Nope, but I wouldn't expect the government to foot the bill either.

Agreed. Similar to the banks in that regard: happy with capitalism all the time they're making a huge profit, turning to the state to bail them out when it all goes (pardon the pun) tits up.

As soon as you bring in supposedly moral arguments about cosmetic implants you muddy the waters and open up all sorts of new questions and issues. Can we be sure that all of the women who had cosmetic implants did so entirely of their own free will, and are necessarily in a position today to do anything about them themselves, for example? And if leaving them in, long term, does cause more cancer, might this not cost far more in treatment than whipping out the implants as quickly as possible? And finally, as the regulator and final arbiter over the healthcare industry, do we not pay our taxes to ensure that the department of health properly monitors and regulates all potentially dangerous aspects of healthcare on our behalf, and bears responsibility if they fail to do so properly?

I read commentators in the Daily Mail raging against the idea that cosmetic implants be dealt with at the taxpayer's expense. It doesn't seem to have crossed their minds that they could end up paying a hell of a lot more in treatment if they leave people to their own devices.
Durham Giant
If I decided to follow your argument to its only logical conclusion I would see no reason to put my hand in my pocket to pay for any medical bills you may incur by what I deemed your own behaviour, choices, lifestyle etc. So if you've ever sat in a smoky room you can forget cancer treatment. If you've chosen to drink contaminated tap water (even if you were assured by the authorities that it was safe) well that's your lookout - there's plenty of bottled water available. As for crossing the road and getting run over by a bus - well perhaps you should look where you're going - you'll get no sympathy from me. And don't even think of getting involved in any kind of sports and come crying to me when you get yourself injured. Oh no - it was your choice and I find it morally unacceptable by my own private, secret moral code. Naturally if you suffer obesity-related health issues as a result of not exercising, well tough luck, you should get out more.

You will need deep pockets when I rule the world, because I reckon I can probable wriggle out of any responsibility to offer you healthcare whatsoever, simply by making it a moral rather than a health issue before deciding what I do and don't approve of...
I am writing this as somebody who fought for 6 months to get the right treatment for back pain. The NHS would not believe me when I told them it was not muscular they would not send me for an MRI scan because it cost too much. I eventually paid for my own but it was too late and I became paralysed. The NHS saved about £600 on the MRI scan only to spend tens of thousands on my 10 month stay in hospital with costly drugs 6 times a day 9 MRI scans and treatment for the rest of my life.
Just get the job done!

I understand the argument and of course in your example the manufacturer would issue a recall and correct the error, but if the manufacturer had gone into liquidation then I'd assume that the owners would have to pay for the repair themselves (don't know for sure because I don't think its ever happened to a car manufacturer).

The delicate issue here is that there are two extreme cases for breast implants, reconstruction after surgery (often cancer related) and pure vanity, and not all reconstruction jobs were done under the NHS. I don't think there are many who would argue that the NHS shouldn't be removing vanity implants unless there is an urgent medical case and health is at risk, it really is up to the providers to correct their error in the same way that when a TV set goes wrong you take it back to Comet and not Panasonic.

Must admit I've having a chuckle at all the right wingers and anti-statists suddenly queuing up to demand that the taxpayer steps in to bail them out. Lansley's in a no-win situation here. Shame.

Lansley is saying that the NHS should repair the damage ... i.e. he's effectively saying that it's OK to go private when there's profit but it's an NHS responsibility when there's a cost.
But are we surprised that Lansley, a past recipient of electoral expenses from a director of a private health company, takes that view?
No conflict of interest there surely?

My view is that the private companies (where British) should be forced to do the repairs for free and pay up large sums of compo for the inconvenience and stress.
Obviously, if and when emergency complications have arisen, or where the private firm has gone bust (oh dear, another bosom pun) and disappeared, or where the private firm is going to pay the NHS for the work, then and only then should NHS resources be used for this.

The argument about whether the government licensed the implants is totally irrelevant and is merely a smokescreen.

But they did, they turned out to be faulty. The products those private clinics use still have to be tested and licensed by the state. In other words they had the Department of Health stamp of approval, so to speak. As such the blame must shift away from the clinics, who've purchased a product in the safe reassurance that it's passed strict safety tests and is approved for medical use, to those who carried out (or didn't) the appropriate tests and checks.

Interestingly in the factory (where the implants were made) in the south of France, employees have testified that they would come in to work one day, and find the supplies and the set-up changed. The industrial grade silicone had been replaced by one of a medical quality. Once the inspectors had left, the process was reversed. Also, the implants that were used for selling purposes - ie sent to those who wanted samples - were always of the highest quality.

My point still stands though. I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who was using a product deemed OK by a penpusher. Yes the government checks appear to be flawed, but if companies are not doing their own checks of products they use, they are at fault. This isn't a faulty biro someone has bought, it's an invasive medical procedure that the companies are charging a lot of money for.

Government licensing isn't the same as a goverment guarantee of quality.
When the manufacturer is swapping the spec all the time, how can it be?

Boob jobs should be free on the nhs anyway. Provided the recipient is good looking enough for them to beneficial to society.

As for removal of dodgy ones, I think first call should be the surgeon that put them in and if any are no longer in business the nhs should help out.