Women to pay for own implant removals
09/01/12: A company at the forefront of UK cosmetic surgery has refused to offer their patients free removal of PIP implants.
Although Transform claims to still be reviewing their options, the affected women are currently forced to pay almost £3K to have their implants removed.
Transform’s stance follows on from the Government announcing last week that patients who underwent NHS surgery will be entitled to free removal and replacements for their implants. The Government Minister with responsibility for health has indicated that he anticipates that private clinics will offer an equivalent service to their clients.
Approximately 40,000 women in Britain have already received the implants which were made by Poly Implant Prostheses, who have since ceased to exist, The PIP implants contained silicone that was intended to be used in mattresses rather than for medical purposes.
A spokesperson for Transform advised that all Transform patients currently need to pay for any removals or subsequent operations. She added that the firm is still reviewing all the options but wanted to make it clear that Transform isn’t making any financial gain from charging their patients for implant removal.
The Harley Group, who have almost 14,000 with the implants, were scheduled to make an advisory statement within the next few hours after Transform’s statement. The Harley Group chairman has said they will stand the cost of the implants, but only on the condition that the NHS carries out the surgery and he went on to say that as the Government has responsibility for the current situation, it can carry out the surgery as it has facilities at their fingertips.
Other groups have said that they will only finance surgery for women, whose implants have ruptured, citing the MHRA’s opinion that there isn’t any evidence to suggest that systematic removal is in anyway necessary.
Although the Government’s shares this view, experts working on their behalf have concluded it is not impossible that some implants may prove to be toxic. The panel of experts have also pointed out that the anxiety being suffered by the affected women will affect their health negatively.
The Hospital Group has put a statement onto their website advising women to request a scan via their GP. They go on to say that they will then assess the MRI report and replace any damaged implants without charge.
Ramsay Care, who has approximately 150 clients with the implants, have offered free examinations to all concerned women, and, if any damage or a clinical need exists, their implants will be replaced and removed without charge.
Other health providers including Nuffield Health, Spire and BMI Healthcare, have already agreed to remove any PIP implants without charge.
The Government stated that clinics who refuse to help their clients will be entitled to removals via the NHS after a consultation with own doctor; the Government will then pursue the private clinics to recover the costs of such surgery to ensure that the taxpayer doesn’t end up paying the bill.
Thompsons Solicitors, who specialise in personal injury, have advised that all companies who implanted the PIP implants may have a duty of care to pay which will include compensating the affected women under consumer rights legislation.
The 1979 Sale of Goods Act provides all consumers with legal rights as consumers, including the right that all goods must be fit for purpose.
Thompsons launched a free telephone help line for women or their partners who are worried about the PIP implants, the service will provide access to assistance and free advice with a view to taking any claims forward.
A DOH spokesperson said that all private health companies have legal obligations to all their patients. The NHS will provide a care package for their patients, and the private sector will be expected to provide same service to theirs.
The panel of experts engaged to investigate this issue in the UK have concluded that no link exists between the PIP implants and cancer, as has been reported in France. They also commented that it is the undeniable truth that the implants are manufactured using inappropriate silicone and shouldn’t ever have been used in the first place. The experts were unable to determine if the PIP implants are more likely to rupture than others. They were also unable to discount the possibility that some may be toxic.
The French Government and the German and Czech authorities have all advised approximately 30,000 women to have their implants removed.
Transform’s CEO has said that Transform is fully supportive of the DOH’s attempts to end the anxiety and uncertainty of UK women unduly affected by this situation and is currently awaiting a response to convene and discuss the best way to proceed.
It has to be recognised that the crisis has arisen as a result of regulation failures regarding implants which had been fully sanctioned for use. The Government has to accept responsibility for the situation and work alongside providers to find a realistic solution.
A previous president of BAAPS has said that this is an important time for aesthetic surgery, the public and the Government will expect clinics to do the correct thing by offering free replacements. It is absolutely appalling that several are continuing to grasp at making a profit rather than assisting their patients to achieve satisfaction and some peace of mind. Another BAAPS council member added that this crisis has provided an opportunity for the private sector to prove that they take duty of care seriously, and for future patients to find out which service providers are likely to take care of them in the future. He was optimistic that this situation will eliminate patients making a choice about where to have their surgery based solely on the price.
A legal firm who have already been approached by several women with the PIP implants has reiterated that The DOH have advised that these implants should never have been used, irrespective of any increase in the damage rate, these products simply did not meet the required standard taking into account the purpose of the product and the description of use. As these items were implanted despite not being fit for purpose, it is their opinion that the women are entitled to full compensation from whoever sold the breast implants to them.
Related posts:
