Should breast implants be paid for

[kimmy]

I'm not discussing hypothetical issues, I'm discussing the issue of this thread.

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.

In regards to your "general principle: that cosmetic surgery in some circumstances could be part of legitimate medical treatment," Jdobbins and I have already stated that we think cosmetic surgery, such as breast reconstruction surgery, is a "legitimate medical need" and should be covered. We've stated that quite clearly. We have also stated that "self esteem" doesn't fall into that catagory, and therefore breast augmentation doesn't fall into that catagory.

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?

As for those "stupid statistics" regarding the higher rate of suicide among women who've had breast augmentaion that "supposidly" intelligent people are quoting 'only because it supports their view,' you couldn't possibly be dismissing it because to do supports your view, eh?

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.

But I must say, I find some of your 'reasoning' interesting. For example, you are dismissing the study as "stupid" because "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)" yet you said earlier, and I quote, .""Women who get implants are generally speaking not planning on making a career in porn or stripping." So which is it? Is it a fact that many women who get implants do it for professional reasons or is it a true that women who get implants are generally not planning on making a career in porn or stripping? Or do the facts depend on which point you're trying to make?

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.

I'd also like to know what percentage of women having breast augmentation surgery are in this "high risk" catagory along with the percentage of women in this "high risk" catagory that were in the study. I'd also like some proof that exotic dancers, prostitutes, porn acctresses, and similar commit suicide at a higher rate than women outside these professions.

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.

But bottom line: according to you, a large number of women seeking breast augmenation do have emotional problems. Yet you jumped all over me for suggesting counseling for women who want to enlarge their breasts due to emotional problems.

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.

But bottom line: according to you, a large number of women

So the study I cited is quite relevant to the point I've been making. The women's psychological problems need to be addressed. Increasing the size of one's breasts isn't a magic cure for problems with self esteem.

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

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know why you have to try to throw insults in.

I was thinking the same thing.

I also haven't mocked holistic care so much as I question breast implants being considered part of that care.

I don't equate breast reconstructive surgery as the same as breast augmentation. The first is steeped in the "do no harm" school of curative medicine. That is, to treat the illness, leave as little damage as possible and restore the tissue to what it was before if at all possible. The second is to alter healthy tissue for cosmetic reasons.

Cosmetic surgery of a generally healthy tissue should remain outside the public or general insurance field. I have no problems with people who feel they need to have a nose job, want a facelift and the like but they should use their own resources.

Taxpayer and general health insurance needs to be guarded zealously.

I agree with you completely.

And to my understanding, holistc methods approach treating the mind along with the body when the body is ill and needs medications, surgery, chemotherapy, etc. I don't really see it as approaching surgery to fix problems of the mind.

Regarding health coverage at the taxpayers' expense, coverage should provide medical services for medical problems and psychological services for psychological problems. As it is health coverage is out of control for those who have to purchase it-- and those who have to pay for it with their taxes, too, since there seems to be some funding problems. Adding elective surgeries would sky rocket medical costs out of control.

Edited September 20, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Regarding health coverage at the taxpayers' expense, coverage should provide medical services for medical problems and psychological services for psychological problems. As it is health coverage is out of control for those who have to purchase it-- and those who have to pay for it with their taxes, too, since there seems to be some funding problems. Adding elective surgeries would sky rocket medical costs out of control.

I believe in the public health insurance system and with general insurance for other healthcare needs. However, the only way for these services to run properly is to make sure they are limited to essential services of medicine and health. I don't mind people taking out supplementary insurance for things like semi-private rooms, ambulance, travel insurance, extended dental care and whatever other insurance there is. It is their money and if it makes sense for their health needs, it's a good thing. I have no problem of people paying for elective cosmetic surgery either.

Somebody has to speak up about the costs of being too liberal in offering services in healthcare where it should be a person's own responsibility.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jdobbin

[kimmy]

And to my understanding, holistc methods approach treating the mind along with the body when the body is ill and needs medications, surgery, chemotherapy, etc. I don't really see it as approaching surgery to fix problems of the mind.

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

[Guest American Woman]

Reconstructing breasts is making the woman whole again. Her breasts have been removed so she is no longer physically "whole." This is due to illness, a medical need. It isn't due to a disatisfaction with her breasts; it's due to the fact that her breasts have been removed.

If a child were born without a nose, one would be constructed by cosmetic surgery because the child would not be whole. That's a completely different issue from performing cosmetic surgery because someone isn't happy with the size of thier nose. If a child is born with a cleft palate, that is surgicallly corrected. That's a whole different issue from someone wanting collegen injections because they aren't happy with the size/shape of their lips.

So yes, "grotesque deformities" are corrected surgically, but again, small breasts are not a "grotesque deformity." They aren't a deformity of any kind. This is why Doctors Without Borders donate their time/services to correcting deformities like tumors, club feet, cleft palates, etc. but you don't see them donating their time/services to performing breast augmentation when women are dissatisfied with the size of their breasts.

I'll repeat one more time that comparing dissatisfaction with the size of one's breasts to "grotesque deformities" is bizarre, unless you are truly of the belief that small breasts are a "grotesque deformity," which in itself would be bizzare.

I'll repeat this one more time, too. Jdobbins and I have already stated more than once that when there is a medical need for the surgery, we support public healthcare paying for it. So I do support it for cleft palates, club feet, and "grotesque deformities" and have made that quite clear from the very beginning. I don't support public healthcare paying for purely cosmetic surgeries to boost one's self esteem.

Edited September 21, 2007 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Reconstructing breasts is making the woman whole again. Her breasts have been removed so she is no longer physically "whole." This is due to illness, a medical need. It isn't due to a disatisfaction with her breasts; it's due to the fact that her breasts have been removed.

If a child were born without a nose, one would be constructed by cosmetic surgery because the child would not be whole. That's a completely different issue from performing cosmetic surgery because someone isn't happy with the size of thier nose. If a child is born with a cleft palate, that is surgicallly corrected. That's a whole different issue from someone wanting collegen injections because they aren't happy with the size/shape of their lips.

"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.

So yes, "grotesque deformities" are corrected surgically, but again, small breasts are not a "grotesque deformity." They aren't a deformity of any kind. This is why Doctors Without Borders donate their time/services to correcting deformities like tumors, club feet, cleft palates, etc. but you don't see them donating their time/services to performing breast augmentation when women are dissatisfied with the size of their breasts.

I'll repeat one more time that comparing dissatisfaction with the size of one's breasts to "grotesque deformities" is bizarre, unless you are truly of the belief that small breasts are a "grotesque deformity," which in itself would be bizzare.

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.

I'll repeat this one more time, too. Jdobbins and I have already stated more than once that when there is a medical need for the surgery, we support public healthcare paying for it. So I do support it for cleft palates, club feet, and "grotesque deformities" and have made that quite clear from the very beginning. I don't support public healthcare paying for purely cosmetic surgeries to boost one's self esteem.

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

[gc1765]

I'm not saying that small breasts are abnormal. I am talking about breasts that are significantly abnormal.

How abnormal are we talking about here? Breasts are not something that people see everyday. I don't know how common these abnormalities are, and maybe it's just me but I've never walked down the street and noticed any women who had abnormal breasts. I would think it would have to be pretty abnormal to be noticeable compared to an abnormality on someone's face.

[M.Dancer]

How abnormal are we talking about here? Breasts are not something that people see everyday. I don't know how common these abnormalities are, and maybe it's just me but I've never walked down the street and noticed any women who had abnormal breasts. I would think it would have to be pretty abnormal to be noticeable compared to an abnormality on someone's face.

If they were common, they wouldn't be abnormal. Notwithstanding some women do have misshaped or odd sized boobs where in order to wear a dress to fit properly, they need to use a "falsie".

Imagine having on your left a C cup and on your right an A.

Not something you would notice because as you can imagine, a woman will become quite adept at minimizing the differences whether though loose tops or through pads. But when she is naked and she can't hide her body to her lover....Not for me to judge whether the psychological or emotion burden is too heavy....I know I wouldn't begrudge a fellow his desires for normalacy is he had a 3 inch penis.

[kimmy]

How abnormal are we talking about here?

Well, I don't know the answer to that, but OHIP apparently has guidelines for determining which cases qualify to receive financial assistance. (I keep mentioning OHIP because it's easier to research due to the larger number of Ontario plastic surgery clinics. I suspect they're not much different from other provinces.)

-k

[jdobbin]

Well, I don't know the answer to that, but OHIP apparently has guidelines for determining which cases qualify to receive financial assistance. (I keep mentioning OHIP because it's easier to research due to the larger number of Ontario plastic surgery clinics. I suspect they're not much different from other provinces.)

According to the special access program figures in Canada, 21,000 women applied for silicon implants for "small breasts" through a program meant for people with life threatening illnesses.

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/st...dd-623b8cffb33f

TORONTO (Global National) -- An exclusive Global National investigation has uncovered a Health Canada loophole that allows women seeking cosmetic breast augmentation to exploit a Special Access Programme -- meant to allow patients with life-threatening conditions to access unapproved drugs -- to obtain silicone implants, which are banned in Canada.

Global National's Health Specialist Jennifer Tryon has determined that in the last five years, Health Canada has approved more than 21,000 special requests for silicone breast implants. In fact, 6,000 of the 9,000 requests (67 per cent) received annually through the Special Access Programme are applications for breast implant devices.

Here's more:

The SAP is designed for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions and who require "emergency" and/or "compassionate" access to drugs not authorized for use in Canada, when conventional therapies have "failed, are unsuitable, or are unavailable."2

According to the news story, 67% of SAP requests annually are for breast implant devices, and over the past 5 years, the SAP has approved over 21 000 requests for silicone implants. The cosmetic surgeons interviewed explained that "small breasts" and "slight rippling of the skin through saline implants" are the medical conditions for which implants are sought through the SAP.

[Guest American Woman]

That's the kind of misuse of public healthcare funds that scares people off from it. I would be quite angry if my tax dollars went towards giving women with "small breasts" bigger breasts. That's a drain on your healthcare dollars and, I would imagine, wait times for necessary surgeries. I wonder if this has had a negative impact on any people with actual "life threatening illnesses."

[buffycat]

I can't believe this thread went on so long. I guess boobs get folks going!

IMO it's pretty clear: If any kind of reconstuction is deemed necessary due to MEDICAL reasons - not VANITY - it should be covered. If it's simply to augment one's body for purely self indulgent reasons - pay for it yourself.

How hard is that to understand?

[kimmy]

Most of those 21,000 applications were probably for frivolous reasons. That's terribly unfortunate, and the people who administer this program should obviously look into it.

None of that dissuades me from the opinion that under some circumstances it would be completely legitimate to pay for cosmetic surgery. Including boob-jobs.

I can't believe this thread went on so long. I guess boobs get folks going!

IMO it's pretty clear: If any kind of reconstuction is deemed necessary due to MEDICAL reasons - not VANITY - it should be covered. If it's simply to augment one's body for purely self indulgent reasons - pay for it yourself.

How hard is that to understand?

Thank you for the Sesame-Street level analysis, buffycat.

The part that's difficult to agree upon, what we've been discussing for about 70 messages, is at what point a cosmetic issue has legitimate medical consequences. Drawing the line between medical reasons and self indulgent reasons isn't as black and white as some people make it sound.

-k

[jdobbin]

Most of those 21,000 applications were probably for frivolous reasons. That's terribly unfortunate, and the people who administer this program should obviously look into it.

As far as I know, the SAP that started under the Liberals continues under the Tories. I've heard of no change in policy.

How implants came to dominate a program set up for life threatening conditions is rather disheartening.

[Wilber]

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 respectfully submit that someone who is in need of continual therapy due to a lack of self esteem because their tits aren't big enough is not someone I would want to trust with large and lethal weapons.

[buffycat]

Thank you for the Sesame-Street level analysis, buffycat.

The part that's difficult to agree upon, what we've been discussing for about 70 messages, is at what point a cosmetic issue has legitimate medical consequences. Drawing the line between medical reasons and self indulgent reasons isn't as black and white as some people make it sound.

-k

Holy crap kimmy, do you always feel the need to be insulting? sheesh - grow up.

Now, wrt someone whose condition is SO bad that she 'thinks' bigger tits will help her - NEWSFLASH - her problem ain't her boobs - and I for one have NO interest in paying for some whiner's self indulgence. If she wants bigger titties - let HER (or her partner) pay.

There - simple enough for you?

Apparantly Sesame Street is beyond ya! Oh and BACK at you with the rudeness - ya like it? Probably not - so refrain from doing it to others okay "kimmy"?

[Guest American Woman]

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 respectfully submit that someone who is in need of continual therapy due to a lack of self esteem because their tits aren't big enough is not someone I would want to trust with large and lethal weapons.

What about someone who got bigger breasts courtesy of the military (at the taxpayers' expense) because their self esteem was so low that they couldn't properly do their job "because their tits aren't big enough." Would you want to trust them with large and lethal weapons?

Edited September 25, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I respectfully submit that someone who is in need of continual therapy due to a lack of self esteem because their tits aren't big enough is not someone I would want to trust with large and lethal weapons.

What about someone who got bigger breasts courtesy of the military (at the taxpayers' expense) because their self esteem was so low that they couldn't properly do their job "because their tits aren't big enough." Would you want to trust them with large and lethal weapons?

No, because the real problem isn't their tits.

[kimmy]

Holy crap kimmy, do you always feel the need to be insulting? sheesh - grow up.

Now, wrt someone whose condition is SO bad that she 'thinks' bigger tits will help her - NEWSFLASH - her problem ain't her boobs - and I for one have NO interest in paying for some whiner's self indulgence. If she wants bigger titties - let HER (or her partner) pay.

There - simple enough for you?

Far too simple, as I already said.

I am anticipating Ernie and Bert come out to explain "large" and "small" using watermelons and apricots, followed by Grover and Elmo singing "I love me just the way I am!"

Charming, heartwarming, but not actually very informative.

Now, wrt someone whose condition is SO bad that she 'thinks' bigger tits will help her - NEWSFLASH - her problem ain't her boobs - and I for one have NO interest in paying for some whiner's self indulgence. If she wants bigger titties - let HER (or her partner) pay.

Welcome to page 2 of the thread. If you'd actually read any of this, your mind might have been opened to the possibility that breast implants might be used in correcting issues such as abnormal asymmetry, abnormal placement, or abnormal shape.

Yes, I realize that everybody scoffs at the idea that a woman with small breasts "needs" them to be enlarged. I get that.

What I want to know is whether you guys have any sympathy for a woman whose breasts develop in a really abnormal way. If you (or the other latecomer, Wilbur) would like to discuss that question, then I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

If not, if you're only interested in discussing the easy situation of "too small", then you and Wilbur and American Woman and Grover and Elmo can all just continue patting each others' backs.

-k

[Wilber]

del

Edited September 26, 2007 by Wilber

[Wilber]

What I want to know is whether you guys have any sympathy for a woman whose breasts develop in a really abnormal way. If you (or the other latecomer, Wilbur) would like to discuss that question, then I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

If not, if you're only interested in discussing the easy situation of "too small", then you and Wilbur and American Woman and Grover and Elmo can all just continue patting each others' backs.

Sympathy yes, paying for them, that's debatable and would depend on the problem. I keep thinking of the people who have been dealt a really crappy set of cards in life such as birth defects or debilitating injuries but don't whine about it. They just do the best with what they are dealt and it is often far more than most "perfect" people.

[kimmy]

Sympathy yes, paying for them, that's debatable and would depend on the problem.

Yay! That's exactly how I feel!

I keep thinking of the people who have been dealt a really crappy set of cards in life such as birth defects or debilitating injuries but don't whine about it. They just do the best with what they are dealt and it is often far more than most "perfect" people.

Sometimes yes... probably a lot of times no.

Adversity can build character, but if someday my little Kimlet is born with some sort of deformity that could be corrected... I think I would opt to do so. I think it would give her the better chance in life. Hopefully some other way of building character can be found.

-k

[jefferiah]

but if someday my little Kimlet

If we haven't solved the problem of schoolyard bullies by then, I would not recommend the name Kimlet.

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

....if you're only interested in discussing the easy situation of "too small", then you and Wilbur and American Woman and Grover and Elmo can all just continue patting each others' backs.

Shaddap. I'm sick of your insults already. I told you my views over and over again. If you still don't get it, too bad. I gave you more respect than you deserved. So I repeat. Shaddap, cuz to quote you, "I don't give a crap what you think."

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 25 2007, 03:39 PM)

I respectfully submit that someone who is in need of continual therapy due to a lack of self esteem because their tits aren't big enough is not someone I would want to trust with large and lethal weapons.

What about someone who got bigger breasts courtesy of the military (at the taxpayers' expense) because their self esteem was so low that they couldn't properly do their job "because their tits aren't big enough." Would you want to trust them with large and lethal weapons?

No, because the real problem isn't their tits.

I agree. I had made that point earlier, and was surprised nobody else seemed to feel that way.