Breast Implants

by Craig Chapman - Party Leader - 09:06 on 15 January 2012

The present clamour for replacing dodgy breast implants is ruling the headlines as a another fantastic smokescreen for the world's failing economy and those greedy, self-serving governments, cheats and incompetants.

Of course someone is responsible for having faulty products on the market. Our government and its health care chiefs will, as in nearly all cases of getting a medical product onto the market, have been badgered from pillar to post with all manner of "financial cajoling" - its a very dirty market !! The private health care market is yet another case entirely.

Having said that, we're talking about a vanity product here and the comments from the medical association lady on TV on Saturday were not helpful.

She said that not only women who's implant had punctured should expect a free extraction / re-fit operation at the tax payers expense, she also said that those "suffering mentally" over the situation could also go to see their GP to ask for their implants to be removed.

Suffering Mentallly ???? What the **** ?

There is a large degree of "suffering mentally" involved to think a natural body needs breast implants in the first place and it is almost a crime if tax payers are fleeced for the NHS to provide them. The best cure for someone thinking they require breast implants is to change the magazine that they read !! End of.

A woman who has engaged in a commercial transaction to have a private medical practice fit breast implants has a commercial recourse if that product and service proves faulty it should be repaired or replaced, in much the same way a faulty bike may be returned to Argos or Halfords, but not if you've just heard that someone else fell off the same colour bike you bought, and certainly not they were fitted at the tax payer's expense to soothe a vain and selfish mind. Check the small print of your contracts (I personally have no idea what the small print may say, but as with any commercial purchase there are pros and cons).

Quite frankly, the country, world and people who spend tax payer's money have enough far more important things to be taking care of than worrying about misled vanity.

PA says -

i) Vanity operations would not be offered at the public's expense

ii) The public would be expected to pay for medical services received, if they concern long term mistreatment of the body and ignoring doctor's advice.

iii) The replacement organs and body parts for injured soldiers, firemen, police etc and care for people with natural injuries and ailments come a long way further up the urgent list for us than this. Then consider the financial strain the NHS is under, with so many losing jobs and the numbers of overseas health tourists milking our system dry. Prevention over vanity is key here, change your magazine.

The whole world faces a massive need to become more responsible for themselves. A government is required to provide the basics and the opportunity to improve your own standing. Beyond that, people have to take responsibility for themselves.

Add your comment

Your Name


Your Email (only if you are happy to have it on the site)


Your Comment - no HTML or weblinks


Enter this number in the box below and click Send - why?Unfortunately we have to do this to prevent the system being swamped by automated spam