kimmy

"Born without a nose"? How often does that actually happen? Do you believe that's a common situation, or did you just create that tortured hypothetical so as to further your "Whole/Not Whole" theme, which is in itself a really fake construct? How about instead of proposing some one in a million birth defect, you address something much more likely: a baby who is born with a nose (a whole one, to be clear) that is really abnormal looking? Now we're talking about something which is *purely* cosmetic. Now we're not talking about something you can justify using your ridiculous "whole/not whole" argument. Now what's you're answer? Do approve of this cosmetic surgery because you recognize that this child's physical appearance is going to significantly reduce his chance of leading a normal and healthy life? Or do you tell his parents that unless they have the financial means to pay for an operation themselves, there's nothing you can do because the child does, in fact have a *whole* nose? To me, the answer is obvious. It's why we *have* public healthcare. While you insist on restricting the scope of discussion to small breasts, there are a variety of other situations where breast implants might be part of providing a "normal" appearance. Asymmetry, abnormal shape, abnormal placement, for instance. (and to repeat, I really don't give a crap if the two Australian women had any of these issues.) You seem to have no difficulty with the idea of providing psychological help for women with emotional problems relating to their body image and self esteem. What about a woman whose breasts really are abnormal? Is all the psychological help in the world going to change the fact that she's got abnormal breasts? And because you keep trying to make this discussion about small breasts: I'm not saying that small breasts are abnormal. I am talking about breasts that are significantly abnormal. Why did you slip grotesque deformities in there? Club feet and cleft palates are medical problems that require correction to allow the patient to function normally. But "grotesque deformities" is a broad description that includes purely cosmetic issues. Do you agree that there are people with *purely cosmetic* problems that will significantly reduce their chance of having a normal life? Do you agree that abnormal breasts could be one of those purely cosmetic issues? -k

Mattel's apology concedes their own responsibility for poor design that created choking hazards in the form of small, breakable, easily-swallowed parts. Fair enough, but it was the lead paint issue that created the most bad press for China (and deservedly so.) -k

Ok, so on the one hand you have this enthusiasm that Khadr could be brought back to Canada and "rehabilitated", but on the other hand you're fully aware of the idea that we have no means to actually make him undergo any sort of rehabilitation. So what you're really saying is that he should be brought back to Canada and set free, correct? Same question to you: if we can't prosecute this guy, then under what pretense can we hold him and force him to undergo "deprogramming"? The name Ishmael Beah has been bandied about in this thread, but Beah was able to be held in the custody of UN aid workers while he was rehabilitated. Under what pretense could Canadian law allow Khadr to be detained and "deprogrammed"? -k

And? Your point? -k

While I understand the concern about hype, be careful lest ye fall for it yourself. The website you've quoted here, for instance, is not a "women's health site". It's a company that sells organic and herbal "health products". It's not difficult to see why such a business has a vested financial interest in scaring people away from "normal" medicine and medical technologies ("big pharma", as the weenies like to say) and towards "alternative" medicines. On a practical note, if the vaccine is only believed to provide about 5 years of protection, then it seems to me that administering it at age 9 is jumping the gun a little. It sounds as though protection could be expiring just when it's going to start being needed. I realize things change, but I recall some of my classmates beginning to become sexually active in their early teens, not age 9... -k

I see no problem at all with the idea of a tax on energy, provided that the tax is paid by the end user, rather than the producer. The argument that it doesn't matter whether the tax is applied to the producer or consumer is a cop-out because it ignores the possibility of energy produced abroad and brought into Canada. (ie, offshore oil or electricity produced in the United States. Does the smog from coal-burning powerplants stop at the border? Ontarions have been complaining about smog from Michigan coal-burning plants for ages.) Nor would applying the tax to consumers rather than producers let producers off the hook. Operations in the tar-sands produce huge amounts of emissions, by *consuming* fuel. They burn huge amounts of natural gas to heat their boilers and run their powerplants; simply make them pay an environmental tax on the fuel they burn. Applying the tax to the party who is consuming the energy is the most logical and fair way of implementing any such environmental levy, and makes each consumer responsible for their energy habits. -k

You've ducked the question of how this rehabilitation is to be attempted. If we can't prosecute Khadr and place him in prison, then how can we "rehabilitate" him? -k

You spelt "wither" wrong. -k

Holistic describes the view that a person is a complete being-- physical, mental, spiritual, all interrelated and inseparable-- as opposed to a collection of parts that can be viewed in isolation from each other. Which is why we reconstruct a woman's breast after a mastectomy. It's not a necessary step if the goal was just to stop the cancer. But because we recognize the value of the woman's emotional health, as well as her physical health, and understand that the two are interconnected, we reconstruct the breast. Because the objective is not simply to stop the cancer, but to treat the whole patient. If a child is born with some sort of benign but grotesque facial deformity, we as a society should do what we can to correct it. Why? Because correcting this deformity gives the child a much better chance of having a normal and healthy and happy life. And because doing nothing gives the child a much greater chance of becoming miserable and unhappy and antisocial. He should be given cosmetic surgery for the exact same reason as we would care for a child born with club feet. Doing something gives the child a better chance at a normal life, and doing nothing gives the child a better chance at a miserable life. That's why I strongly believe that cosmetic surgery can be part of legitimate medical care. Before anybody says "yeah, but that's a facial deformity, and we're talking about breast implants." Yes, I know. But being already strongly committed to the idea that cosmetic surgery can be part of legitimate medical treatment, deciding on exactly what should or should not be provided to patients is not a black and white exercise, but shades of grey. -k

Because with Britney it's personal. She has been on our televisions for years now, and to some extent people feel as though they know her in a sense. She is much like a strong character in a good work of fiction... people develop some connection or attachment to strong fictional characters, or they resonate with us in some way, or evoke some emotional response... and Britney is such a character. As with a literary character, news items about Britney could be categorized as either "characterization" or "plot development" or sometimes both. Gossip that Britney doesn't change her kids' diapers, but does put whitening-strips on their teeth serve to reinforce peoples' view of her. Events like her disastrous marriage to that deadbeat, or her recent disastrous "comeback" performance at the video music awards show, advance the plot in the slow-moving, long-running drama that is Britney's public life. She's a compelling lead. It might be disguised as "entertainment industry news", but the ongoing saga of Britney Spears is really just a very popular soap opera. -k

I can't speak to Germany, but I believe that economics have done far more to change the way we build families than "liberalization" or "the erosion of Christian values" or "feminists" or similar favorite complaints. People want to raise their children in a nice house with a yard in a nice neighborhood. Not a crappy little apartment. But in most of Canada's major cities, it now takes two good jobs and a 4000-year mortgage for a couple to afford the kind of home that their parents were able to provide for them with often just one parent working. My mom was already finished having children by the time she was my age, and my dad had already purchased our first house. For all the supposed progress we've made, the dream of owning a home is farther out of reach than it was when my parents were my age. People start having their families later because they want to try to establish themselves economically, but a second income seems necessary to do so, and the second income probably comes to an end when the babies arrive. -k

I don't recall any outpouring of sympathy for white supremacist murderers. And I think the scenario you describe is flawed for another reason: your hypothetical white supremacist murderer would be easy to classify, easy to prosecute, and easy to put away. It would be rather cut and dried, as opposed to the confusing legal situation we see with regard to Khadr. I do not think Khadr would be vilified to this extent if he were convicted and imprisoned. It is the fact that this legal situation remains unresolved and in the news that people find aggravating, but much more aggravating is the possibility that this guy could wind up back in Canada as a free man (and probably suing us, to boot.) I think the prospect of seeing that happen is what really fuels the anger toward this situation. I would not be opposed to that, if said rehabilitation took place inside a prison. And that is the dilemna: if he can't be charged and prosecuted, then how is this "rehabilitation" going to occur? Do you wish him to be brought back to Canada to walk the streets as a free man? I'm not particularly fond of the idea. I doubt that even the biggest lefties in Canada are very excited to see that happen. But if our government can't find some way of making legal charges stick, then that's what will happen as soon as he's released from Gitmo. -k

The issue of this thread is "should breast implants be paid for?" You seem intent on debating a different issue: whether the two Aussie navy women had a legitimate need for them. I honestly don't give a crap about that question, it's irrelevant to the issue of when and what plastic surgery should be paid for. So, you're willing to prescribe continual therapy to help the mental state of somebody with a self esteem problem stemming from a cosmetic issue... but addressing the cosmetic issue itself is an unacceptable use of tax money? I gave a thorough explanation of why I dismissed your statistic, and why it doesn't prove the point you think it does. Go back and re-read that explanation, and get back to me when you have an intelligent response to it. Most women who get implants are not pursuing a life in the sex trades. Women in the sex trades get breast implants at a far higher rate than the general population. There's not a contradiction there. Are you trying to imply that there's a contradiction because you're desperate, or do you honestly believe that they are contradictory? Either way, I feel a little embarrassed for you. Self esteem problems among women in the sex trades are well documented. Histories of sex abuse among women in sex trades are well documented. Substance abuse problems among women in the sex trades are well documented. Links between these issues and suicide are well documented. If you're interested in the subject, there is plenty of material out there for you to read. I never jumped all over you for suggesting counselling. If I have jumped all over you, it is for refusing to consider that in some instances, cosmetic surgery could be *part* of the treatment. Show me where I said it was a magic cure. I have simply maintained that in some cases it could be a legitimate part of the treatment. -k

aw, thanks, Sharkie. I just wanted people to consider that maybe this issue isn't as one-sided as it was being made to sound. Well, Dobbins, I thought that after the byelections Monday night, you would have "compelling psychological reasons" to take some time off to grieve, but you have rebounded much quicker than I expected. Good for you. Yes, I had noticed earlier in the thread how you'd seized upon the word "holistic" in the spokesman's statement as if it were a synonym for "quackery". However, the word "holistic" need not involve power-crystals, orgones, yoga, granola, incense, or any of the other connotations that have been attached to it. A "holistic" approach is one which recognizes that physical and emotional are often interrelated and can't be treated in isolation from each other. For example, a "holistic" approach is the reason that we don't just cut the cancer out of a woman's breast, we do what we can to restore her cosmetically as well. So I thought it was particularly ironic that after seeing "holistic" be mocked throughout the thread, suddenly I was being accused of seeing breast augmentation as a substitute for counselling. I would not provide breast augmentation as a "cure" for low self esteem without counselling, any more than I would provide Fred Savage with counselling without also removing the gigantic frightening mole from his face. Do you not agree that there are situations where someone's physical appearance is a significant obstacle to their ability to participate in society and enjoy life? If so, then do you not agree that we should take reasonable steps to correct it? If not, why not? Isn't the goal of our public healthcare system to provide people with the opportunity to participate in society and enjoy life? -k

I gather the Algonquins are now getting their legal advice from Dr Evil? -k

I'm not discussing these two specific cases, I am discussing a general principle. I am in no position to evaluate these two womens' specific cases. Nor are you. Nor is Dr Shawarma. So? Why should the plastic surgeon know a god damned thing about their psychological health? He was contracted to do their breasts, not evaluate their psychological health. If he had access to information from the womens' medical records with their navy physicians, then somebody should be losing their job and more than likely doing jail time for leaking confidential information. And, as I keep saying, I am not discussing these specific cases. I am discussing a general principle: that cosmetic surgery in some circumstances could be part of legitimate medical treatment. I honestly don't give a crap what you know or what you think you know about the specifics of these two cases, it is irrelevant to the larger point. And why don't you answer the question I posed: Hypothetically: if someone serving in the Australian navy wished to have malformed breasts corrected, are you in favor of that? The navy said that there were compelling psychological reasons. If they feel comfortable in sponsoring surgeries based on that assessment, I suspect there'd be some sort of process in place. I doubt we're really here to debate the thoroughness of the Australian Navy's medical bureaucracy, however. I'd question the intelligence of someone who'd prescribe continual ongoing therapy for emotional problems stemming from a cosmetic problem without also correcting the cosmetic problem. Then the people who are assessing the legitimacy of their claims will have to apply careful scrutiny. I ignored that statistic because it's profoundly stupid. I saw the same statistic a number of times over the past few days, promoted by supposedly intelligent people with an axe to grind, willing to overlook an obvious logical fallacy ("correlation does not imply causation") because the statistic supports a political view they wish to advance. Comparing the suicide rate of women who got implants to the average suicide rate for all women is stupid for a number of reasons. -it ignores the fact that many women who get implants do so for "professional reasons" (ie, exotic dancers, prostitutes, porn actresses, and similar), women tending to lead lifestyles at higher risk of suicide (often relating to drug and alcohol abuse) -a large proportion of women who seek implants (usually including those in sex trades) have pre-existing emotional problems and self-esteem issues. A much higher proportion than the general population. So discovering that women who have breast implants have a higher suicide rate than the population at large is kind of like discovering that a higher percentage of prison inmates have criminal records than the population at large. Find me a statistic comparing the suicide rate among women with body image problems who get implants vs the suicide rate among women with body image problems who don't get implants. That statistic, if it exists, would be relevant to the point you wish to make. And anyway: in response to this: ...I never advocated that breast implants would be the sum total of the treatment; merely part of it. (As in: do you guys actually understand what the word "holistic" means?) -k

He should have stayed in Iran? Indeed. What an inconsiderate individual. Fixing people's teeth in the wrong official language. I wonder how he sleeps at night. I would hope that Mr Raisi moves his practice (and himself, and the taxes he pays) to Ottawa. I am sure that if his 2000 patients were not offended by his less than stellar French language skills, they won't mind making the short drive across the river. If Ottawa is anything like it was when I lived there, I expect that there'll be no shortage of patients looking for a dentist regardless of how well he can write in French. He received passing grades in the oral portion of the exam; M Paquette's comment that dentists require written skills as well strikes me as rather odd, since every dental clinic I've ever attended has full-time staff who perform all record-keeping and so-on. I'm not sure I can recall ever seeing a dentist holding a pen. According to the article... ... geologists?! Do the rocks in Quebec only speak French? I would think that this sort of policy can only serve to damage Quebec economically. Employers have a hard enough time recruiting professionals (in any field) even in English Canada; this policy could only serve to further limit the pool from which Quebec employers can fill their needs. I would also assume this sort of thing can only serve to continue the exodus of Anglos from Quebec; people who will continue to look for more welcoming environments elsewhere in Canada, and taking their skills and earning potential with them. -k

I have no objection to Dion pursuing this. Theoretically, it is a legitimate issue for a Canadian MP to investigate. However, if he thinks this is an issue that'll reverse his fortunes, he is in for a big disappointment. Because while it's theoretically a legitimate issue, to many Canadian voters it's also a non-issue. I would anticipate that even among Canadians who philosophically oppose Omar Khadr's continued detention, few have much passion to see him returned to Canadian soil. Maher Arar was not a welfare case. He was a successful engineering consultant, which is why he was travelling to the United States in the first place. -k

As I said, I won't discuss the specific merits of these two cases, because I don't have adequate information to do so. Hypothetically: if someone serving in the Australian navy wished to have malformed breasts corrected, are you in favor of that? As I said, I won't discuss the specific merits of these two cases, because I don't have adequate information to do so. I am not "trying to make it about something else," I am defending as a matter of general principle the idea that cosmetic surgery might *in some cases* be a part of a legitimate medical treatment. In which cases? I would leave that decision up to the doctors and psychologists treating the patient. In the case of these two women? I would think that the doctors and psychologists involved would be better equipped to assess the merits of those cases than you are. -k

Great news if you travel to the US or buy American things. Not such good news if your job depends on exports or tourism. The question of how much of this is a reflection on Canada and how much is a reflection on the United States is somewhat debatable. I heard on the news tonight that although the US dollar has fallen with respect to every major currency, the Canadian dollar has also risen relative to currencies other than the US dollar. I wonder when some of our dollar's newfound muscle will start to be reflected in prices? Strange that considering how much our dollar's buying power has supposedly improved, prices at the supermarkets don't seem to have gone down any... -k

Aw, that's sweet! I won't discuss the legitimacy of specific cases. It's quite possible that if I had first hand knowledge of the situation, I might find some of the decisions questionable. However, I think it's highly presumptuous to made that judgment without firsthand knowledge. Would it matter to you if these women were given breast enhancement because of lopsidedness rather than being small? I was under the impression that your position was rather absolute. I won't discuss any specific case, because I don't have specific information, nor do you. Nor did Mr James, when he spoke in general terms about why the Navy would fund this. (how do I know he didn't have specific knowledge about the women or the reasons the procedures were done? Because in Australia, as in North America, there is a belief in patient confidentiality.) I will only discuss the principle. And the principle is this: a person's physical appearance can have significant impact on their psychological health. If someone's physical appearance is a factor in anxiety, depression, or inability to participate in society, then it is a legitimate *health* issue. I disagree. If someones' face has some sort of malformity that causes people to cringe and look away, then I would feel no qualms at all about offering public health money to help them. Whether their face got that way through some sort of accident, disease, or bad luck on the genetic wheel of fortune is entirely irrelevant to me. That person should be provided with the opportunity to participate in life. Likewise, breasts. If someone's breasts are so unappealing as to cause her anxiety or depression or personal isolation, then I don't care if they got that way through disease, accident, or genetics. I would not be awarding free implants to everybody who thinks being an "A" cup is a "compelling psychological reason". Simply wishing you were bigger is not a "compelling psychological reason". Nor is body dismorphia disorder something that should be treated with free plastic surgery. Many women who have nothing outwardly wrong with them have anxiety and depression over their appearance, and these women should be provided with psychological help, not plastic surgery. However, unlike yourself and Dobbins apparently, I also recognize that there are circumstances where a person's physical appearance is significant obstacle to their ability to pursue success and happiness. And in such cases I really couldn't care less whether their appearance got that way as a result of an accident or a disease or if they were just born that way, they deserve the chance regardless. And that is why I still believe what I wrote in my first post of the thread: should this surgery be paid for by the tax payer? Depending on the circumstances, yes. -k

You keep referring over and over to "small breasts" as if it were the only reason a woman might want to have her breasts done. Certain "lowbrow" types might make that assumption, but I would think a woman would realize that some women have far worse luck than to just be short a cup size or two. There are women whose breasts naturally developed in a way that is, to put it as delicately as possible, quite different from what's considered normal. While researching my earlier post (containing the quote that OHIP might pay for breast surgery if the woman's breasts are too asymmetrical) I saw a number of "before" pictures that really drove the point home: there's much worse things than being small. I would bet that the women in some of the pictures I saw would have been overjoyed to have normal-looking "A-cup" breasts instead of how theirs grew. I used the word "disfigured" on purpose, because natural or not, these women must feel that way about their bodies. Why did I bring the breast cancer survivors back into this? Because you and Dobbins seem to recognize that they have a compelling psychological need to have their cosmetic appearance repaired. And don't try and dance around it by saying it's part of treating the illness. It's not. It's done to address a psychological need. And it puzzles me that you and Dobbins apparently recognize her psychological need to have a whole and normal-looking pair of breasts because she lost one due to illness... but can't recognize that a woman who never had a whole and normal-looking pair of breasts might have the same psychological need. -k

(lol.) 10 months ago, the forum's biggest Liberal boosters said the Conservatives needed a tragic accident to happen to Dion. Now, the forum's biggest Liberal boosters say that the Liberals need a tragic accident to happen to Dion. Clearly, this has been a poor night for the Liberals. -k

Do you dispute the idea that there could be a legitimate psychological issue? Do you disagree that cosmetic surgery could be *part* of treating a psychological issue that's related to a cosmetic problem? (if somebody had some sort of horrible scar on their face, would you spend thousands of dollars and dozens of hours on therapy for the person without actually, you know, fixing the scar? Particularly if it were a simple outpatient procedure?) Why is breast reconstruction after a mastectomy apparently more acceptable to people? I mean, at the start of the thread I pointed out that sometimes people have implants after a mastectomy, and yourself and Dobbins hastily pointed out that oh no, you weren't talking about breast reconstruction for breast cancer survivors. Well, why not? There's no *medical* reason for a woman whose had a mastectomy to get breast reconstruction. It's purely cosmetic. It's purely to address a psychological need. Many breast cancer survivors don't even bother getting their breast reconstructed. Of those who do, the reasons for doing so relate entirely to their self image, self esteem, self confidence, and so-on. Shouldn't you and Dobbins be just as mad that public healthcare will pay for breast-cancer survivors to have a breast reconstructed for reasons that have nothing to do with her physical health? Why do you guys apparently have no problem accepting that reconstructing a breast cancer survivor's breasts for purely psychological reasons, but apparently can't wrap your heads around the idea that those reasons might be just as valid in a patient whose breasts are disfigured as a result of genetics rather than because of cancer? I challenged anybody to tell me that this would be a world-wide news item if it were about something other than breasts. -k