Mesh Implant Treatment

The motion

That the Parliament notes the findings of the study published in The Lancet that details the relative risks associated with mesh implant treatment; understands that the article, Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997 - 2016: a population-based cohort study, states that, in some circumstances, mesh treatment leads to a higher level of complications, compared with other surgery, but that hospital readmission rates were similar to those for other incontinence surgery not involving mesh; acknowledges that the study only looked at readmission to hospital within five years of treatment; understands that complications can often arise a decade after treatment due to the time it takes polypropylene mesh to harden, shrink or fragment; acknowledges the comments from the Scottish Mesh Survivors campaigner, Elaine Holmes, that the study is allegedly flawed as the data it uses does not include or count patients treated as outpatients or by their GP; thanks the BBC for its investigative journalism, which recently illustrated that, while many NHS boards have suspended mesh operations, some are still being carried out despite requests from the former Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil MSP, for a moratorium; considers that the continued use of mesh, when the long-term implications for women in Scotland remain uncertain, is irresponsible, and calls on the Scottish Government to take swift and decisive action to ensure that women are protected until the long-term health implications of mesh treatment are clear.

No recorded vote on this motion. Most motions are never debated, and many that are debated are agreed without a division. Vote records are published from 2011.

Con 20 Lab 2 SNP 1 Green 1

Party shown is each supporter’s party when the motion was published.

No contribution in the Official Report cites S5M-03272 by reference.