Crosswords1 min ago
breast implants and consumer law?
I have been kind of following this story and the discussion over who should remove the implants. Does anyone know why the privately inserted ones are not covered under standard consumer law? I mean the one that says that if a service provider (e.g. kitchen fitting firm) provides items as part of the service, if the item malfunctions or is found to be flawed, then the consumer's contract is with the service provider and it is their responsibility to replace the item and correct the situation.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by woofgang. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Is it certain it is not ? I'm wondering if the refusal by the clinic is down to them going out of business before they had removed them all, as they claim; and that if an individual took them to court they might have a chance of winning. Not that I know, I'm just asking.
IMO the customer should state a case for removal and if valid it should be honoured by the clinic, who in turn should a) have insurance to cover these things, and b) would have a claim on the manufacturer.
But I also wonder if there is a case since, if the individual is not experiencing health problems, can they really insist on removal of something that is doing as it should ?
IMO the customer should state a case for removal and if valid it should be honoured by the clinic, who in turn should a) have insurance to cover these things, and b) would have a claim on the manufacturer.
But I also wonder if there is a case since, if the individual is not experiencing health problems, can they really insist on removal of something that is doing as it should ?
Interesting Woofy. I have been thinking along the same lines to some extent. I presume privately inserted ones are for cosmetic reasons alone? I may not be right. If that is the case, then it makes the question more relevant. Kitchen fittings is a good comparison. The major problem is with the manufacturer but the retailer is who a customer has the contract with and should be the one who sorts it out.
In other words, what Old Geezer has said, especially in his last paragraph.
In other words, what Old Geezer has said, especially in his last paragraph.
In the current case the supplier PPI is very clearly liable but ,surprise surprise, they have declared themselves bankrupt !
If they were still in business they or their insurers would have have pay the entire bill and compensation, many £100s of Millions. They were criminally negligent, actually admitting using industrial filler instead of medical grade silicone. I and many others have no dought that they saw that the whole affair was going 'tits up' and declared bankruptcy to avoid paying.
If they were still in business they or their insurers would have have pay the entire bill and compensation, many £100s of Millions. They were criminally negligent, actually admitting using industrial filler instead of medical grade silicone. I and many others have no dought that they saw that the whole affair was going 'tits up' and declared bankruptcy to avoid paying.
Thinking of Geezer's last para again. If faulty workmanship has caused major problems to a great deal of customers, i.e. cars, white goods etc., then the manufacturer will contact the customers for recall and rectify, not the retailers, regardless of whether individual customers have actually had problems. They will be recalled because they might cause serious problems.
Most of the clinics that did the implants have decared bankrupcy as well !
Some have already reopened under a new name , but as they were carefull to declare bankrupcy legally and reopen with new people named as directors nothing can be done. A very clear case that they exist only for profit rather than any pretence at medical reasons.
I think the doctors that did this type of surgery purely for profit rather than for medical reasons are very close to havng broken the Hippocratic Oath , if they have not actually broken it ! Do not know if a doctor can be sued for breaking his/her Hippocratic Oath but possibly some one with legal knowledge will comment.
Some have already reopened under a new name , but as they were carefull to declare bankrupcy legally and reopen with new people named as directors nothing can be done. A very clear case that they exist only for profit rather than any pretence at medical reasons.
I think the doctors that did this type of surgery purely for profit rather than for medical reasons are very close to havng broken the Hippocratic Oath , if they have not actually broken it ! Do not know if a doctor can be sued for breaking his/her Hippocratic Oath but possibly some one with legal knowledge will comment.
Rowanwitch The implants were not 'fit for purpose'
The company PPI has actually admitted that they used industrial filler grade silicon not medical grade, they even admitted that the saving was just £4 per implant. But as I said they have declared bankrupcy to avoid paying . If they had not done so they would be prosecuted for criminal negligence and have to pay the entire cost, the clinics that did the implants have nearly all declared bankrupcy as well again to avoid paying.
The company PPI has actually admitted that they used industrial filler grade silicon not medical grade, they even admitted that the saving was just £4 per implant. But as I said they have declared bankrupcy to avoid paying . If they had not done so they would be prosecuted for criminal negligence and have to pay the entire cost, the clinics that did the implants have nearly all declared bankrupcy as well again to avoid paying.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.