Failure to compensate pelvic mesh implant victims ‘morally unacceptable’, say campaigners | Vaginal mesh implants
The government’s failure to respond to calls for a compensation scheme for women suffering pelvic mesh injuries has been described as “morally unacceptable” by campaigners.
Thousands of women have faced life-changing complications after receiving transvaginal mesh implants; some were unable to walk or work again.
On Saturday, the UK’s patient safety commissioner, Dr. It has been two years since financial compensation schemes for women harmed by pelvic mesh implants were set out by Henrietta Hughes.
But ministers have made no commitment to pay compensation to women harmed by the medical scandal. Plans outlined in 2024 Hughes reportThis compensation included compensation for children who became disabled as a result of their mothers using the epilepsy drug sodium valproate during pregnancy.
The government recently admitted that there is no timetable yet for compensation to victims affected by pelvic mesh and valproate. Hughes has now vowed to take the matter directly to the prime minister.
Campaigners said the government’s failure to act was worsening the mental health of people affected by the scandals.
Kath Sansom, founder of advocacy group Sling the Mesh, said: “As each week, month, year goes by, women become more frustrated, more upset. You can’t stop their pain. Many have had to give up work or reduce their hours. They are struggling to make ends meet. We have some members who have had to sell their homes and move in with their elderly parents, their marriages have broken down…
“We see women trying to make a post at three in the morning saying, ‘I don’t want to be here anymore’… I’m so angry that these women’s lives have been destroyed and no one has held them accountable by compensating them… it’s morally unacceptable.”
For years, pelvic mesh was considered the gold standard correction for female stress incontinence and prolapse, conditions that can occur after childbirth or as women approach menopause. “None of us were warned about the risks. We were all told this was a gold standard surgery,” Sansom said.
Surgery to remove the mesh can cause serious complications, including organ injury, heavy bleeding, serious infection, and leg and lung clots; Surgeons have compared this procedure to removing chewing gum from hair.
The Hughes report was produced in direct response to this. First Do No Harm review Led by Julia Cumberlege, the report listed nine recommendations to ensure justice for women harmed by pelvic mesh, the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and the Primodos pregnancy test.
Labor MP Sharon Hodgson, whose mother suffered debilitating pain and persistent infections following a pelvic mesh implant, described the government’s inaction as “insulting”.
“Two years since its publication, no response from the government to the Hughes report is an insult to the thousands of women and children harmed by mesh and valproate. This is more than a response to a report; this is about restorative justice.”
Hodgson, who chairs the first Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group, added: “All these women and families were all gaslighted. They were all told it was all in their heads: ‘There’s nothing wrong with you.’ And women with children harmed by valproate [doctors] went: ‘Oh, this medicine is safe.’ So they were gaslit for years.
“This compensation will say loud and clear that this wasn’t all in your head, it wasn’t your fault, and what happened was wrong.”
Hughes said: “These are not abstract policy questions; they are about real people whose lives have been fundamentally changed by systemic failures in healthcare. Each month of delay compounds the injustice these patients already endure.”
“I will be approaching No 10 directly to secure the commitment to action that has been missing for two years.”
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We recognize the significant impact sodium valproate and pelvic mesh has on people and their families.
“This is a complex issue and our priority is to ensure that any response is fair, balanced and sensitive to those affected. We are carefully considering the recommendations in the Hughes report, in collaboration with relevant departments, and aim to provide an update in due course.”
