Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It is clear that a lack of governmental regulation has been absolutely central in the causation of the PIP saga. Not only was the approval of PIP by the MHRA misleading for private providers, but the lack of legislation regarding the responsibilities of private clinics in such situations is also fundamental. The NHS’s promise to remove faulty implants if a private provider refuses, whilst necessary, only negates the private clinics’ moral obligation to do so. The effect that this lax regulation has had is all too evident in the Harley Medical Group’s response to the problem – outright refusal to replace or remove the implants free-of-charge. Whilst the health secretary insists he will “pursue private clinics to seek recovery of our costs”, this should instead be an automatic process in cases such as this, explicit in legislation. Putting gentle pressure on the private sector is clearly not enough to evoke a response. As much as the MHRA may be responsible for misleading providers (public or private), if the NHS is expected to foot the bill for their patients, then so too should private providers.
Re: Government puts pressure on private sector to pay for removal of PIP breast implants
It is clear that a lack of governmental regulation has been absolutely central in the causation of the PIP saga. Not only was the approval of PIP by the MHRA misleading for private providers, but the lack of legislation regarding the responsibilities of private clinics in such situations is also fundamental. The NHS’s promise to remove faulty implants if a private provider refuses, whilst necessary, only negates the private clinics’ moral obligation to do so. The effect that this lax regulation has had is all too evident in the Harley Medical Group’s response to the problem – outright refusal to replace or remove the implants free-of-charge. Whilst the health secretary insists he will “pursue private clinics to seek recovery of our costs”, this should instead be an automatic process in cases such as this, explicit in legislation. Putting gentle pressure on the private sector is clearly not enough to evoke a response. As much as the MHRA may be responsible for misleading providers (public or private), if the NHS is expected to foot the bill for their patients, then so too should private providers.
Competing interests: No competing interests