Should the government pay for the removal of PIP breast implants?

Recently it was discovered that breast implants which about 40000 British women have had fitted contained industrial grade silicon gel, which can be more irritative. The french government have recently paid for the removal of any french women who would like their implants removed after finding an increased rupture rate of 5%. The British Government review has found no increased rupture rate to normal (1%) and together with the fact that the removal operation may itself come with a risk, recommends for British women not to have these, or any other breast implants removed. 


There must be a reason for the discrepancies in the rupture rates, according to the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons it is because of lack of knowledge or rupture, changing clinicians or moving to NHS care when problems arise. But could that really account for 4% less rupture rates? It doesn't seem likely to me, perhaps the two countries were investigating the issues differently, it's probable that there has been some manipulation of figures on the side of the plastic surgery companies to seem as if the implants weren't as dangerous so as to not have to pay for removal.The health secretary has encouraged private companies to fulfill their responsibilities to care for and support the patients and there is going to be a review into this rupture rate data.


However, all this just raises the question, even if they were a risk to health, should the government foot the bill? Aside from the 3000 patients who recieved the implants for reconstruction after cancer treatment, the breast implants were paid for by the customer. Surely by doing so, one is accepting the relative risk of rupture and complications. But then again, if the rupture rates for the PIP breast implants are far higher than the norm it could be argued that they did not buy into such a high risk. 


Would it be fair for funding to be taken away from other non-self inflicted problem treatment to pay for the removal of primarily cosmetic problems? Sadly the majority of the cases the NHS has to deal with is self-inflicted, If the NHS refused to pay for treatment of cases caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse, the general public would not be getting the service which they are entitled to as citizens of this country. However even if , it is still an issue that the NHS is undergoing widespread funding cuts and the 


A possible solution to this problem would be to introduce either compulsory insurance on plastic surgery to cover the cost of any problems which may occur. Or similarly to cigarettes, put a high taxation rate to cover the extra costs of complications to surgery in the NHS. I'm not sure which would seem a more attractive option for the recipients of the surgery, perhaps the taxation rate would be less as it would not have profit margins added by the private sector. However, the general public may not understand that the extra taxation rate is for their own benefit and may feel as if they are being targeted or 'robbed' by the government. 


Even just one health scandal can lead to a series of problems and issues.


Thanks for reading!