muz
Golden Master
- Messages
- 6,928
whilst in the ideal circumstance those that have profitted from the corner cutting they undertook in the manufactur of these implants the primary concern should be to the patients with the affected implants . These women did not chose to be exposed to the risk of this industrial grade sillicone and so have not really made an informed decision to put themselves at risk in the same way that you may argue those who damaer there liver or lungs through substance abuse .
All of this aside medical professionals undertake a Hippocratic oath and as such they are required to treat the patient in front of them regardless of how the harm has come about , the doctor inst required to make moral judgements on another choices merely treat them for whatever risk to health is present .
what you are attempting to say in that saving peoples lives is not a good use of taxpayers money would set an incredibly dangerous precedent
again I would argue that going behind the limited nature of the limited liability company would also set a dangerous precedent . I can see why in this case it would be preferable but setting that precedent only leads to a slippery slope . even if you where to go behind the clause limiting liability the directors would be likely to have put their wealth in another jurisdiction where the uk courts would not have any jurisdiction over its recovery and so the countless monies wasted on the court case would be much better served removing these implants . Another option which would be more favorable and easier to implement would be greater regulation in the marketplace for medical prosthetic including enhancing implants or perhaps to make it mandatory that people undergoing enhancement surgery like this privately are to insure themselves against the risks carried with the surgery . This way it would not cost the taxpayer when things like this went wrong .
All of this aside medical professionals undertake a Hippocratic oath and as such they are required to treat the patient in front of them regardless of how the harm has come about , the doctor inst required to make moral judgements on another choices merely treat them for whatever risk to health is present .
what you are attempting to say in that saving peoples lives is not a good use of taxpayers money would set an incredibly dangerous precedent
again I would argue that going behind the limited nature of the limited liability company would also set a dangerous precedent . I can see why in this case it would be preferable but setting that precedent only leads to a slippery slope . even if you where to go behind the clause limiting liability the directors would be likely to have put their wealth in another jurisdiction where the uk courts would not have any jurisdiction over its recovery and so the countless monies wasted on the court case would be much better served removing these implants . Another option which would be more favorable and easier to implement would be greater regulation in the marketplace for medical prosthetic including enhancing implants or perhaps to make it mandatory that people undergoing enhancement surgery like this privately are to insure themselves against the risks carried with the surgery . This way it would not cost the taxpayer when things like this went wrong .
