Headlines
BI
Breast Implant Scandal: why should the public pay?
19th January 2012
The recent announcement from Health Secretary Andrew Lansley did not come without criticism or controversy; it was pledged last week that any NHS hospital which provided implants manufactured by French company Poly Implants Protheses (PIP) would remove them if women were concerned. Private clinics, however, failed to match the promise, with the Harley Medical Group and Transform Medical Group (carrying out more than 47,000 implants between them) stating that to offer free removals would mean going out of business.
The NHS providing free removal and possibly even replacement, at a lowered cost, has raised concerns from the taxpayer that their money is being wasted. Though Andrew Lansley declared that private companies have a “moral duty” to provide replacement services, many have done no such thing, and appear to be in an apt position to reap the reward while the NHS dishes out money for replacements. One might argue that the private companies are to blame for not gathering accurate information about the materials they used, but it may not be entirely their fault. Though guidelines and standards for drugs are very controlled, the same cannot be said for cosmetic procedures. Concerns about the quality of silicone being used in replacements were raised as early as 2005 to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), apparently to no avail. One consultant even reported being ordered to continue using the poor-quality silicone despite his objections to using, “cheap, sub-standard” products. The Government has now announced a review of the cosmetic industry, with a view to imposing stricter regulations.
The company which provided the silicone, Poly Implants Prostheses, is now understandably out of business – but should the taxpayer have to pay for the faults of regulatory agencies? Some argue that they should not have to pay for the removal (and possible replacement) of implants on the grounds that the implants were breast enlargements, fuelled by vanity. However, many procedures carried out over the past five years have been for sufferers of breast cancer or as a result of reconstruction, through the NHS or otherwise. It may help to put yourself in the position of one of these women: you have just had reconstructive surgery, and now find out that your implants may or may not be toxic and could rupture. Understandably, you are concerned and visit your doctor, who informs you that the private company that provided your implant will not offer free replacement. How would you feel? In the case of a breast enlargement for aesthetic reasons, the safety of the woman in question must be taken into account. We may not approve of what they have done, but is it right to leave them in danger?
The NHS was established in 1948 as a universal healthcare system, free at the point of access to those in need, and maintains a high quality of care nationwide. As it may not have performed many of these operations, would the NHS have moral ground to turn away concerned women on the basis that it has no obligation to help? The Department of Health (DoH) certainly doesn’t think so, and has pledged to do all it can to help, including trying to convince private clinics to reconsider their decision to charge for replacements. It advises women to seek legal help in the wake of its report into the PIP scandal.
by Danny Gordon