Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

On your PIP -

Recommended Posts

If anyone isn't satisfied with what nature gave them and chooses to take whatever steps to improve on nature's endowments then they must bear some responsibility if it all goes pear shaped. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think breast implants are just some silly con.

 

And how ironic that P.I.P. the French company that made those dodgy breast implants has gone tits up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they could afford to have them done, they should afford to have them removed. We hear so much about about inflation these days. Nice that deflation is still about (although I appreciate it's not funny to those involved) A little titter at Wolfies comment.

 

Happy days

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone isn't satisfied with what nature gave them and chooses to take whatever steps to improve on nature's endowments then they must bear some responsibility if it all goes pear shaped. :unsure:

 

I agree with you when it comes to those who are merely enhancing "what nature gave them" but what about women who have had them fitted following masectomies?

 

 

This is not funny! - one organisation quoted in news reports is The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons - known as BAAPS

 

Not funny :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the NHS fits the implants following mastectomies so any after care would also be by the NHS. It appears that it is mainly the private sector that has used these inferior implants because of the cheapness, so if they know they have used them, they should bear the cost of follow up investigations and treatment where necessary, perhaps passing some of the cost on to the patient, but the NHS (and the taxpayer) should definitely not pay out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Daily Telegraph

 

Some 40,000 women across Britain are thought to have PIP breast implants, including about 3,000 NHS patients for whom they were used for breast reconstruction after cancer surgery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Daily TelegraphSome 40,000 women across Britain are thought to have PIP breast implants, including about 3,000 NHS patients for whom they were used for breast reconstruction after cancer surgery

 

If this is the case then of course the NHS should follow these cases up, but I'm guessing that it will take a long time for the info to filter through to the necessary people who call back patients in such situations. Anyone who has had such a procedure should be able to find out through their medical records if one of the rogue implants was used and ask for an assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be treated like any other product recall or warranty issue. Whoever sold or provided the products to the customer should pay for the situation to be put right.

 

I did hear, though, of a number of women who have implants which were fitted by clinics which had since gone "bust". Makes me wonder if there should be some sort of clinic funded insurance backed warranty or ABTA style organisation to cover the future liabilities of providers who cease trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Independent

 

"The French company that made breast implants with a cheap industrial-grade silicone also made silicone testicles and chest implants for men, former employees claim."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the people with the testicles are a little happier as at least they could have them removed cheaply with a piece of nylon twine tied round the top tightly until they drop off :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems this Tory Gov; that sings the praises of "the private sector" and undermines the value of "the public sector"; is about to commit the NHS (TAX-PAYER) to rescue these women from their bodged cosmetic jobs. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite Obs.

 

They're saying that the NHS will remove any implants which are leaking or rupturing - because that is a medical emergency, and that's what the NHS is for. The NHS will also be responsible for removing any non-leaking implants from this manufacturer which it originally supplied (so they're no better than the private sector when it comes to sourcing quality products).

 

They've also very clearly said that it's down to the private clinics to deal with the product recall issues in exactly the same way as any other business.

 

Private clinics may well go out of business over this, people WILL lose their jobs, and Directors may well get personally sued - what do you think the odds are of anyone in the NHS being held accountable for their decision to use 3,000+ of this companies implants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite inky.

 

The NHS will pick up the tab of removing and replacing for those patients who went private and those private clinics have now gone bust or the surgeon has retired/died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If suspect implants were used, then the people involved should be have the risks explained and then have the option to have them replaced. As far as I know, the NHS doesn’t offer boob enhancements for purely cosmetic reasons so there should be no arguments. Those that are wholy cosmetic and chose to use private clinics should take it up with the clinic and not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfie, I too heard what Inky had written: The NHS will cover the removal of the implants, but not the cost to install new ones unless they were initially done by the NHS.

 

That would be a more logical road to take because why would the NHS be responsible for cosmetic, non-emergency surgery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, women who have had the implants done privately are probably tax-payers. And if they can afford to have private cosmetic surgery are probably above average tax-payers as well, so they will have been contributing as much, if not more, to the NHS than the average tax-payer. Therefore why shouldn't they expect the NHS to come to their assistance in this case of medical emergency? After all using private medical care doesn't mean you pay a commensurate amount less tax because you aren't using the NHS does it? :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if they can afford private cosmetic breast implants, they can afford private to have them removed.

 

But the important word here is 'cosmetic' and cosmetic surgery is rarely available through the NHS so why should they pick up the tab for cosmetic surgery gone wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't alter the fact that as taxpayers (if that is what they are) they have paid their share towards the NHS. How about if you went in to the chemists and asked for some pain killers. The chemist takes your money, but then asks what the pain killers are for and you reply for a hangover (okay Wolfie, you don't drink but hang in there) to which the chemist says that you're suffering from a self induced condition so he's not going to let you have the painkillers BUT HE'S GOING TO KEEP THE MONEY YOU GAVE HIM!! :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

Okay, if the implants are still intact there is no reason why the NHS should remove them if the woman wants them taken out. That would come under "cosmetic" in my opinion. However if they were damaged and therefore liable to cause injury, then of course any NHS patient should be entitled to care under the NHS.

 

The NHS is not in the business of treating/not treating people based on the ability to pay and that works both ways surely? :wink: :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the emphasis this time is on the word 'damaged', in which case I would agree. If there is a risk to health then the NHS have a responsibility, but if it's down to a potential risk then the private clinic should have the responsibility, after all, they took the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the story is surely about the "failure" of the private sector and the current readiness of Governments to bale them out when they do fail. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No No No, I can't take it any longer. I've tolerated it for post after post but no longer. When you bail someone out you spell it BAIL! When you make a bale of hay you spell it BALE!!

 

Copyright National Society of Pedants and Mad, Sad Old Buggers (Hic!) :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No No No, I can't take it any longer. I've tolerated it for post after post but no longer. When you bail someone out you spell it BAIL! When you make a bale of hay you spell it BALE!!

 

Copyright National Society of Pedants and Mad, Sad Old Buggers (Hic!) :wink:

 

Bale out/bail out

 

Meaning

 

Various meanings, including 'making an emergency parachute escape from an aeroplane' and 'ladling water from a boat'.

 

Origin

 

This is an unusual phrase (or is that pair of phrases?) in that it isn't the origin or the meaning that is the source of debate, but the spelling. Is it 'bale out' or bail out', and should there be different spellings for the different meanings of the phrase? Those meanings would be a good place to start:

 

 

- Make an emergency exit from an aeroplane, using a parachute.

- Ladle water from a boat.

- Liberate from prison, into the security of a guarantor.

- Jump from a surfboard/skateboard/bicycle etc., in order to avoid getting injured.

- Step away from a pitch in baseball.

 

You may be clear in your own mind as to the correct spelling for each of these. Whichever you opt for you will have no difficulty in finding supporting examples in print. There are many examples of both 'bail out' and 'bale out' for all of the above meanings. There is a 'correct' spelling for each however, based on whether the expression in question derives from 'bale' or 'bail' and, more significantly, where you live. In the USA, 'bail' is almost always used for all variants.

 

Let's take the meanings for which there is a degree of agreement about the spelling. The ladling of water from a boat is properly written as 'bailing' or 'bailing out'. This derives from 'baile', which is an early name for a bucket or pail. It is tempting to imagine that a bail is some sort of cross between a bucket and a pail, but that's just fancy. This usage has been known since the 17th century; for example, Samuel Purchas's Pilgrimage, 1613:

 

 

They bailed and pumped two thousand tuns [another vessel for liquids ] and yet were ten foot deepe.

 

Liberating from prison, often on the payment of a surety, is also unambiguously 'bailing out'. This derives from the French 'baillier' - to deliver on trust. This usage dates back to the 14th century in French and appears in Shakespeare in Titus Andronicus, 1588:

 

 

Thou shalt not baile them, see thou follow me.

 

The last two meanings above, which both utilize the sense of 'bail' as withdrawing from something, are clearly of fairly recent American derivation and it is reasonable to defer to the US 'bail' spelling there. The earliest example I can find of such is in Ted Masters' Surfing Made Easy, 1962:

 

 

Bailing out, getting off and away from the surfboard on purpose.

 

What is essentially the same meaning of 'bailing' was adopted as Valley Speak, as demonstrated in Mimi Pond's Valley Girl's Guide to Life, 1982:

 

 

When you skip school.., it's cool to go, 'like, I bailed, man.' Or when you leave a party, you go, 'Let's bail.'

 

The only meaning of 'bail/bale out' for which the spelling is widely disputed is the emergency exiting of aeroplanes. This depends on whether the allusion being made is to aircrew being bundled out of a stricken aeroplane like a bale of hay, or being tipped out as in the bailing out of a boat. An alternative allusion for the 'bail' spelling would be the 'bailing out of', i.e. the removing from, jail. The US 'bail out' shows that they rejected the bale of hay imagery. It isn't that the US have opted to spell hay-bale as hay-bail - they are quite happy to 'tote that barge and lift that bale'. The earliest reference I can find to the naming of the jump from an aircraft is from the USA, in a September 1925 edition of The Oakland Tribune:

 

 

The pilot who has to ‘bail out’ hurriedly from a crippled or burning plane.

 

In other parts of the English-speaking world, should you decide to record your heroic jump from an aircraft, you'd be advised to write it as 'bale out'. The first record of this from a non-US source is Fred Tredrey's flying school diary, Pilot's Summer, 1939:

 

 

If you bale out and land in water... a smart rap will release the whole lot and you can swim free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...