Hansard

I had some concerns about the information that the committee was given following the most recent meeting on the matter. The committee was informed that there was only one report of an adverse incident. That is obviously a big issue, as such incidents are in fact a lot more common than that. I do not know whether general practitioners are involved in reporting adverse incidents, or how that happens. If a patient goes back to a private clinic to report an adverse incident, for instance, is that clinic bound under health service rules and guidelines to report it? It would be useful for the committee to pursue that point.I understand that there is a three-year time limit for complaints regarding health procedures. Given that symptoms can sometimes take 10 to 15 years to appear, that time limit also requires to be examined.There is a further concern. The Scottish Government did not know what I meant about treatment time and the treatment that is available. I meant that if the condition is not recognised and if the science is not there to prove the symptoms, the treatments that might alleviate the symptoms are not available on the NHS, as they are not viewed as forming a care pathway. More research needs to be done into what treatments are available to treat the symptoms instead of removing the silicone. A number of issues regarding the petition still give concern.We are obviously coming to the end of the parliamentary session, and the committee will be trying to close off petitions or decide what otherwise to do with them. Perhaps the Public Petitions Committee will wish to put this petition in its legacy report, referring it to the next session’s health committee, so that it may carry out an inquiry into the issue. A lot of the work that has been carried out on the subject seems inadequate and there is not enough information available to allow people to help others who are suffering from this type of illness.