The government’s failure to respond to calls for a compensation scheme for women harmed by pelvic mesh has been described as “morally unacceptable” by campaigners.

Thousands of women were left with life-changing complications after receiving transvaginal mesh implants, with some unable to walk or work again.

Saturday marks two years since plans for financial redress for women harmed by pelvic mesh implants were set out by England’s patient safety commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes.

However, ministers have made no commitments to providing compensation to women harmed by the medical scandal. The plans, outlined in the 2024 Hughes report, included compensation for children left disabled as a result of their mothers using the epilepsy drug sodium valproate in pregnancy.

The government recently admitted that there was still no timetable to provide compensation for victims affected by pelvic mesh and valproate. Hughes has now pledged to take the matter directly to the prime minister.

Campaigners have said the lack of government action is worsening the mental health of people affected by the scandals.

Kath Sansom, the founder of the advocacy group Sling the Mesh, said: “As every week, month, year passes, women are getting more frustrated, upset. You can’t put their pain on hold. A lot of them have had to give up work or reduce their hours. They’re struggling to make ends meet. We have some members, they’ve had to sell their homes and move in with elderly parents, marriages broken down …

“We see those women at three in the morning trying to put up a post saying, ‘I don’t want to be here any more’ … I’m so angry that these women have their lives ruined and no one is taking accountability by giving them compensation … it’s morally unacceptable.”

For years pelvic mesh was regarded as the gold standard fix for stress incontinence and prolapse in women, conditions that can occur after childbirth or as women approach menopause. “None of us were warned about the risks. We were all told it was a gold standard surgery,” said Sansom.

Surgery to remove mesh can cause serious complications, including organ injury, heavy bleeding, serious infection, and leg and lung clots, with surgeons having compared the procedure to removing chewing gum from hair.

The Hughes report was commissioned directly in response to the First Do No Harm review led by Julia Cumberlege, which outlined nine recommendations for delivering justice to women harmed by pelvic mesh, the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and the hormone pregnancy test Primodos.

The Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, whose mother experienced debilitating pain and constant infections after a pelvic mesh implant, described the government inaction as “insulting”.

“No government response to the Hughes report after two long years since its publication is insulting to the thousands of mesh- and valproate-harmed women and children. This is more than just a response to a report; this is about restorative justice.”

Hodgson, who chairs the First Do No Harm all party parliamentary group, added: “All of these women and the families, they were all gaslit. They were all told it was all in their heads: ‘There’s nothing wrong with you.’ And the women who would have children damaged by valproate, again, they [doctors] went: ‘Oh, this drug’s safe.’ So they’ve had years of being gaslit.

“This compensation would say loud and clear that this was not all in your head. It was not 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. Every month of delay compounds the injustice these patients have already endured.

“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 recognise the significant impact that sodium valproate and pelvic mesh have had on people and their families.

“This is a complex issue and our priority is to ensure any response is fair, balanced and sensitive to those affected. We are carefully considering the recommendations within the Hughes report, in collaboration with relevant departments, and we aim to provide an update in due course.”