Should breast implants be paid for

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 16 2007, 02:08 PM)

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

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 appreciate your apology, but as the post stands, it most definitely is specifically directed at me. To avoid that, you should hit "edit" after hitting "add reply" and correct your mistake.

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.

Since the navy said their surgery was for psychological reasons, yes. I would say they could benefit from counseling; that the navy should be providing counseling rather than breast augmentation. If the women then still "need" cosmetic surgery, they should pay for it on their own. The taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out $10,000 a surgery for something that not only isn't based on a medical need, but could, in the future, cause medical problems.

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.

When did I say everyone who gets the procedure needs mental help? I didn't. However, I feel confident making that "assumption" about someone who has "compelling psychological or psychiatric reasons" for doing it.

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-- a's not just for would-be porn-stars or wannabe strippers, or women with self-esteem problems and body dismorphia disorder.

The navy said it was for self-esteem problems.

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?

I have no problem telling you otherwise while keeping a straight face. In the first place, a "horrific mole" is a suspicious mole. Any mole that's out of the ordinary needs to dealt with as potentially cancerous/pre-cancerous. A normal mole poses no such threat, and Cindy Crawford has done alright with a (normal) mole on her face. As for straightening a "mangled set of teeth," again, that's a medical problem. "Uneven teeth and an uneven jaw line can lead to poor chewing and digestion and eventually cause tooth decay and gum disease." As for "electrolyzing a scary uni-brow," I hardly think health coverage pays for that. If it does, then rest assured I'm critical of it doing so.

Edited September 17, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

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.}

I disagree that removing a mole is preventative care that general insurance or tax money should be responsible for.

And of course it was breast implants that made it an international news rather than just a national story.

Here's a question for you: do you believe all cosmetic surgery should be covered by taxpayer or insurance programs if it is for self esteem? Is there any limits to it and if so, why? You said that that the Navy women weren't doing to it enhance a prostitution or stripper career. If a Navy woman has self esteem issues, why can't a stripper have them them and also get an enhancement?

[kimmy]

I disagree that removing a mole is preventative care that general insurance or tax money should be responsible for.

Even if the resultant benefits in terms of employee wellness make it easily justified?

Something else to consider: as BC2004 pointed out, armed forces in many countries are facing challenges in recruiting and maintaining personnel. If that's the case, then perhaps better medical benefits are one of the tools they could use.

Related to that point is that the military has very different insurance needs from what the average group benefits plan, or even the average government group benefits plan, would provide. I don't view this as being paid for by the taxpayer or by general insurance, I view it as paid for by a group insurance plan that happens to be run by a group that has different health insurance needs from the general populace.

And of course it was breast implants that made it an international news rather than just a national story.

Thanks for that, at least. Do you feel it's fair or appropriate that this receive extra scrutiny because of peoples' prurient interest in BOOBZ?

Here's a question for you: do you believe all cosmetic surgery should be covered by taxpayer or insurance programs if it is for self esteem? Is there any limits to it and if so, why? You said that that the Navy women weren't doing to it enhance a prostitution or stripper career. If a Navy woman has self esteem issues, why can't a stripper have them them and also get an enhancement?

I don't believe I ever said all cosmetic surgery should be covered. I think I said "Depending on the circumstances, sure." What I'm arguing is this presumption by yourself and American Woman to assess the "compelling psychological needs" of these cases without knowing the details, and I am disputing the idea that cosmetic surgery could not be part of, as you put it, "an overall health strategy".

-k

{off to work; will address AW's messages later.}

Edited September 17, 2007 by kimmy

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting article and a response is certainly out of my comfort zone - but hey, that's what's good about these anonymous boards. The article doesn't say what specific cases would be considered - nor does it say how many were actually approved. I have a hunch that it may amount to 1 or 2 or 3 amongst thousands. I guess I could see a circumstance where a woman wants to devote her life to the military but being flat as a board has her being treated literally as one of the boys and perhaps embarrassed in the womens' shower. We "men" usually think of implants in terms of Dolly Parton or Pamela Anderson but I'm pretty certain that if a woman has absolutely no chest, in some cases it can affect one's confidence and ability to be decisive. Trying to avoid being too crude, I remember one fellow in High School who was endowed with something much less than the ideal appendage - and it was plain that it affected him. So in summary, I can see where a policy like the Australians have - would make a lot of sense in very rigid circumstances. I think the prime factor in paying for it would be a proven devotion to the Military - in other words, it's an investment in the person.

[Rue]

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

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

Its a non issue. OHIP already covers it for non cosmetic reasons and does not cover cosmetic surgeries for obvious reasons. OHIP and for that matter medicare has obvious financial limitations and has never claimed or attempted to provide anything anyone wants as long as it makes them feel good for obvious reasons.

[Rue]

Interesting article and a response is certainly out of my comfort zone - but hey, that's what's good about these anonymous boards. The article doesn't say what specific cases would be considered - nor does it say how many were actually approved. I have a hunch that it may amount to 1 or 2 or 3 amongst thousands. I guess I could see a circumstance where a woman wants to devote her life to the military but being flat as a board has her being treated literally as one of the boys and perhaps embarrassed in the womens' shower. We "men" usually think of implants in terms of Dolly Parton or Pamela Anderson but I'm pretty certain that if a woman has absolutely no chest, in some cases it can affect one's confidence and ability to be decisive. Trying to avoid being too crude, I remember one fellow in High School who was endowed with something much less than the ideal appendage - and it was plain that it affected him. So in summary, I can see where a policy like the Australians have - would make a lot of sense in very rigid circumstances. I think the prime factor in paying for it would be a proven devotion to the Military - in other words, it's an investment in the person.

Its a non issue. Breat enhancement like breast reduction and re-creation is covered by OHIP if non cosmetic. With due respect and I say this as a man, only a man would sit around thinking this is a real issue or source of debate. Typical example of we men projecting our own preconceptions as to the importance of breast size and its implications on the nation.

[moderateamericain]

if the ozzies want there women to all be big titted sailors, who am i to complain . They will look great while we "Go down under."

[Higgly]

Its a non issue. Breat enhancement like breast reduction and re-creation is covered by OHIP if non cosmetic. With due respect and I say this as a man, only a man would sit around thinking this is a real issue or source of debate. Typical example of we men projecting our own preconceptions as to the importance of breast size and its implications on the nation.

I agree with Rue. Being male, I don' t think I'm entitled to an opinion. At least, that's my opinion.

[White Doors]

mmm... boobies...

[Guest American Woman]

"Cosmetic procedures undertaken solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a person's subjective appearance will be considered only if the underlying (psychological) problem is causing difficulties that adversely impact on the member's ability to do their job." Link

So the underlying psychological problem of not having big enough breasts caused difficulties that adversely impacted their ability to do their job. Seems to me if one is suffering from an inability to do one's job because their breasts aren't as big as they'd like, the underlying psychological problem would be severe enough to give them an honorable discharge.

And I don't just feel that way about breast enhancement. I feel that way about the army cook who had a tax-payer funded nose job, too.

As for 'better medical coverage' being a benefit the military could provide to up incruitment: is this really the kind of recruits that they want?-- those with psychological problems that impact their ability to to their job? Wouldn't trying to get them to enlist by offering cosmetic surgery be taking advantage of someone suffering from psychological problems?

[jennie]

The truth is its the uniforms, see.

A small woman has to have small breasts, a medium woman medium breasts and a large woman large breasts to fit the uniforms. Being the armed forces where everything is standardized, the non-standard women have to change.

Small and medium women with big breasts get reductions to the approporate size for their uniforms, and medium and large women with small breasts get implants.

Simple.

[gc1765]

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

I'll add two more:

- a guy who has been teased for having a small penis wants to have his penis enhancement paid for

- a guy who has been teased for driving an old 1980's stationwagon wants the government to buy him a new car

Where do we draw the line?

Now, that being said, if it is for non-cosmetic purposes, as this case appears to be, that is a different story.

[Guest American Woman]

I'll add two more:

- a guy who has been teased for having a small penis wants to have his penis enhancement paid for

- a guy who has been teased for driving an old 1980's stationwagon wants the government to buy him a new car

Where do we draw the line?

Now, that being said, if it is for non-cosmetic purposes, as this case appears to be, that is a different story.

It was for pyschological problems; problems with self esteem. If you were in the military, would you want to be out on the battlefield next to someone who couldn't do his job because he thought his penis was too small? What if the military gave him penis enhancement. Would you then trust his psychological well being enough to have him covering you?

And you make a good point. Psychological scars from being teased for being poor run deep too.

Edited September 17, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Even if the resultant benefits in terms of employee wellness make it easily justified?

Something else to consider: as BC2004 pointed out, armed forces in many countries are facing challenges in recruiting and maintaining personnel. If that's the case, then perhaps better medical benefits are one of the tools they could use.

Related to that point is that the military has very different insurance needs from what the average group benefits plan, or even the average government group benefits plan, would provide. I don't view this as being paid for by the taxpayer or by general insurance, I view it as paid for by a group insurance plan that happens to be run by a group that has different health insurance needs from the general populace.

Thanks for that, at least. Do you feel it's fair or appropriate that this receive extra scrutiny because of peoples' prurient interest in BOOBZ?

I don't believe I ever said all cosmetic surgery should be covered. I think I said "Depending on the circumstances, sure." What I'm arguing is this presumption by yourself and American Woman to assess the "compelling psychological needs" of these cases without knowing the details, and I am disputing the idea that cosmetic surgery could not be part of, as you put it, "an overall health strategy".

There is so much that could be covered under wellness. The system you seem to be advocating has no limits.

As far as I know, the Department of Defence in Australia supplies healthcare to it workers and military people. I think that it is taxpayer money.

I don't believe that breast implants for self esteem should be covered by general insurance or taxpayer money. I'm afraid I don't buy that the psychological needs aspect to breast implants should be high on taxpayers or insurance company's list of essential services.

I'd feel the same way if it was facelifts, tummy tucks, lipposuction or genital enhancement.

Edited September 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Its a non issue. OHIP already covers it for non cosmetic reasons and does not cover cosmetic surgeries for obvious reasons. OHIP and for that matter medicare has obvious financial limitations and has never claimed or attempted to provide anything anyone wants as long as it makes them feel good for obvious reasons.

Breast enhancement is done in Ontario for self esteem reasons?

[kimmy]

Breast enhancement is done in Ontario for self esteem reasons?

This response to a question seems to indicate that OHIP may pay for surgery to balance this woman's asymmetrical breasts:

With respect to OHIP coverage, this is not black and white. It often depends on the degree of

asymmetry.

http://www.canadaba.ca/askasurgeon/ask21.html

Would Canadian forces consider doing this?

http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/928

Is "gender reassignment surgery" so different? Surely they're not considering altering this guy's sausage because it's a medical necessity. It sounds like a decision based on alleged psychological or (dare I say it?) "holistic" reasons.

There is so much that could be covered under wellness. The system you seem to be advocating has no limits.

Hardly. The limit is "compelling psychological needs". I hardly think that everybody who wishes they were a cup-size larger has a "compelling psychological need". I would suspect that that decision would be made by competent army psychologists. Western militaries have more involvement in the psychological health of its employees that most organizations. Probably more than any other major employer, in fact. Don't you think they're fit to judge a "compelling psychological need"?

As far as I know, the Department of Defence in Australia supplies healthcare to it workers and military people. I think that it is taxpayer money.

I would think that the manner in which the military cares for its employees is its own business.

out of curiosity, what was your motivation for posting this item in the first place?

Were you seriously hoping to discuss whether this is a policy Canada should have too?

Or just hoping to get some cheap laughs from some (uh, let's just say) "lowbrow" types...

if the ozzies want there women to all be big titted sailors, who am i to complain . They will look great while we "Go down under."

-k

{...if you know what I mean.}

[kimmy]

When did I say everyone who gets the procedure needs mental help? I didn't. However, I feel confident making that "assumption" about someone who has "compelling psychological or psychiatric reasons" for doing it.

...

The navy said it was for self-esteem problems.

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 have no problem telling you otherwise while keeping a straight face.

I challenged anybody to tell me that this would be a world-wide news item if it were about something other than breasts.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

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?

You keep referring to breasts that aren't big enough in the person's mind as a "cosmetic problem." Small breasts aren't a problem. Many women manage to live a very good life with small breasts. Some people think small breasts are more attractive than big breasts. So I do disagree that tax payer funded cosmetic surgery should part of helping someone deal with self esteem problems.

(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?)

A scar is the result of physical trauma and is not comparable to someone thinking their breasts are too small. If someone were to assault a woman and cause scars to her breasts as a result, then I think cosmetic surgery at the taxpayers' expense would be legitimate. That you would compare small breasts to a "horrible scar" is difficult for me to understand.

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?

Why aren't we talking about breast reconstruction for cancer survivors? Because paying for reconstruction surgery out of taxpayers' money isn't the issue. Breast reconstruction and breast augmentation are two very different issues; two very different surgeries, done for very different reasons.

And if you really need to know why healthcare paying for breast reconstruction surgery after the removal of one's breast at the taxpayers' expense is more acceptable, I'll do my best to explain. It's because the woman was ill. Her LOSS of a breast (or both) is a loss. It's like losing a finger. No one questions surgery to reattach it. Or losing an arm. No one questions paying for a prosthetic. However, I don't think anyone would want to pay for steroids or a gym memebership because someone wanted bigger arms.

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.

Losing something that is a part of one's body, every woman's body, is more than a psycological need. In other words, someone who medically had their breast removed for healh reasons is entitled to have it medically put back using the same healthcare that took it off in the first place. They lost something. The women in the navy have suffered no loss. Again, that you would compare someone thinking their breasts are too small to someone who has entirely lost their breast(s) is difficult for me to understand. Again, if someone loses a finger, no one questions it being reattached.

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?

It has everything to do with her physical health. Her physical health is why she encounterd a LOSS. Your attempt to compare breast augmentation to breast reconstruction surgery is quite honestly bizzare to me.

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?

Disfigured?? If someone thinks their breasts are too small they are "disfigured??" Small breasts are a disfigurement? At what point are small breasts a disfigurement? I think there are a lot of small breasted women out there who would take huge offense by your referring to them as disfigured.

I challenged anybody to tell me that this would be a world-wide news item if it were about something other than breasts.

They also disclosed that an army cook had a nose job a year ago. Did you miss that in the link I provided? And I do recall reading in worldwide news about other plastic surgeries movie stars have had other than breast augmentation.

The interest in this particular issue most definitely isn't 'just in breasts,' but in the ten thousand dollars per surgery that the tax payers are having to shell out. As universal healthcare suffers in some nations, and becomes more of an issue in others, instances like this will become more of an issue. And rightfully so. Jdobbin and I have said repeatedly that we would feel the same way if the surgery had been, for example, a nose job.

But if breasts are 'bigger news,' you can blame the women who flaunt them at least as much as you can blame anyone else. Women are flaunting their breasts hoping to make the news every day. These women try hard to make their breasts news, which is why we see so many pictures of practically bare-breasted stars. So when breasts become news, it shouldn't be a huge shock. And if it elicits some "cheap laughs from some (uh, let's just say) 'lowbrow' types," you can blame the women who flaunt their breasts every bit as much as you blame the "lowlifes."

Edited September 18, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

This response to a question seems to indicate that OHIP may pay for surgery to balance this woman's asymmetrical breasts:

http://www.canadaba.ca/askasurgeon/ask21.html

Would Canadian forces consider doing this?

http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/928

Is "gender reassignment surgery" so different? Surely they're not considering altering this guy's sausage because it's a medical necessity. It sounds like a decision based on alleged psychological or (dare I say it?) "holistic" reasons.

Hardly. The limit is "compelling psychological needs". I hardly think that everybody who wishes they were a cup-size larger has a "compelling psychological need". I would suspect that that decision would be made by competent army psychologists. Western militaries have more involvement in the psychological health of its employees that most organizations. Probably more than any other major employer, in fact. Don't you think they're fit to judge a "compelling psychological need"?

I would think that the manner in which the military cares for its employees is its own business.

out of curiosity, what was your motivation for posting this item in the first place?

Were you seriously hoping to discuss whether this is a policy Canada should have too?

Or just hoping to get some cheap laughs from some (uh, let's just say) "lowbrow" types...

Have I been laughing at any of this? It is the cavalier attitude that prevails in spending money that I find surprising. After hearing about Ontario Heath's paying for symmetry in breasts, I wonder what what sort of limits there are in terms of cosmetic changes that general insurance or public insurance have to cover. I really believe this is money that it should be spent out of your own pocket just as it should be for a nose job.

As for the contention that you think it is no one's business how the Australian military spends its money, I doubt many Australians would feel that way. It is probably why the breast implants were flagged in the first place in the list of expenditures.

[kimmy]

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

[Drea]

Ack! These women are whiners.

I've gone through life as a member of the itty bitty titty club and have never had a problem with self esteem. Never lacked the attention of men either. Nor was I ever (that I know of) "passed over" for a promotion at work because of this.

Breast augmentation is certainly not a necessary medical procedure and having the gov't pay for it is utterly pathetic.

Wouldn't having small breasts be a benefit in the military as one would not have to worry about huge melons getting in the way?

[White Doors]

Cat fight!

[M.Dancer]

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

It's posts like this that make me believe that Kimmy is a superior poster.....

[Drea]

the thread (indeed the article) is about women who think they need bigger breasts in order to feel better about themselves.

It is not about whether or not women need breast reconstruction surgery. Hey, if I get breast cancer and need to have one (or both) of them removed I would certainly go for a bigger size...

Nonetheless, taxpayers should not have to pay for someone's self esteem.

These are not "special" circumstances. These women do not NEED bigger breasts in order to do a better job... unless of course they pose as prostitues in order to root out the Taliban/Al-Q, OBL, turrists or whoever. LOL

Edited September 18, 2007 by Drea

[M.Dancer]

the thread (indeed the article) is about women who think they need bigger breasts in order to feel better about themselves.

Ummm...no it ain't.

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.

*snip*

Defence Association spokesman Neil James also defended the practice.

"For psychiatric or psychological reasons, this has been recommended after a medical evaluation," he told state radio.

"It's not being done because someone just wanted it.