Should breast implants be paid for

[noahbody]

Maybe they should adopt the slogan: "Be the breast you can be."

[White Doors]

deleted by moderator

Edited September 19, 2007 by Charles Anthony
foul content

[Higgly]

mmm... boobies...

Cat fight!

It's always refreshing to hear from a Harper supporter.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I keep talking about "small breasts" because that's what the issue is-- taxpayers paying for breast augmentation because women felt their breasts were too small. It's not about women whose breasts developed in a way that is quite different from normal. No where does it say these women were disfigured. Every article, every quote, says they wanted bigger breasts.

"Just as there are in civilian life, there are some females who feel their breasts are too small and if their breasts were bigger, they might be more of a 'normal' woman," Mr James said."

It's about wanting bigger breasts. It's not about breast reconstruction or making breasts evenly sized. It's about making breasts bigger at the taxpayers' expense. In civilian life, the taxpayers aren't paying for the women who feel their breasts are too small to get bigger breasts. And THAT is the issue. The fact that this is at the taxpayers' expense.

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.

Again, these women didn't have surgery to make their breasts symetrical. They had the surgery to make their breasts bigger.

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.

Again, to compare the LOSS of one's breast(s) through illness to dissatisfaction with the size of one's breasts is truly bizzare.

Edited September 18, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Again, to compare the LOSS of one's breast(s) through illness to dissatisfaction with the size of one's breasts is truly bizzare.

I think you and I agree that that people who choose to do get breast implants should feel free to do so. However, if psychiatric and psychological reasons become the driving force behind cosmetic surgery, the list of recipients will be endless, especially if someone else is paying the bill.

Nose jobs, tummy tucks, lippo and the like should remain part of private medicine and shouldn't be considered an essential service of medical care.

[Drea]

tell us the truth now..

You have been reported.

Really your level of mysogyny is so high as to be uncomparable.

Women are not toys for your consumption. Women's breasts are not there for your eye candy pleasure.

Women are people too regardless of whether their size or shape are pleasing to your misogynic eye.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Drea

[kimmy]

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

Aw, that's sweet!

I keep talking about "small breasts" because that's what the issue is-- taxpayers paying for breast augmentation because women felt their breasts were too small. It's not about women whose breasts developed in a way that is quite different from normal. No where does it say these women were disfigured. Every article, every quote, says they wanted bigger breasts.

"Just as there are in civilian life, there are some females who feel their breasts are too small and if their breasts were bigger, they might be more of a 'normal' woman," Mr James said."

It's about wanting bigger breasts. It's not about breast reconstruction or making breasts evenly sized. It's about making breasts bigger at the taxpayers' expense. In civilian life, the taxpayers aren't paying for the women who feel their breasts are too small to get bigger breasts. And THAT is the issue. The fact that this is at the taxpayers' expense.

Again, these women didn't have surgery to make their breasts symetrical. They had the surgery to make their breasts bigger.

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.

Again, to compare the LOSS of one's breast(s) through illness to dissatisfaction with the size of one's breasts is truly bizzare.

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

[Guest American Woman]

You truly believe small breasts would cause people to "cringe and look away?" Unbelievable. Because that's what this issue is about. Taxpayers paying to have breasts enlarged. No matter how often you try to make it about something else, that's what it's about. It's not about malformation, lopsidedness, or reconstruction. In the words of the surgeon:

".....plastic surgeon Kourosh Tavakoli told The Sunday Telegraph the navy had paid for two officers, aged 25 and 32, to have breast-augmentation surgery at his private clinic.

Dr Tavakoli said the women had not been injured but claimed to suffer 'psychological' problems.

'I've had two female officers who have got the navy to pay for breast augmentation for psychological reasons,' he said.

'I know for a fact two patients claimed it back on the navy. They (the navy) knew it was breast augmentation and paid for it.'

'I don't know why they pay for it. There's no breast augmentation, that I know of, for medical purposes.'"

Link

I stand by my original statement that psychological problems should be treated with psychological counseling.

"A Finnish study has found women who have enlarged their breasts through plastic surgery are three times more likely to commit suicide than those who have not.

She says it is believed many of the women have tried to improve their self confidence and mental problems only through breast implants, rather than tackle deep-seated causes."

Link

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.

I can't for the life of me understand how small breasts are a "significant obstacle" to a woman's ability to pursue success. As for being an obstacle to pursuing happiness-- if that's all that's standing in the way of their acheiving happiness, they need some counseling; then if they still feel they need bigger breasts to be happy, they should pay for it.

Edited September 19, 2007 by American Woman

[kimmy]

You truly believe small breasts would cause people to "cringe and look away?" Unbelievable. Because that's what this issue is about. Taxpayers paying to have breasts enlarged. No matter how often you try to make it about something else, that's what it's about. It's not about malformation, lopsidedness, or reconstruction.

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?

I can't for the life of me understand how small breasts are a "significant obstacle" to a woman's ability to pursue success. As for being an obstacle to pursuing happiness-- if that's all that's standing in the way of their acheiving happiness, they need some counseling; then if they still feel they need bigger breasts to be happy, they should pay for it.

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

Edited September 19, 2007 by kimmy

[Rue]

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

Simply put, this thread is a pretext for a handful of men to lecture women on what these women are entitled to when it comes to their health needs using the male obsession with penis size as a reference point.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Rue

[White Doors]

It's always refreshing to hear from a Harper supporter.

aww.. Higgly, no sense of humour?

such a shame.

[jdobbin]

Simply put, this thread is a pretext for a handful of men to lecture women on what these women are entitled to when it comes to their health needs using the male obsession with penis size as a reference point.

How many women on this thread are in disagreement on what women are entitled to as part of their healthcare?

[Drea]

It has been established (has it not?) that this is not a "health" care issue.

Wanting to look different than one currently does is not related to health.

One will not die or live a lousy life because one's breasts/nose/biceps/thighs etc. are not such and such size. This is a cosmetic issue, not a heath one.

Usually a cosmetic surgeon will consult with the patient to make sure they don't think it will "change their life entirely". Why? Because it is unrealistic to believe that bigger boobs or smaller thighs will make one's life perfect. If one has low self esteem one will still have low self esteem no matter what cosmetic surgery is done to them.

There, of course, are special circumstances. The 16 yo girl with a nose as big as Everest... or the young man with ears like Prince Charles...

Sure I got teased in school (white doors is still in that mindset ) for being a ibtc member, but it made me develop my brain. Never did I have to rely on my body to get what I wanted.

Had our 25 year reunion just last year.... ha ha I look better'n all of 'em. Make more money too. Payback's a bitch. LOL

[guyser]

It has been established (has it not?) that this is not a "health" care issue.

Wanting to look different than one currently does is not related to health.

Sure it can be. What about mental health? You yourself say so below when talking about the everest nose on a 16yr old girl. Her brain works just fine so why is ok for her but not someone else who is tramautized by something they were born with.

Those with ears like Prince Charles have surgery to pin them back and that is paid by health canada.

One will not die or live a lousy life because one's breasts/nose/biceps/thighs etc. are not such and such size. This is a cosmetic issue, not a heath one.

Again perhaps not physical health , but mental may be a problem.

Usually a cosmetic surgeon will consult with the patient to make sure they don't think it will "change their life entirely". Why? Because it is unrealistic to believe that bigger boobs or smaller thighs will make one's life perfect. If one has low self esteem one will still have low self esteem no matter what cosmetic surgery is done to them.

Well before you go any further, perhaps you can make up your mind? It may very well "change their life entirely" , but will not make "ones life perfect". Perfection is rarely the case, but dramatic change I would certainly think so.

There, of course, are special circumstances. The 16 yo girl with a nose as big as Everest... or the young man with ears like Prince Charles...

So ears and nose yes, breasts no? Why the dichotomy?

I can certainly think of reasons why surgery , or rather cosmetic surgery is essential. Think of a child born with both sex organs? They can function, or some have been able to function, but some , especially in the cases where the Doctors decided soon after birth to amend the child to one or the other , only to find that the now "boy" feels very much like a girl, or vice versa.

Thats one example where mental health is paramount to the patient and should be corrected.

There are others.

My point is that for some women, having this done , and paid for by the military is not that far fetched.

Sure I got teased in school (white doors is still in that mindset ) for being a ibtc member, but it made me develop my brain. Never did I have to rely on my body to get what I wanted.

Had our 25 year reunion just last year.... ha ha I look better'n all of 'em. Make more money too. Payback's a bitch. LOL

Umm, you went around at your 25th and compared yourself to every women in the room? And then circled again and asked what everyone had as a salary?

Gee ..great. Did you feel superior?

Something tells me you weren't teased for being a member of the ibtc in high school, it seems that there could easily be other reasons.

[Guest American Woman]

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

The surgeon said "breast augmentation." He said it wasn't for medical reasons. If the women's breasts were "malformed," that would be a medical reason. The women had their breasts enlarged. If the surgery had been to correct malformed breasts, it wouldn't be referred to as "enlarging their breasts." The surgeon would say it was to correct malformed breasts.

So you ARE trying to make it about something else when you say that the cosmetic surgery might be part of a legitimate medical treatment, that you don't know if it was or not, because it is clearly stated that their breasts were not enlarged for medical reasons. As for the doctor in the case, HE said he doesn't know why the navy paid for it. HE said it was breast enlargement surgery and that the women claimed it was for psychological reasons. Not for physical reasons, which it would be had their breasts in any way been malformed, but for psychological reasons. So far there's no proof that psychologists had anything to do with the decision, and truth be told, I'd wonder about the qualifications of any psychologist who would suggest breast augmentation as a fix for low self esteem.

I find it interesting that the navy will make any woman who is not suffering psychologically pay for their own breast enlargement, but if someone wanting the same surgery is suffering from low self esteem, they'll pay for it. How fair is that? Not only do those not suffering low self esteem have to pay for their own surgery, but the surgery of those with low self esteem as well, through their taxes. I'm guessing there's going to be a whole new crop of women with psychological issues and low self esteem.

And I see you chose to ignore the higher rate of suicide for women who have received breast augmentation because their bigger breasts didn't give them the happiness they thought was riding on the size of their breasts.

[jdobbin]

I can certainly think of reasons why surgery , or rather cosmetic surgery is essential. Think of a child born with both sex organs? They can function, or some have been able to function, but some , especially in the cases where the Doctors decided soon after birth to amend the child to one or the other , only to find that the now "boy" feels very much like a girl, or vice versa.

Thats one example where mental health is paramount to the patient and should be corrected.

There are others.

My point is that for some women, having this done , and paid for by the military is not that far fetched.

I think of the example you describe is a medical problem rather than just a simple cosmetic problem. I originally said that general insurance should really only cover injury or trauma but I left out disease and/or deformity. Those areas should be included.

I still don't think that general insurance or taxpayer money should be used to enhance parts of the body for no other reason than holistic looks. Resources are limited and generally healthy people who want to enhance their looks with facelifts, breast implants, lippo and collagen should do so with their own resources.

[Drea]

all women should get implants. Free. and it should be done by the time they are 16 so they don't miss out or anything. And all men should have 2" added to their girth. IMO

There. Happy now.

Women disfiguring themselves to please men and men disfiguring themselves to please women.

Oh yah... we should put all the people who are happy with themselves on some island somewhere. They are way too happy.

LOL

[guyser]

I think of the example you describe is a medical problem rather than just a simple cosmetic problem. I originally said that general insurance should really only cover injury or trauma but I left out disease and/or deformity. Those areas should be included.

They are functioning with both sets, no medical issues above and beyond the norm . The real problems came when Docs "picked " the sex.

I still don't think that general insurance or taxpayer money should be used to enhance parts of the body for no other reason than holistic looks. Resources are limited and generally healthy people who want to enhance their looks with facelifts, breast implants, lippo and collagen should do so with their own resources.

And I dont think this is in question. Pretty much everyone pays for these when wanted, but for some to have found the military wanting to pay, all the power to them.

Could this not be just for recruitment , or rather an incentive for military positions? IIRC there was an offer from the US military for similar reasons.

[jdobbin]

They are functioning with both sets, no medical issues above and beyond the norm . The real problems came when Docs "picked " the sex.

And I dont think this is in question. Pretty much everyone pays for these when wanted, but for some to have found the military wanting to pay, all the power to them.

Could this not be just for recruitment , or rather an incentive for military positions? IIRC there was an offer from the US military for similar reasons.

I still think your example of two functioning sexual organs and the issue of sexual assignment is medical problem rather than a cosmetic one.

The Australian Navy's explanation of their medical coverage on breast implants is a weak one. It is a poor use of limited resources.

[kimmy]

The surgeon said "breast augmentation." He said it wasn't for medical reasons. If the women's breasts were "malformed," that would be a medical reason. The women had their breasts enlarged. If the surgery had been to correct malformed breasts, it wouldn't be referred to as "enlarging their breasts." The surgeon would say it was to correct malformed breasts.

So you ARE trying to make it about something else when you say that the cosmetic surgery might be part of a legitimate medical treatment, that you don't know if it was or not, because it is clearly stated that their breasts were not enlarged for medical reasons.

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.

As for the doctor in the case, HE said he doesn't know why the navy paid for it.

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?

HE said it was breast enlargement surgery and that the women claimed it was for psychological reasons. Not for physical reasons, which it would be had their breasts in any way been malformed, but for psychological reasons. So far there's no proof that psychologists had anything to do with the decision, and truth be told, I'd wonder about the qualifications of any psychologist who would suggest breast augmentation as a fix for low self esteem.

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.

I find it interesting that the navy will make any woman who is not suffering psychologically pay for their own breast enlargement, but if someone wanting the same surgery is suffering from low self esteem, they'll pay for it. How fair is that? Not only do those not suffering low self esteem have to pay for their own surgery, but the surgery of those with low self esteem as well, through their taxes. I'm guessing there's going to be a whole new crop of women with psychological issues and low self esteem.

Then the people who are assessing the legitimacy of their claims will have to apply careful scrutiny.

And I see you chose to ignore the higher rate of suicide for women who have received breast augmentation because their bigger breasts didn't give them the happiness they thought was riding on the size of their breasts.

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:

She says it is believed many of the women have tried to improve their self confidence and mental problems only through breast implants, rather than tackle deep-seated causes.

...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

Edited September 20, 2007 by kimmy

[sharkman]

Well put Kimmy. I was thinking no implants should be paid for until I read this thread.

[jdobbin]

(As in: do you guys actually understand what the word "holistic" means?)

It generally means there is no allopathic proof that it works and is usually not funded or has very limited funding by health insurance or taxpayers.

[kimmy]

Well put Kimmy. I was thinking no implants should be paid for until I read this thread.

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.

It generally means there is no allopathic proof that it works and is usually not funded or has very limited funding by health insurance or taxpayers.

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

[Guest American Woman]

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

I'm most definitely in the position of evaluating whether or not breast augmentation should be paid for by the taxpayers.

The plastic surgeon should "know a god damned thing about their psychological health" according to what YOU said earlier:quote-(kimmy @ Sep 19 2007, 10:46 AM)I would think that the doctors and psychologists involved would be better equipped to assess the merits of those cases than you are." So YOU said you thought the plastic surgeon, as well as the psychologists, would "know a god damned thing" about the merits of these cases.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

And yes, I do know what "holistic" means. As a matter of definition, holistic medicine attempts to treat both the mind and the body, which is fine-- when the body needs treating. However, small breasts aren't in need of "treatment."

Edited September 20, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

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?

I don't know why you have to try to throw insults in. Have I attacked you personally somehow? I can't recall doing so but if I have, I apologize.

I've never said holistic is quackery. I just said it doesn't have enough scientific research to receive funding that other parts of the healthcare system does.

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.