Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sadly as reg says often the nhs has to pick up the pieces
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Let's not forget that the NHS also often causes the problems. Because of poor practice, inadequate discharge planning and ineffectual audits regarding re-admission it is only now emerging (and is something we all knew for a long time anyway) that re-admission rates are unacceptably high in NHS hospitals.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
as always bern we have to accept the problems are in both private and public
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Go on then!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Here is an interesting article that has certainly struck a chord with me. Yes, the NHS should not fund corrective surgery unless the procedure was carried out on the NHS for reasons of disfigurement or cancer. If done for cosmetic reasons then the women concerned should take responsibility.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/01/jill-kirby-the-taxpayer-must-not-pay-to-repair-toxic-boob-jobs.htmlGuest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Under civil law, whoever performed the operation in each case is primarily liable. They may have a counter-claim against the manufacturer if they reasonably believed the implants to be of medical grade. Anyone who knowingly implanted industrial grade silicone or knowingly passed it off as being of medical grade may also be liable for prosecution under criminal law.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
In the meantime ..........PIP implants are leaking....no time for the `swift` action of civil law.
Lansley acts...better late than never.......but it must be action not words this time........cosmetic or cancer NHS will
have to come to the rescue.
Private clinics surgeons agree they should remove their implants..............but private clinic business managers agree
but at £ 2,000.
Private medicine.......................................
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Private vanity treatments should not be confused with private medicine.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
reg;
do you think barryw is listerning?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Well said Barry in post 28 .
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,still private whatever way you look at it.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 29.sadly no............a certain mode is set in concrete.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I will just add a quote from Labours shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham...
"You get the feeling here that we're dealing with an industry that's very good at the sales pitch and taking people's money at the start of this process, but less good at aftercare and facing up to its responsibilities when things go wrong."
Last night on television a number of talking heads were saying how much of a shambles this private health care is. Andy Burnham is right, its motivated by money, there are no records or statistics kept, nobody knows precisely just how many women are suffering because there are no regulations records or probably even rules. Those carrying out these operations are doing it to make money over and above anyone's particular welfare or health consideration.
Is this a vision of what future private healthcare would be like. Fine when taking your money, but hard to locate your surgeon when things go wrong? These private clinics put these dodgy and dangerous implants in peoples bodies, no doubt with the usual assurances, they should now step up to the plate and correct a situation they created.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The fact that an implant was done privately for reasons of vanity is no reason for the NHS to turn such patients away. If an implant bursts it must be attended to straight away. If the clinic that fitted it is unable or unwilling to replace it without charge, the NHS should step in and do it, and send the bill to the private clinic which originally fitted the faulty implant. Whether the clinic then has a claim against the manufacturer or supplier of the implant is a separate matter.
The important thing is that these poor ladies get sorted out ASAP, either privately or by the NHS, and we argue about who pays later.
All clinics have professional indemnity insurance which should cover most of the costs. Those who knowingly implanted substandard material should be named and shamed.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is nothing at all to do with private healthcare. Left wing politicians are merely using this as an excuse to attack the broader private health provision in this country which is far superior to the NHS.
This matter is all about elective surgery for vanity reasons, not for health reasons.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is nothing at all to do with private healthcare. Left wing politicians are merely using this as an excuse to attack the broader private health provision in this country which is far superior to the NHS.
This matter is all about elective surgery for vanity reasons, not for health reasons.
Indeed. But Peter is right. Certainly in all my health and social services I have been clear that if treatment is needed, or support is needed, we supply and deliver first and argue about the bill afterwards,
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Barry just because it has been stirred up by the left does not mean that there is not a real and urgent problem needing to be addressed.
But the left should realise that without private health provision the NHS would be in an even worse state than it is today.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Then they should be focussed on the specific problem without stirring up a broader controversy for political reasons.
#33 I am concerned that the private companies are being first of all lumped together (there are good and bad private companies as in all areas) and secondly that the element of chaos and poor practice is seen as being confined to private healthcare. The reverse is true - private organisations have much more scrutiny and checks than the public sector, although as in all areas some fall through the net. My experience is that the checks in place are much more robust and more likely to flag concerns in the private sector. Our public sector health and social support systems are chaotic and outdated in many cases. And that is nothing to do with politics, and all to do with experience and observation.