Should breast implants be paid for

[jdobbin]

Harper often looks to Australia for inspirational and aspirational ideas.

Here is what the Australian Navy is doing:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070916/oddi...ealth_lifestyle

The Australian military Sunday defended its decision to pay for some female sailors to have breast implants, saying the operations were not carried out for cosmetic reasons.

Australian Defence Force spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic did not say how many women had had the taxpayer-funded operation.

But he said the military would consider paying for plastic surgery for personnel where there were medical, dental or compelling psychological or psychiatric reasons.

Any suggestion that breast operations were carried out to make the women "look sexy" were not only wrong, but insulting, Nikolic said.

"Under defence policy we do consider the holistic needs of our people, both physical and psychological," he said.

Does anyone here think this is a policy that should be undertaken in Canada for holistic reasons?

Edited September 16, 2007 by jdobbin

[AngusThermopyle]

Does anyone here think this is a policy that should be undertaken in Canada for holistic reasons?

Absolutely not. It was absurd enough already when they gave that Sargent a sex change operation.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the very idea is nuts. Seems to me they should be getting "psychological or psychiatric" help if their need for bigger breasts is that "compelling."

[kimmy]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070916/oddi...ealth_lifestyle

Does anyone here think this is a policy that should be undertaken in Canada for holistic reasons?

Depending on the circumstances, sure.

What if we were talking about a soldier who'd undergone a mastectomy? Is that still big laffs? Is that still a ridiculous use of taxpayer money?

I realize that news articles about breast implants or plastic surgery are guaranteed (and, often, designed) to generate these sort of responses.

Plastic surgery is a ridiculous waste of a medical degree, a frivolous and superficial waste of resources, an indictment of our society's unrealistic standards, an exploitation of people's vanities, etc etc. Wag your fingers, turn up your noses, say "tsk tsk". And just forget that if you're so unfortunate as to be burned in a fire or mangled in a car crash or stricken with breast cancer or your child is born with a cleft palate, you're going to be bloody well grateful that some surgeon is wasting his medical degree in this frivolous manner.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Depending on the circumstances, sure.

What if we were talking about a soldier who'd undergone a mastectomy? Is that still big laffs? Is that still a ridiculous use of taxpayer money?

A woman who's undergone a mastectomy needs "breast reconstruction surgery," not "breast implant surgery."

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Depending on the circumstances, sure.

What if we were talking about a soldier who'd undergone a mastectomy? Is that still big laffs? Is that still a ridiculous use of taxpayer money?

I realize that news articles about breast implants or plastic surgery are guaranteed (and, often, designed) to generate these sort of responses.

I think the article said for holistic needs, not as part of a recovery due to illness or injury.

[jdobbin]

A woman who's undergone a mastectomy needs "breast reconstruction surgery," not "breast implant surgery."

Very true. I have no problems with treatment due to injury or illness. This didn't sound like that at all.

Edited September 16, 2007 by jdobbin

[kimmy]

A woman who's undergone a mastectomy needs "breast reconstruction surgery," not "breast implant surgery."

When was the phrase "breast implant surgery" used, specifically? They did say "breast implants", but no specific explanation of the circumstances, other than that it's not being done for cosmetic purposes:

The Australian military Sunday defended its decision to pay for some female sailors to have breast implants, saying the operations were not carried out for cosmetic reasons.

Breast reconstruction frequently (usually, I suspect) involves an implant.

However, I recognize that you guys want to talk about the kind of plastic surgery that makes people mad. So let's cut to the chase.

What makes breast augmentation differently from some other cosmetic surgery? Say somebody who had severe acne as a child and opts to have cosmetic surgery to reduce the scarring when they're an adult. Do you begrudge them that?

-k

[jdobbin]

What makes breast augmentation differently from some other cosmetic surgery? Say somebody who had severe acne as a child and opts to have cosmetic surgery to reduce the scarring when they're an adult. Do you begrudge them that?

I don't know that the Navy in any country should be paying for acne treatment or breast implants for holistic reasons. Period.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know that the Navy in any country should be paying for acne treatment or breast implants for holistic reasons. Period.

Why not.....many of these are volunteer forces that have to compete for "employees" and benefits programs. One member maintained that I received government health care from the Navy...why can't that include dermatology and plastic surgery?

[kimmy]

I don't know that the Navy in any country should be paying for acne treatment or breast implants for holistic reasons. Period.

Well, I'm not sure that they should either. The Oz navy, however, insists that it's not being done for cosmetic purposes.

Anyway, you didn't actually answer what I asked. I am hoping that somebody might want to talk about why breast augmentation has such a negative perception.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyway, you didn't actually answer what I asked. I am hoping that somebody might want to talk about why breast augmentation has such a negative perception.

I wasn't aware that it had a negative perception...is this a Canadian perception? Breast reductions, breast augmentations, bariatric surgery, penile implants, facelifts, gluteal augmentations, hair transplantation, etc. are all the rage. I suspect that there is a resentment for surgeons chasing these far more lucrative procedures than run-of-the-mill OB-GYN or family practice. Cable television shows demonstrate the practices (and results) for all to see.

WRT breasts, they have been the subject of the longest running marketing scams in history, from outright "falsies", to miracle creams purchased from the back of detective story magazines, to exercise equipment, and so on. I marvel at the persistent, generation to generation obsession with having "more" in the udder department.

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 16 2007, 11:25 AM) *

A woman who's undergone a mastectomy needs "breast reconstruction surgery," not "breast implant surgery."

When was the phrase "breast implant surgery" used, specifically? They did say "breast implants", but no specific explanation of the circumstances, other than that it's not being done for cosmetic purposes:

Breast reconstruction frequently (usually, I suspect) involves an implant.

However, I recognize that you guys want to talk about the kind of plastic surgery that makes people mad. So let's cut to the chase.

I would think that "breast implants" would imply "breast implant surgery." So yeah, even though breast reconstruction surgery sometimes involves an implant as part of the surgery, it's not referred to as breast implant surgery, because it's not. It's breast reconstruction surgery.

I think you might be having problems with what you "recognize" here, because from what I can see, "us guys" want to talk about the issue: which is breast implants, not reconstruction surgery. If you read the articles on this issue, it's clear that the issue is "breast augmentation," not reconstruction surgery after cancer.

[kimmy]

I wasn't aware that it had a negative perception...is this a Canadian perception?

And an American one as well. Despite the popularity of such procedures, there are no shortage of critics on either side of the border. Your countrywoman's earlier comment is typical:

Seems to me they should be getting "psychological or psychiatric" help if their need for bigger breasts is that "compelling."

Women who get implants are often ridiculed.

To be clear, I haven't got much sympathy for a woman who's a natural "B" and wishes she was a "C" or a "D".

However, I don't think that's who the navy is talking about when they say "compelling psychological reasons", although it's certainly who people immediately think of when they hear of this sort of story.

Let's meet 5 hypothetical people:

-a girl who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because her breasts didn't develop

-a boy who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because he's obese

-a girl who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because her teeth grew in a crooked and unappealing manner

-a boy who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because he's got some sort of startling but benign growth on his face

-a girl who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because she's got horrible acne and resulting scars

All 5 of them are now adults, and all 5 are considering having cosmetic surgery to correct these issues.

Which ones do you guys support, and which ones need to tough it out or "get psychological help"? Come on, guys, here's your chance to judge 'em!

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

And an American one as well. Despite the popularity of such procedures, there are no shortage of critics on either side of the border. Your countrywoman's earlier comment is typical:

Women who get implants are often ridiculed.

One member's comment hardly represents the collective American opinion of breast implants. In fact, judging by the popularity of such procedures (CanAmerican Pamela Anderson has had several), money talks and BS walks. Howard Stern has led a one man crusade for implants, condemning very poor "boob jobs" to record ratings, and giving away procedures to the most deserving ("horrible") breasts presented in studio. Nothing could be more outrageously American.

[Guest American Woman]

(bush_cheney2004 @ Sep 16 2007, 12:25 PM)

I wasn't aware that it had a negative perception...is this a Canadian perception?

And an American one as well. Despite the popularity of such procedures, there are no shortage of critics on either side of the border. Your countrywoman's earlier comment is typical:

(American Woman)

Seems to me they should be getting "psychological or psychiatric" help if their need for bigger breasts is that "compelling."

Women who get implants are often ridiculed.

That's ridiculing them? Suggesting someone needs psychologial help, when it's clearly stated in the article that their problem IS psychological, is ridiculing them? I had those words in quotes for a reason; they were quotes from the article. So give me a break. If someone's problem stems from "psychological issues," that's what needs to be treated, and saying as much is in no way "ridiculing" them. There's nothing shameful/ridiculing about seeking psychological counseling. What happens if life doesn't suddenly become everything they've wanted it to be after they got their breasts enhanced? Michael Jackson, for example, would have been better off to receive psychological treatment than to have had repeated plastic surgery.

To be clear, I haven't got much sympathy for a woman who's a natural "B" and wishes she was a "C" or a "D".

However, I don't think that's who the navy is talking about when they say "compelling psychological reasons", although it's certainly who people immediately think of when they hear of this sort of story.

Just about everyone is born with something they don't like about themselves. Should the tax payers pay to have it all 'fixed?' What about a woman who is suffering psychologically because of aging. Let's not get her psycological treatment, let's give her a face lift at the tax payers' expense. Is that it? Or is it ridiculing her to suggest psychological counseling?

Your accusation that I ridicule people who get breast implants is completely false and totally out of line. :angry:

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Well, I'm not sure that they should either. The Oz navy, however, insists that it's not being done for cosmetic purposes.

Anyway, you didn't actually answer what I asked. I am hoping that somebody might want to talk about why breast augmentation has such a negative perception.

I have no problem with someone buying it for themselves.

The Australian Navy said it wasn't for cosmetic purposes but they also didn't say it was for reconstruction due to illness or injury. They said holistic which means something a lot lighter than essential care.

I don't believe anyone else's healthcare plan covers holistic breast implants so I don't know why the taxpayer should be on the hook for it either.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no problem with someone buying it for themselves.

The Australian Navy said it wasn't for cosmetic purposes but they also didn't say it was for reconstruction due to illness or injury. They said holistic which means something a lot lighter than essential care.

I couldn't care less what people do with their own money either. I think it's sad that some women need bigger breasts in order to feel self worth, but that's hardly 'ridiculing' them. I'm wondering where all the "ridiculing" and "negative perception" accusations are coming from. The topic isn't what we think about breast augmentation, but what we think about the tax payers paying for it. The Australian navy has made it clear that "boosting self esteem" was the reason for the surgeries, not reconstruction due to illness or an injury. I just don't see that as the tax payers' responsibility.

I don't believe anyone else's healthcare plan covers holistic breast implants so I don't know why the taxpayer should be on the hook for it either.

That's a really good point.

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[Peter F]

When I was in the navy I had many cavities filled. Why didn't they just pull them? No extra expense and never need worry about them again.

Why should the taxpayer support the sailor's vanity of maintaining a full set of teeth?

[jdobbin]

When I was in the navy I had many cavities filled. Why didn't they just pull them? No extra expense and never need worry about them again.

Why should the taxpayer support the sailor's vanity of maintaining a full set of teeth?

It used to be that teeth were pulled when they rotted out. Now, most would agree having your teeth is better for your long term health.

Having your own teeth is part of an overall health strategy.

Breast implants that are done when there is no injury or illness is cosmetic. Having your own teeth is not just a question of cosmetics.

[kimmy]

It used to be that teeth were pulled when they rotted out. Now, most would agree having your teeth is better for your long term health.

Having your own teeth is part of an overall health strategy.

Breast implants that are done when there is no injury or illness is cosmetic. Having your own teeth is not just a question of cosmetics.

What if a cosmetic procedure were part of an overall health strategy?

There are certainly people who have emotional problems, perhaps depression, which is linked to some cosmetic issue.

Leaving aside breasts for a moment, suppose we were talking about a giant grotesque mole in the middle of someone's face (think Fred Savage in Austin Powers...) People wince when they see him, and he's undoubtedbly aware of peoples' revulsive reaction to his appearance. It probably causes him self esteem issues. It might be an impediment to his social life, it quite likely makes him quite unhappy at least once a day every day. Now, while American Woman would probably suggest therapy (and perhaps it's a good idea) ...wouldn't it also be a good idea to address the root of this unhappiness? Should Fred Savage undergo countless hours of therapy to learn to deal with peoples' horrified reaction to his grotesque mole, or would it be perhaps worthwhile to, you know, just remove the mole?

To me, that seems like an example of a situation where a purely cosmetic procedure-- removing a gruesome mole-- would be an integral part of an "overall health strategy." To me, it seems like the overall benefits to Fred's self confidence, his happiness, his self esteem, would be highly worthwhile. It would probably pay for itself later on through savings in therapy or reduced absenteeism. (would that mole cause absenteeism? When you consider the amount of stress, anxiety, and depression it undoubtedly causes its owner, the answer is obviously yes.) So I think it would make perfect sense for the navy to perform a purely cosmetic operation, at the taxpayers' expense, because the cost of the procedure is likely well worth it in terms of future medical costs, productivity, and the net benefit to the navy of having Midshipman Fred being a healthier and happier individual.

Don't you agree?

If not, why not?

So why did I choose to talk about a grotesque mole, instead of undeveloped breasts? Because I feel that there's a big double-standard when it comes to the topic of breast augmentation.

If a woman has treatments to remove bushy eyebrows, people don't think anything of it.

If a woman has dental intervention to fix messed up teeth, people don't think anything of it.

Liposuction? Gastric bypass? Some people might question why she can't lose the weight through Willpower and Exercise, but they don't get all judgmental about her choice.

If a woman has dermatological treatments to get rid of acne scarring, people don't think anything of it.

If a woman has a mole removed, people don't think anything of it.

But a woman decides to get breast augmentation, and a bunch of Naomi Wolfe wannabes cast judgment on her character, her mental health, and launch into long rambling tirades about the evils of Cosmo magazine and the ridiculous standards that The Patriarchal Media has forced upon women.

And I think it's such a bunch of crap. Women who get implants are generally speaking not planning on making a career in porn or stripping. Generally they just want to be happy. They would like the same social opportunities that are available to women who were born with physical attributes that society values. In short, they are really not very different from women who get their uni-brows electrolyzed, except that women who get their uni-brows taken care of don't get pelted with copies of The Beauty Myth by self-righteous feminazis.

-k

[kimmy]

Your accusation that I ridicule people who get breast implants is completely false and totally out of line. :angry:

I'm sorry, that wasn't directed specifically at you. I had meant to go back and expand on that section of my post, but forgot to do so before I hit "Add reply."

I don't think you're ridiculing them. I just think you're being judgmental. You've decided that these women need mental help, not cosmetic surgery.

I know that many women who seek cosmetic surgery really do need mental help. But I'd never be so presumptuous as to make that assumption about everybody who gets the procedure. I don't know if these programs are available in the US, but I have seen programs that interview people who get plastic surgery, talk about their decision, and document their experience. It turns out it's not just for would-be porn-stars or wannabe strippers, or women with self-esteem problems and body dismorphia disorder.

I see that nobody wanted to take on the 5 hypothetical people I introduced earlier. Why is that? Was it a difficult exercise? Or were people just afraid of admitting their own biases?

And yes, I'm quite sure there is a bias here. If the Australian Navy had paid for a cosmetic procedure to remove a horrific mole off of somebody's face, or straighten a mangled set of teeth, or electrolyze a scary uni-brow, I don't think it would even make the local news, let alone be a topic of discussion on the other side of the planet. Can anybody here tell me otherwise while keeping a straight face?

-k

[jdobbin]

What if a cosmetic procedure were part of an overall health strategy?

There are certainly people who have emotional problems, perhaps depression, which is linked to some cosmetic issue.

Leaving aside breasts for a moment, suppose we were talking about a giant grotesque mole in the middle of someone's face (think Fred Savage in Austin Powers...) People wince when they see him, and he's undoubtedbly aware of peoples' revulsive reaction to his appearance. It probably causes him self esteem issues. It might be an impediment to his social life, it quite likely makes him quite unhappy at least once a day every day. Now, while American Woman would probably suggest therapy (and perhaps it's a good idea) ...wouldn't it also be a good idea to address the root of this unhappiness? Should Fred Savage undergo countless hours of therapy to learn to deal with peoples' horrified reaction to his grotesque mole, or would it be perhaps worthwhile to, you know, just remove the mole?

So why did I choose to talk about a grotesque mole, instead of undeveloped breasts? Because I feel that there's a big double-standard when it comes to the topic of breast augmentation.

But a woman decides to get breast augmentation, and a bunch of Naomi Wolfe wannabes cast judgment on her character, her mental health, and launch into long rambling tirades about the evils of Cosmo magazine and the ridiculous standards that The Patriarchal Media has forced upon women.

And I think it's such a bunch of crap. Women who get implants are generally speaking not planning on making a career in porn or stripping. Generally they just want to be happy. They would like the same social opportunities that are available to women who were born with physical attributes that society values. In short, they are really not very different from women who get their uni-brows electrolyzed, except that women who get their uni-brows taken care of don't get pelted with copies of The Beauty Myth by self-righteous feminazis.

-k

I expect someone to deal with a mole, acne and small breasts from their own resources and not from general health insurance or taxpayer money.

I have no problem paying insurance premiums or taxes for injury, illness or preventative care.

I make no judgments on people who do make cosmetic changes to their appearance. I do object to having to pay for it when it doesn't fall under the criteria of injury, illness or prevention.

There is a reason why most cosmetic surgery is not covered. It's because it is not considered the highest priority for healthcare.

Edited September 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[kimmy]

I expect someone to deal with a mole, acne and small breasts from their own resources and not from general health insurance or taxpayer money.

I have no problem paying insurance premiums or taxes for injury, illness or preventative care.

I make no judgments on people who do make cosmetic changes to their appearance. I do object to having to pay for it when it doesn't fall under the criteria of injury, illness or prevention.

There is a reason why most cosmetic surgery is not covered. It's because it is not considered the highest priority for healthcare.

So you disagree that in the scenario I described, removing Fred's mole would be part of an "overall health strategy"? Do you disagree that it's "preventive care" in the sense that it will reduce Fred's emotional stress and social anxiety and therefore result in higher productivity and less absenteeism?

Don't you think it's (as the British might say) "Penny wise, pound foolish" to ignore the long-term benefits when assessing the cost of dealing with the mole? As Fred's employer, shouldn't the navy look at the potential boost to his productivity and absenteeism as an investment in its human capital, much the same as they'd look at paying for a team-building trip or skills training or an informational seminar?

And, do you think that if it were a mole removal instead of breast augmentation that were paid for, do you think it would have even made the local paper, let alone news on the opposite side of the planet?

-k

{literally begging for somebody to claim this would have made the news if it were something other than breasts.}

[jester]

It's becoming more and more difficult not mentioning health and safety............