Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 14 June 2012

14 Jun 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

PIP Silicone Breast Implants

Watt, Maureen SNP Aberdeen South and North Kincardine Watch on SPTV

There has been much debate about exactly how many women in Scotland, the UK and across Europe might be affected. Those numbers remain unclear, but we can be sure that, for those who are affected, it is a very serious matter indeed; they are going through a time of great anxiety.

Although we can be somewhat relieved that no link has been established between the implants and an increased risk of cancer, it is a cause for concern that PIP implants appear to be more prone to rupturing and can be toxic. As my colleague Fiona McLeod pointed out, the rupture rates are estimated to be between 1 per cent and 5 per cent, but the women concerned do not know whether they will fall into that category.

It is welcome news that the NHS and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy have reassured the people of Scotland that there is only one known case of PIP implants being used by the NHS. However, I am a little puzzled by that. Does that mean that single purchases of implants are made, or does the patient bring the implants with them? Perhaps the minister could enlighten us.

The NHS is to be commended for offering to remove PIP implants from anyone who has been affected following either NHS or private surgery. We can only hope that the private clinics will choose to offer the same treatment. I echo the call from the Scottish Government and from various members during this morning’s debate that private practices provide the care that their patients expect, and offer surgery to rectify the problem.

Like Margaret Burgess, I agree that we should look again at resurrecting the register of implants. Clinics and hospitals must know the source of their implants and there must be batch numbers, so we should be able to do that. Some women might not even know whether they have PIP implants, and although NHS and private clinics are making efforts to contact those who do, the advice for anyone who is still concerned is to contact their GP or clinic in the first instance.

Reassuringly, it appears that the rigorous MHRA processes were not at fault. The manufacturers fraudulently, and with callous disregard for their customers, altered the make-up of their products. I reiterate my hope that the continuing UK-wide inquiries into the issue will provide both answers and peace of mind for those who have been affected.

It should be borne in mind, however, that no breast implant surgery or cosmetic procedure is entirely without risk. I know that there are often good medical reasons for having breast implants, but I am not alone in being concerned by the ever-increasing numbers of women who feel that they have to put their bodies through this ordeal for cosmetic reasons. The PIP case highlights the real dangers that are involved in cosmetic surgery. The unrealistic image of women that pervades much of our society, most worryingly among our young people, continues to drive women to measures such as cosmetic surgery at great expense and danger to themselves, all in the name of someone else’s idea of beauty.

Carol Craig of the Centre for Confidence and Well-Being is extremely concerned about the amount of money that is spent—by people who can ill afford it—on such treatments. The health impact of the practices is well documented and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the situation threatens to undermine the equality and emancipation of women in our society. We can all agree that the manufacturers and practitioners in question have a duty of care to their customers, but we should not forget the duty of care that we all owe each other in society, and to ourselves as women.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 14 June 2012

In the same item of business