use having got government approval, or whether they are legally obliged to subject it at their own expense to the same sort of approval process that's supposed to have been done already.

    If government approvals aren't legally reliable, then the business is dead, because neither clinics nor insurers can afford the risks.

    Did teh government actually give specific approval to these items?

    I they did, does that mean they are guaranteeing them?

    Even if that is the case, why would teh liability go beyond just replacing the items (not fitting them as well).
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    silvercar wrote: »
    a) when there is a risk of the implants leaking ie now
    There's always a risk. Most of the PIP implants would outlast the patient if left alone. Implants made by other firms sometimes leak.

    It's about precautionary replacement of implants that don't conform to regulations. But they were thought to conform, at the time. So the question is simply, whose job was it then to find out that they didn't.

    Other suppliers of medical kit are on the fiddle. Nobody knows who they are. Nobody can find all of them. The system works by arranging for the can to be carried by somebody who can afford to.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.