The nit-picking over tit-nicking and who should pay for it continues.

Now it has been revealed that Bluestar International had supplied industrial grade silicon to PIP from its Rhodorsil range which was meant for making tyres. France’s RTL Radio obtained a breakdown of the materials used in the faulty implants, including Baysilone, Silopren and Rhodorsil, all of which are industrial products not tested or approved for clinical use.

Between 300,000 and 400,000 women in 65 countries from Europe to Latin America are now in uproar over the news that they have willingly, if unwittingly, submitted to invasive surgery to implant a ‘spare tyre’ in their chest – many of them will have had surgery to remove the spare tyre from around their waist as well. It’s a crazy world, but before you assume that it is an entirely female world – PIP used the same material to make male chest and testicle implants as well…

The media have concentrated on the difference between the French and the British health authority reactions. The French have recommended that all implants be removed. The British are loudly complaining that they have to pay to have their implants replaced. Did you notice that? The difference between removed and replaced?

The French have no more plans to replace all silicone implants at governmental expense than the British government do. Lets have a few facts and figures to fill out the news reports shall we? Fact implants to augment the flat chested media, if you will.

50,000 British women a year decide that having any grade of silicone implanted in their breast is a good idea – despite the long standing medical fears about this. 20,000 of these women fly to clinics abroad in order to lessen the cost.

A mere 3,000 women every year comprise the group that one might have some sympathy with – those who have reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy for breast cancer. These women will already be being closely monitored by the NHS for any problems occurring in the breast area – that’s what happens after you have breast cancer. I can say with some feeling that worrying about what you look like is possibly the last thing on your mind if you have been lucky enough to get a stay of execution where cancer is concerned – but if these women have been persuaded by the NHS and society in general that the final icing on the recovery cake is to have yet another operation – and more in the future – to have a lump of silicone implanted in place of nature’s bounty, then so be it. They deserve to have it removed and replaced by the NHS – if it is causing problems.

That still leaves 48 thousand women who have had this operation – and look forward to more in the future – for purely cosmetic reasons. You noticed that I said ‘and more in the future’ – that is because all silicone implants require replacing.   So I have little sympathy with the ‘facing further invasive surgery’ argument – they already were.  Reuters reports that silicone breast implants have to be replaced numerous times throughout a person’s lifetime, which involves subsequent surgeries that are far more complex and high-risk than the initial one. And besides the high costs associated with this residual maintenance, each surgery carries with it additional health risks, such as increased inflammation and serious infection.

Some of the horror stories detailed to the press defy belief.

Mother-of-two Sarah House has been left unable to sleep and suffering a never-ending ‘nightmare’ after she found out a faulty implant had ruptured.

Poor woman, but what did she do? Despite being ‘uanble to sleep’ and ‘suffering a never ending nightmare’ – she rushed back to her surgeon and had another two (I assume it was two) lumps of silicone implanted in her. It cost her £7,500, (just before Christmas for added pathos).

Having always felt self-conscious about her small bust, Catherine Kydd paid £4,000 to have her size increased from 32A to 34C in 2004.

Yep, despite a family history of breast cancer (made more difficult to detect by the presence of implants), despite her implant having ruptured, she too, rushed back to the surgeon and persuaded him to put in another two lumps of silicone.

So for these women, it is not about having the implants removed, as per the French advice, but about having them replaced so that they can continue to have a foreign substance in their body without worrying about it. The NHS will still remove free of charge any implant which has ruptured – as they will perform lung surgery or liver transplants for those who willingly risk damaging their health by smoking or drinking – but they don’t provide lung transplants for smokers ‘because they have been warned of the risk of lung cancer if they continue to smoke’ and are having sleepless nights over it.

Silicone implants were banned in the USA as long ago as 1992, although they are now available again, albeit in a slightly different form, there remain grave concerns regarding the advisability of having any elective surgery, or any foreign body implanted in you – anyone claiming to have researched this area before going ahead with surgery obviously needs some lessons on how to use Google.

Peter MacFarlane
January 8, 2012 at 10:15

I don’t understand why there is even an argument.

If the NHS did the work, and it’s gone wrong, the NHS puts it right.
Simples.

If you paid Organisation X to do the work, and it’s gone wrong, you pursue
Organisation X – or your insurer does. Also simples.

What else is there to say?

Pompey Cowboy
January 8, 2012 at 19:51

Problem comes when NHS say it hasnt gone wrong — your implants are sound—
what happens then? Does the tax payer just spend a load of money to replace
” them”, and they to will have to be replace later on anyway.
With the
scenario of “Organisation X”– do they still exist? many do not and if they
do– they can just sit there and say your ” Implants are fine”– we’re not
doing anything

With this whole lot , I smell a RAt of clever lawyers exploiting women’s
fear for profit

Storm in an F
cup January 10, 2012 at 23:53

I’d like mine to be smaller not larger. Happy to donate them to anyone
who wants more………

Why any woman would want bigger ones other than for replacement from
cancer I don’t know. They are a freaking nightmare; hell to run with,
always in the way; you get lots of comments from blokes; (mainly
unwelcome) and can’t lie down on your front.

As for putting industrial filler in your chest – please ladies, put
socks in your bra instead.

Elena ‘andcart
January 7, 2012 at 11:09

It’s all my fault I’m afraid. I once had a friend who dished the dirt on
me, and I briefly and rather childishly hoped her boob job would explode. But
I did only mean her. Honest. Sorry.

zaphod January 7, 2012 at 09:40

“Vain and shallow” depends on your perspective.

Everyone who takes more trouble with their appearance than I, is vain and
shallow?
Everyone who takes less trouble, is a slob?

I get a haircut every few years. (If that.) If I read about someone who was
stabbed to death by a scissor-wielding psycho hairdresser, could I say, “Vain
and shallow, they deserve it for taking unnecessary risks for their
vanity”?

It takes all kinds to make a world. I only object to those who try to
impose their values on me.

Will Jones January 7, 2012 at 01:01

You clearly didn’t read the article did you? Madame Racoon makes it quite
clear that she is not sneering at those unfortunate women who have suffered
breast cancer or any other form of health problem that resulted in corrective
or reconstructive surgery. In fact:

“A mere 3,000 women every year comprise the group that one might have some
sympathy with – those who have reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy for
breast cancer. These women will already be being closely monitored by the NHS
for any problems occurring in the breast area – that’s what happens after you
have breast cancer. I can say with some feeling that worrying about what you
look like is possibly the last thing on your mind if you have been lucky
enough to get a stay of execution where cancer is concerned – but if these
women have been persuaded by the NHS and society in general that the final
icing on the recovery cake is to have yet another operation – and more in the
future – to have a lump of silicone implanted in place of nature’s bounty,
then so be it. They deserve to have it removed and replaced by the NHS – if it
is causing problems.”

She only reserved her criticism to the vain and shallow.

Back of the
queue January 9, 2012 at 12:13

Calm down dear. I suspect the disaproval is aimed at some of the ‘rent a
gob’ comments, not at our landlady.

john malpas January 7, 2012 at 00:06

If you have an early breast cancer discovered by mammography you will find
any operation from this disfiguring.
So a restructuring of the breast is
quite reasonable and not to be sneeered at.
You might as well laugh at
glass eyes and artificial limbs. I expect you mock wigs , hair pieces and
extensions.

Back of the
queue January 9, 2012 at 12:06

Well put. Oh how tiresome it must be for some – being ‘perfect’.

The Thought
Gang January 6, 2012 at 23:51

I have plenty of sympathy for those affected. Yes, they willingly took a
risk for motives that some might question… but this wasn’t one of the risks.
They had reason to believe that the bags were safe, and the people who put
them in, presumably warranting that they were safe, should replace them. Not
the NHS though, obviously.

Then again, I just heard one person phone the radio complaining that the
NHS wouldn’t take them out (she didn’t say she wanted them replaced) and that
she was a poor student so she obviously couldn’t afford to fund the operation
herself. Alas, the presenter was too much of a chump to point out that the
lady, evidently, managed to scrape together the funds to have them put in in
the first place. My sympathy finds itself resticted where people are able to
find money to make themselves look different, but not to remove something
which they are worried might kill them.

I would add that I never think much to a blokes opinion on whether a girl
should have a boob job (and I am a bloke). Sometimes the decision may indeed
be down to an overt desire to attract/please men… but it’s pretty fucking
offensive to assume that it’s usually going to be that. I know that most of
the time when I do something to affect my appearance (shave, haircut, buy a
nice jumper, choose new glasses etc) it’s for my own benefit, not because I
think it will help me get some action. Which is a bloody good job, it must be
said.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 7, 2012 at 07:47

“but it’s pretty fucking offensive to assume that it’s usually going to
be that”

Really?

The Thought
Gang January 7, 2012 at 11:32

Put it this way, I’d be pretty fucking offended* if I took a major life
decision and everyone assumed I was just doing it to get some trouser
action.

*OK, I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t be offended at all… because I’ve got
better things to do than be offended by anything… but maybe you get the
point.

zaphod January 6, 2012 at 22:11

This post is ostensibly about who pays, but there is a strong element of
schadenfreude in the post and many of the comments.

Just saying.

Single Acts of Tyranny January 6, 2012 at 19:55

At the risk of taking the somewhat highbrow Raccoon blog down to a more
base level, I have had precisely two girlfriends who have had implants.

They look great from a distance, but the minute one becomes more, ahem,
tactile, the illusion is shattered. So ladies, don’t do it.

Engineer January 6, 2012 at 20:05

They may indeed look great – but do they look good?

To be serious for a moment, this man’s opinion of surgical enhancements
for solely vanity reasons is that it diminishes a woman, not enhances her. I
truly wish they wouldn’t, except in the case Anna mentions – following
surgery for a life-threatening illness. I know there’s a sort of relentless
pressure on women to conform to some artificial idea of physical perfection,
but I have more respect for the women who say, “This is how I look, and if
you’ve got a problem with that, it’s your problem, not mine.” That, I can
respect.

Single Acts of Tyranny January 6, 2012 at 21:12

I had a most interesting chat with a woman from my gym yesterday. She
is (in my view anyway) quite beautiful, but she was reading one of these
god-awful celeb beauty magazines.

Anyway, I pointed out that her beauty did not lie in plastic-tit,
botox-lips or peroxide hair, it lay in her totality. And she is very nice,
albeit I don’t think she quite gets it.

Lerxst January 6, 2012 at 22:32

Agreed. Who wants more than a handful anyway?

Cascadian January 6, 2012 at 19:30

Nye Bevan and Beveridge did not foresee this problem did they?

Is there no politician that will say that the NHS cannot afford to cover
costs incurred for human vanity?

Saul January 6, 2012 at 18:13

Sounds like the Silicon Sculptor who made a complete tit of himself.

Don’t worry, I’m leaving.

Cascadian January 6, 2012 at 19:32

I am hoping we will hear from Norma Stitz very soon.

Gloria Smudd (née
Stitz) January 6, 2012 at 20:12

Believe me, Cascadian, you don’t want to hear from my twin sister Norma
at this time on a Friday – she’ll have been resting her chestular
splendour on the bar down at The Jugs downing ‘Gin & It’ since
lunchtime and by now one of her particular attractions may even have
slipped off and be resting on her ample thigh. She won’t be coherent by
now, let alone civil. Best leave well alone.

Cascadian
January 6, 2012 at 22:23

You paint a very Hogarthian picture of poor Norma.

Perhaps she needs to consult the young “lady” above about suitable
wear to prevent asset spillage. Stretch fabrics have come a long way
baby.

Pericles January 6, 2012 at 17:29

I don’t know about industrial-grade silicone ;  the way some
girls to-day use their breasts (or the having of them) perhaps they ought to
use the weapons-grade stuff !

ΠΞ

Mudplugger January 6, 2012 at 16:31

I believe that the PIP implants gained their usage approval from the French
authorities – this meant that the UK was then bound by EU rules to accept that
approval and allow their use in Britain, just like anywhere else in the
EU.

I’m not suggesting that the UK authorities would have refused approval
(especially if offered the same sweeteners) but, if anyone is to pay out for
the consequences, surely it should all be billed to the French government, as
they approved them in the first place. Or to Brussels as yet another concealed
penalty-cost of our membership of that corrupt club. Even the rapaciuos
cosmetic surgery industry can thus claim some innocence.

Ed P January 6, 2012 at 14:05

What are these women doing to rupture the implants? Crashing their cars so
they act as air bags? Or are there “rough & tumble” aspects involved? (I
must have led a sheltered life, as I have always considered a woman’s chest
area to be sensitive and worthy of gentle treatment.)
Seriously though, one
possible cause of implant rupture, apart from rumpy-pumpy, could be the
stresses of jogging or other strenuous exercise.

ivan January 6, 2012 at 14:14

If you read El Reg you will find them there referred to a Bulgarian Air
bags when ever an article writer gets the chance – usually the boot notes
section.

one possible cause of implant rupture, apart from rumpy-pumpy
I
thought the pres of the EU tended to make peoples heads explode

Ed P January 7, 2012 at 20:39

Yes, thanks, those were my (subtle) points.

Do “funbags” rupture in the reduced air pressure of an aircraft cabin
(probably on a flight from Luton to Malaga)?

talwin January 6, 2012 at 13:53

Testicle implants??!!** Jeez I’ve led a sheltered life.

But it perhaps demonstrates that the cartoon character, Buster Gonad, of
Viz fame, who carried his goolies around in a wheelbarrow, may have been based
on a little more than merely the Geordie writers’ imaginations.

gladiolys January 6, 2012 at 14:28

Often used in cases of testicular cancer, rather than as cosmetic
surgery.

JuliaM January
6, 2012 at 14:46

Talwin, they (they being, of course, our cousins across the pond) make
testicle implants now for neutered dogs, Google ‘Neuticals’, and
prepare to be amazed…

talwin January 6, 2012 at 14:56

Yeah. Didn’t think.

Moppy January 7, 2012 at 22:11

A chap near here has some, he is now known as “Billiard Bob”!

GildasTheMonk
January 6, 2012 at 13:25

Great Raccoontage!

Percy January 6, 2012 at 13:23

“300,000-400,000 women in 65 countries” with implants.
So where does
this leave the women’s equality movement? In what respect are they equal, even
bearing in mind the occasional male nitwit. This one situation puts them on a
par with chickens, or even lemmings. Even for breast reconstruction it is an
absurd procedure on the most superficial consideration. All this nonsense
comes from lack of proper male supervision.

M Barnes January 6, 2012 at 13:41

oh for goodness sake! The population of the UK is approx 63 million.
assuming 50% are female that’s 31.5 million women in one country. Now lets
take the higher number shall we, 600,000? 600,000 represents less than 2% of
the population of one country – never mind 65 countries.
If you are going
to go on the wind up try to make halfway believable. bloody men……….

Percy January 6, 2012 at 14:11

What do you think?…Chickens or lemmings?

M Barnes
January 6, 2012 at 15:29

Neither – peacocks

Percy
January 6, 2012 at 18:51

Such foolish creatures…

Engineer January 6, 2012 at 13:00

I’m not sure what the difference is between medical grade silicone and
industrial grade silicone.

Quantity?

SadButMadLad
January 6, 2012 at 14:38

Probably relatively minor differences. Silicone itself is supposed to be
inert to the human body. Different types of silicone will have stuff added
to it to affect it’s temperature, maliablity, etc. So aerospace silicone
will have different features to silicone used for sealing the edge of the
bath and different again for that in Bulgarian Airbags. There is also the
cleanliness of the manufacturing plant to take into account.

http://www.daprorubber.com/medical-injection-molding.aspx

JuliaM January
6, 2012 at 14:44

Didn’t some Darwin Award winner go to Florida to have – of all things –
buttock implant, only to die when it turned out the ‘expert’ performing
the procedure used the sort of silicone you can get in buckets at
B&Q?

Engineer
January 6, 2012 at 15:43

Hmm.

Do-It-Yourself silicone implants. Sold in pairs only. Read
installation instructions before use. Returned items will be subject to
a restocking charge. Not to be used as bath sealant. 10% discount to
OAPs on Wednesdays.

microdave
January 6, 2012 at 20:40

“10% discount to OAPs on Wednesdays.”
I used this
principle to get a cordless drill more cheaply…
Are we to assume
that hordes of Essex gals will be dragging Gran down to B&Q to
save a few bob on their latest pair of norks?

SadButMadLad January 6, 2012 at 16:57

Yep, plus cement and many other things. Not sure if the patient died.
The “doctor” also did it to herself.

Lerxst
January 6, 2012 at 22:30

I believe this was the case
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/228189

M Barnes January 6, 2012 at 12:49

‘Fact implants to augment the flat chested media, if you will’ – made me
chuckle.

I too noticed woman after woman with these implants saying they wanted them
removed and then carefully adding ‘ and replaced’. Is it the case that in
putting the implants in, the surgeons remove existing breast tissue? Cos
otherwise I don’t understand why the dodgy implants have to be replaced – just
go back to 32A.!
Am conscious that I have a really really low tolerance for
daft women who get ‘inflate-my-boobs’ jobs (as opposed to women who have
reconstruction jobs) so am trying to analyse my way through the issue to make
sure my knee-jerk ‘hell no’ reaction is justified. That and a horror of
agreeing with Christine Odone – please don’t tell anyone!
There are two
different issues:
1. knowledge that they have this implant and that there
is a % risk
2. actual rupture and subsequent health issues.

No.1 is not a problem that requires surgery. I know people who have found
themselves with heart valves that have a greater risk of failure than others.
They didn’t get operated on, they got monitored and also got on with their
lives without moaning about it on national tv.

No2 is an issue and they should therefor go back to the business which
supplied them with the faulty product and get it sorted . And learn a lesson
about ‘if something is too good to be true it probably is’.

These women don’t seem to recognise that surgery is inherently dangerous so
they think that there is no risk in putting themselves back under anaethesia
for a second op. Is the % risk associated with the length of time they would
be under for repeat surgery greater or lesser than the % failure rate?

I cannot *believe* I am agreeing with Christine Odone.

Spiral Architect
January 6, 2012 at 12:47

Completes all that needs to be said about younger British women these
days………..they think nothing of stuffing their bodies full of foreign object
for shallow, vainglorious reasons………..just as they think nothing of
……..leaving themselves barely educated……..of going around half-dressed …….of
producing babies with different men as a career option……..of vomiting in the
street……..of screeching foul language………..of cheapening themselves on reality
TV…….

……….in fact, they think nothing of themselves full-stop.

M Barnes January 6, 2012 at 12:51

that might be a bit excessive – deep breath, count to 10 aaaaaaaand
release. Shake that tension out of your finger tips. better?

Spiral
Architect January 6, 2012 at 14:07

Nowhere near enough…………….

…………..you know the country is in a mess when the women have more tatoos
than the blokes, and the blokes have more piercings than the women.

M Barnes
January 6, 2012 at 14:55

ROFL

gladiolys January 6, 2012 at 14:26

No different from the men, then.

Wigner’s Friend
January 6, 2012 at 16:47

Showing my age – I used to pay good money to see the tattooed man and the
fat lady. Now I pop into town on Friday night and see loads of fat tattoed
ladies.

Hugh Janus
January 6, 2012 at 20:02

Right on, Spiral Architect… That taxpayer might have to pick up the bill
for those ‘silicon enhanced’ females (not directed at those who choose to
have reconstructive surgery after masectomies) really stinks. And the NHS
will pursue those private companies who have gone out of business to recover
their costs…? I don’t think so, somehow.

Trickster
January 8, 2012 at 22:43

I’ve a PIP implant and I’m worried, I had surgery as one breast was a
double D cup and the other never really developed and was an A cup. I was
teased mercilessly and felt like a freak. I couldn’t wear normal clothes
and was made to feel like I was deformed. I couldn’t form proper
relationships, “one of your fillets has fallen out” was a daily ‘joke’ I
enjoyed hearing from total strangers. People who would never shout abuse
at a disabled person in the street would happily point, stare and laugh at
my deformed breasts, it took a lot of covering up to try and disguise them
and I suffered clinical depression and anorexia in the hope of shrinking
the larger one. Technically I was eligible for NHS treatment due to
psychological trauma, unfortunately the process turned into a farce and my
father took out a loan and paid for it for me.

Am I undeserving? I didn’t have to lose a breast due to cancer I was
born without one. I had surgery to feel human not like a barbie doll. But
now it seems like my choice is pure vanity and we paid that money for
nothing. I feel like I got a life and it is going to be ripped out of me
again through no fault of my own.

Mike January 6,
2012 at 12:14

Didn’t titter, honest, I laughed my socks off, then stuffed them down my
underpants.
Now I can’t sleep for the cheesy smell emanating from my undies
and wondering if the size of my new ‘front bum’ is making my head look too
small.