"There is something called the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 under which companies have a statutory duty to ensure that whatever it is they sell is of a satisfactory quality," writes David Heath MP in today's Western Gazette. "You see the act in action all the time, in that if you are sold faulty goods by a reputable trader and you take it back, they will replace it, or refund the costs if that is not possible, and if that involves them in repeating the fitting of the part in question, then that too is their responsibility. In fact, again, reputable companies take their responsibilities further in that if they identify a fault which could subsequently involve legal redress, they issue a recall notice for the product as a pre-emptive action.

"So why on earth do some of the companies providing cosmetic surgery, of all things, think that they have no moral or commercial responsibility having fitted sub-standard breast implants which include in their composition industrial grade silicon never meant to be inserted into a human body? Why do they think they should be able to maximise their profits, which is after all the reason they were using the French cut-price PIP (Poly Implant Prothese) product in the first place, but when it is shown to be unsuitable for the purpose supplied then no costs should attach to them, or their insurers (assuming they have them), to put things right? And do they really think it is right for the taxpayer, via the National Health Service, to pick up the tab?

"The advice from the Chief Medical Officer, incidentally, is clear. There is no immediate risk to women who have been given the implants, and there is no requirement for emergency removal. There is, however, a recommendation that if anyone is suffering from discomfort or is concerned, that they should consult the clinic where the operation was done or their general practitioner. And what the big private clinics know is that in case of emergency the NHS will not let patients down and will take the necessary action. What they are prepared to take a gamble on is the legal position; that because the NHS has no contractual relationship with the providers they cannot seek redress, and because there is little or no evidence that the industrial grade silicon can be linked to systemic illness, they can argue that the implants were “fit for purpose”. The last point is one reason why the group of experts set up by the government to review the evidence, such as it is, is so important.

"Some say  that the NHS should immediately act to offer all affected women surgery. Indeed, the Welsh Assembly government seem to have taken exactly that view. But that seems to me to be exactly the wrong approach, as it simply lets the cosmetic surgery clinics off the hook. They have a legal and a moral duty to rectify the mistake. Some have, to their credit, accepted that. Their professional body has come to the same conclusion. But those which simply want to make the maximum profit want to avoid their responsibilities, and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it."