The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

TSR Med Students' Society Part III

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Captain Crash
Why? The principle of the NHS is that we treat everyone (based on clinical priority) regardless of who is to blame whether they smoke, play sport or are obese. Hell, the NHS treats pretty much all complications of private surgery. I fully agree (for once) with Lansley's decision to remove the implants, but not replace them.


3 tests of medical negligence

- Was there a duty of care? YES
- Did the doctor treat the patient? YES
- The but for test? YES.

Do, the private companies are liable for all costs and compensation.

If they are going to be ruthless to patients, the government should be ruthless to them - name and shame the companies in public, they'll cave.

With private healthcare vultures trying to pick off profitible NHS services, if this case goes through, it will amout to a state blank check for all incompetence. This cannot be allowed to happen.

If you buy something from John Lewis and it goes wrong, go back to John Lewis, the state is not responsible.
Original post by TooSexyForMyStethoscope
Hence why the NHS is a joke.

BUPA for the love of god BUPA.


Why does that make it a joke?
Original post by Wangers
3 tests of medical negligence

- Was there a duty of care? YES
- Did the doctor treat the patient? YES
- The but for test? YES.

Do, the private companies are liable for all costs and compensation.

If they are going to be ruthless to patients, the government should be ruthless to them - name and shame the companies in public, they'll cave.

With private healthcare vultures trying to pick off profitible NHS services, if this case goes through, it will amout to a state blank check for all incompetence. This cannot be allowed to happen.

If you buy something from John Lewis and it goes wrong, go back to John Lewis, the state is not responsible.


Sure, I agree - sure the private medical companies for their liabilities (indeed, I believe Lansley said as much), but that shouldn't mean that the NHS shouldn't treat the breast implants in the first place
Original post by Captain Crash
Why does that make it a joke?


Maybe a poor use of language on my part, I meant the fact that the NHS has an obligation to treat everything regardless of how the problem was caused is crippling.
Original post by Captain Crash
Sure, I agree - sure the private medical companies for their liabilities (indeed, I believe Lansley said as much), but that shouldn't mean that the NHS shouldn't treat the breast implants in the first place


Absolutly not, thats the wrong way round

Force the private companies to do any work and do it now. Sod sueing them. Force them to do the work now, then sue them later too. If they won't publicaly name them. They'll cave.

Your coustomer is not my patient. If you want to give medical treatment, take responsibility for it.
Original post by TooSexyForMyStethoscope
Maybe a poor use of language on my part, I meant the fact that the NHS has an obligation to treat everything regardless of how the problem was caused is crippling.


So? Ethically speaking, you shouldn't differentiate between causes when deciding to treat unless that has a bearing on the success of treatment. Otherwise arbitrary normative opinions come into play, when they shouldn't.
Original post by Captain Crash
So? Ethically speaking, you shouldn't differentiate between causes when deciding to treat unless that has a bearing on the success of treatment. Otherwise arbitrary normative opinions come into play, when they shouldn't.


I resent my taxes being spent on rescuing bimbos.
Original post by Wangers
Absolutly not, thats the wrong way round

Force the private companies to do any work and do it now. Sod sueing them. Force them to do the work now, then sue them later too. If they won't publicaly name them. They'll cave.

Your coustomer is not my patient. If you want to give medical treatment, take responsibility for it.


I agree with the principle behind your argument but it simply isn't pragmatic for the patient. You can't force a company to do anything without suing them or taking it through the courts. Considering the liability isn't straight forward (it could be argued liability lies with PIP), this could mean delaying treatment by months if not years.

Considering the women will need treatment in any case, I see now problem with the NHS claim damages from the private companies for direct and opportunity costs of doing so.

In any case, I believe most private providers have agreed to replace them for free, with Harley and Transform being the only major one refusing.
Original post by TooSexyForMyStethoscope
I resent my taxes being spent on rescuing bimbos.


And this is an example of an arbitrary normative opinion. You can resent spending taxes on people for requiring treatment for all sorts of reasons e.g. Sports, smoking, having sex, but that doesn't change the fact you're advocating withholding required treatment merely for the reason you don't approve of how they came into that situation.
Why don't we adopt the same system as I think healthcare in Singapore. Over there doesn't everyone get like a certain amount of credits for healthcare, which is free, but it puts the responsibility on them on how they use it?
Original post by TooSexyForMyStethoscope
Oh get off your bloody high horse.

There is no high horse here - this is medical ethics 101.
Original post by TooSexyForMyStethoscope

Luckily my opinions don't influence policy making :rolleyes:


No, but you'll be a doctor someday with a patient in front of you who requires treatment for a self-inflicted condition and you'll be making a treatment decision about them.
Original post by Captain Crash
There is no high horse here - this is medical ethics 101.


No, but you'll be a doctor someday with a patient in front of you who requires treatment for a self-inflicted condition and you'll be making a treatment decision about them.


I'll have to see patients?!
Original post by Captain Crash
I agree with the principle behind your argument but it simply isn't pragmatic for the patient. You can't force a company to do anything without suing them (1)or taking it through the courts. Considering the liability isn't straight forward (it could be argued liability lies with PIP), this could mean delaying treatment by months if not years.

Considering the women will need treatment in any case, I see now problem with the NHS claim damages from the private companies for direct and opportunity costs of doing so.(2)

In any case, I believe most private providers have agreed to replace them for free, with Harley and Transform being the only major one refusing.


(1)As I am now saying for the 3rd time - yes you can. You name them as negligent companies who refuse to look after their patients. These companies are like any other company - they trade on reputation - they will then bend over backwards to repair the damage. This will work. And even if it dosn't - what I would then do is go directly to threatening the surgeons involved - with name and shame stories - they will act. I would then go after the companies after all the work has been done. I would also go after the surgeon's GMC registrations - if this was NHS work this would have been done already, the CEO of the hospital would have resigned. You have to play hardball, these companies will cave. It is absolutely practical. I would be calling up these surgeons directly, 'either you put the work right for free and pay damages - and you might even get some good publicity for it, or I will wreck your career within the next hour.' Then wait til they've done the work and bring cases to the GMC anyway.

(2) - I foresee what will happen - they'll slime their way out of it.

My method ensures that the women get treatment, costs are nil to the state, women get compensation and the surgeons involved are deciplined. Too long has the NHS been a soft target.
Original post by Captain Crash
There is no high horse here - this is medical ethics 101.


No, but you'll be a doctor someday with a patient in front of you who requires treatment for a self-inflicted condition and you'll be making a treatment decision about them.


Yes but this is not a self inflicted condition is it? This is a private company inflicted condition who are trying to worm their way out of repsonsibility. I just heard the Harley Group rep on the radio = if we have to treat all these women, we will go bust. Well tough.
Nah this is nonsense, the companies who provided them and the surgeons who fitted them have a duty of care to their patient. The doctor-patient relationship didn't just magically disappear when a problem arose.

Sue em, claim the damages, liquidate the companies if they don't have the cash. Andrew Lansley = big softie. I like the token 'we will remove them but not replace them' to appease the public....if you are admitting them, taking up a theatre slot, gassing them, paying for the staff for that session and outpatient followup, you might as well just slip a few more in. The marginal cost is minimal.
Reply 8275
Avatar for Phryx
Phryx
Original post by digitalis
Nah this is nonsense, the companies who provided them and the surgeons who fitted them have a duty of care to their patient. The doctor-patient relationship didn't just magically disappear when a problem arose.

Sue em, claim the damages, liquidate the companies if they don't have the cash. Andrew Lansley = big softie. I like the token 'we will remove them but not replace them' to appease the public....if you are admitting them, taking up a theatre slot, gassing them, paying for the staff for that session and outpatient followup, you might as well just slip a few more in. The marginal cost is minimal.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-16494102

Looks like NHS Wales will replace them aswell.

""Removing the implants and not replacing them could result in unsightly scarring, loose skin, and potentially the accumulation of fluids, need for drainage, and risk of infection."

It is feared that putting women through two separate operations increases the risk of complications.

But Ms Griffiths stressed that NHS treatment would be a last resort for women who were treated privately.

"Safeguards will be put in place to hold the private sector to account and ensure that everything possible is done to seek redress from private providers before the NHS steps in," she said."
Just signed up for my first ever half marathon. I guess i erm better get training. 9 weeks until race day :tongue:
Original post by Isometrix
Why don't we adopt the same system as I think healthcare in Singapore. Over there doesn't everyone get like a certain amount of credits for healthcare, which is free, but it puts the responsibility on them on how they use it?


So there is a (free) limited number of credits to use? And do you 'top up' via paying privately? Hmm doesn't seem very fair for chronic sufferers or those who get illnesses when young - such as leukaemia. :s-smilie: I like our system, we're quite lucky we have access to so much so easily.

Original post by Captain Crash
Sure, I agree - sure the private medical companies for their liabilities (indeed, I believe Lansley said as much), but that shouldn't mean that the NHS shouldn't treat the breast implants in the first place


Stupid question I'm sure - but what exactly is wrong with the implants - is it the implants themselves, the procedure? (A bit out of loop with medical news). Because if it's down to a procedural/defective implants - then don't believe the NHS is responsible at all or the patients. Its the private sector that should fork out to clean it's own mess. Like say I did a cataracts op privately - but the lens I used was defective or I did the procedure wrong, then why should I expect public healthcare (which is rationed already) to also have to deal with this.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Supermassive_muse_fan
So there is a (free) limited number of credits to use? And do you 'top up' via paying privately? Hmm doesn't seem very fair for chronic sufferers or those who get illnesses when young - such as leukaemia. :s-smilie: I like our system, we're quite lucky we have access to so much so easily.


Well their government forces every citizen to put aside a certain % of their monthly income into healthcare savings. This can be pooled together within families too. They use this to co-pay part of their medical expenses, which cost more for a higher level of service. Also to keep basic healthcare affordable they subsidise everyone through means testing, those who earn less get a higher subsidy. I guess it reduces overutilisation and prevents the healthcare system from being exploited?
Original post by Isometrix
Well their government forces every citizen to put aside a certain % of their monthly income into healthcare savings. This can be pooled together within families too. They use this to co-pay part of their medical expenses, which cost more for a higher level of service. Also to keep basic healthcare affordable they subsidise everyone through means testing, those who earn less get a higher subsidy. I guess it reduces overutilisation and prevents the healthcare system from being exploited?

Probably, but it adds a barrier to consultation. Imagine all those people who are already reluctant visitors to their GP, but with another layer of excuse to avoid going.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you