Matt Black: And you don't think the views of those who help pay for the NHS' treatment are relevant?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Forgive the hellish tone in there and there are a few comments in the TICTH thread that frankly I couldn't be bothered to copy over so go and look yourselves, but... Discuss...
Originally posted by deano:
The parents that produced this delicate English flower...
Complete with classy morals...
quote:The common british chav, alive and well.
As A-level exam results this month, she tweeted: 'Good luck to everyone getting your A-level results today. Girls don't worry if ur results are poor - you can always have a career getting your t***s out or escorting. (Obviously if your over 18)
quote:Source
She says Josie would come home from school almost every day having been verbally and physically abused.
“It was relentless. They saw she was quiet and shy and sensed her weakness. They needed something to use against her so they chose the fact she had a completely flat chest.
“They would taunt her and call her Josie-boy or Josie no-t*ts. It devastated her.
"One day she was even brought home by police who had rescued her from a group of girls attacking her with bricks. I don’t think she ever got over the trauma.”
quote:Because I'm a Nazi. Didn't you know?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And no deano, you're not forgiven. Why are you persecuting this poor woman?
quote:So, what exactly is she guilty of? As far as I can tell, she hasn't done anything illegal. Maybe she hasn't lived up to your standards and as a punishment you get to call her derogatory names, is that it?
deano: Of course nothing is her fault. she has made no choices to take her down the route she has taken.
quote:And, it says something about people who unapologetically use derogatory words to describe other people. It has been noted that you have a tendency to push the boundaries of offence, not quite breaking our commandments but managing to bring more heat than light to serious discussion.
Originally posted by deano:
I make no apologies for using the word chav. It is in common usage and describes a certain type of person perfectly.
quote:I do not think anyone is saying she bears no responsibility for her decisions. This is not a zero sum calculation.
Originally posted by deano:
Of course nothing is her fault. she has made no choices to take her down the route she has taken.
quote:I agree with you 100% on that.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
C**v is a classist slur.
quote:It'll come as no surprise that I don't consider corporations to be hard-working families. Every successful corporation pays far less tax than any hard-working family, thanks to the tax breaks available to them that are not available to real people.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"The 'Gideot' loses £7 billion of hard-working families' money".
Nah. Can't see the Heil running that somehow...
quote:It certainly won't affect the Osborne Wallpaper Company, or whatever his family's firm is called.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But the extra tax burden created by Boy George's default does fall on us 'ornery folk'.
quote:They do reconstruction if you have a cleft palate, including cosmetic work to try to minimise physical deformity. If you are born with any part of your body missing, e.g. no hand, no foot, no penis, no breasts - they will likewise attempt a reasonable reconstruction of what should be there. (They will also treat micropenis, and do breast reductions if you breast size is so out of whack with your frame that it gives you back problems. Yes, that can happen.) They will also do work on breasts post breast cancer , or if they are majorly asymetric (e.g. 1 a cup 1 DD cup).
Originally posted by Twilight:
The NHS does breast implants?
quote:Yes, for medical reasons (post-mastectomy reconstruction etc) It's difficult to disentangle truth from fiction with Josie Cunningham, but apparently she had a medical condition and had no breast tissue at all.
Originally posted by Twilight:
The NHS does breast implants?
quote:I've been the grateful recipient of cosmetic surgery on the NHS. I went over the handlebars of my bike and had cosmetic surgery three years later to remove the residual facial scarring; there was no medical reason whatsoever for the surgery, it was purely cosmetic. It made a big difference to my life, though.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess we could talk about the advisability or otherwise of cosmetic surgery on the NHS(?)
quote:That's a heck of a leap.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Cosmetic surgery to correct deformities or reconstruct after cancer, etc, of course. That's what most American medical insurance will cover, but the idea that small or even perfectly flat breasts is a "deformity," offends me on behalf of all the women I've known who were shaped like that.
It's only since implants became so readily available that we've all been given the idea that tall thin ectomorphs ever had breasts. Look at the photos of super models, pre 1970 and they were all fairly flat. It went with the body type.
My best friend was like that and she was a model, considered very beautiful. Breasts aren't arms or legs, they're secondary sexual characteristics and some have more than others just like facial hair on men. I understand that it was more extreme in this girls situation but if the NHS is proclaiming all flat chested women, "deformed," then it's just one more step in convincing us all that we must exaggerate our bodies beyond nature just to make ourselves acceptable to men.
It angers up my feminist blood.
quote:If this is the case surely the surgery should be limited to giving the patient an average breast size - at least for their overall height and size?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
You don't get NHS breast surgery because you just don’t like what nature gave you and would like a redo.
quote:And you are, of course, a consultant surgeon who makes difficult clinical decisions based on psychiatric reports, interviews with the patient and your own professional judgement.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I love the statement that she had 'no breat tissue' - this is highly unlikely, what she may have been lacking was very much fat and connective tissue - that's the stuff that gives a breast size and shape.
quote:"Working"?
Originally posted by leo:
Read Chavs; the demonisation of the working class
quote:The cost is irrelevant. It is saying that the NHS thinks a reasonable remedy to a flat chest is DD implants. This is not only medically unnecessary but a large chest actually typically causes medical problems such as back pain.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Maybe it doesn't make much difference? If the NHS is already going to pay for the surgery because there exist medical reasons for it, the amount of silicium they'll put in doesn't have much influence on the cost, so they leave the patient some choice?
quote:I was not questioning the rights or wrongs of whatever surgery the young lady had: I was questioning the assertion upthread that she 'had no breast tissue at all' since the only condition this would describe (Poland Syndrome) is very rare, usually in boys, and usually presents with other problems which the young lady doesn't seem to have.
And you are, of course, a consultant surgeon who makes difficult clinical decisions based on psychiatric reports, interviews with the patient and your own professional judgement.
quote:Maybe they decided that a reasonable remedy is implants, and gave the patient some choice in the size of the implants since this doesn't affect cost. I trust that the doctors have checked that the size they gave her won't cause medical problems.
seekingsister: The cost is irrelevant. It is saying that the NHS thinks a reasonable remedy to a flat chest is DD implants. This is not only medically unnecessary but a large chest actually typically causes medical problems such as back pain.
quote:If someone had an accident that affected their lips, and the NHS decided a restorative reparation was needed, and the amount of lip plumping didn't affect the cost of this surgery, I'd have nothing against it.
seekingsister: I would be similarly concerned if someone who had an accident that affected their face got the NHS to pay for lip plumping injections or some other cosmetic enhancement that goes beyond the basic need of repair.
quote:I should have been more specific - if it is beyond restoration (as in, what the person had previously) and/or beyond what is average or typical, I would find this an inappropriate use of NHS resources.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If someone had an accident that affected their lips, and the NHS decided a restorative reparation was needed, and the amount of lip plumping didn't affect the cost of this surgery, I'd have nothing against it.
quote:But in this example, we'd already assumed that it wouldn't cost extra NHS resources.
seekingsister: I should have been more specific - if it is beyond restoration (as in, what the person had previously) and/or beyond what is average or typical, I would find this an inappropriate use of NHS resources.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:The cost is not the problem. It's the tacit endorsement by the NHS of what Twilight was saying earlier - that the solution to a flat chest is a DD chest.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:But in this example, we'd already assumed that it wouldn't cost extra NHS resources.
seekingsister: I should have been more specific - if it is beyond restoration (as in, what the person had previously) and/or beyond what is average or typical, I would find this an inappropriate use of NHS resources.
quote:(I assume this was directed at seekingsister, not at me?)
Doublethink: Are you saying my breasts* are somehow not typical ?
(*Sans implants.)
quote:Certainly not as I'm in the same neighborhood! But for my height and size I certainly don't have the proportions that Miss Cunningham does. Few women do naturally. So not sure why the NHS is indulging in fulfilling body fantasies.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Are you saying my breasts* are somehow not typical ?
(*Sans implants.)
quote:It seems to me that the tacit endorsement by the NHS is that the solution to a flat chest is a chest, the size of which they give the patient some freedom in choosing. On what basis do you want to withhold this choice from them?
seekingsister: It's the tacit endorsement by the NHS of what Twilight was saying earlier - that the solution to a flat chest is a DD chest.
quote:IF you manage to convince the NHS that you meet the clinical criteria for breast surgery on the NHS, then you do get some say about what the final output looks like.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:The cost is not the problem. It's the tacit endorsement by the NHS of what Twilight was saying earlier - that the solution to a flat chest is a DD chest.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:But in this example, we'd already assumed that it wouldn't cost extra NHS resources.
seekingsister: I should have been more specific - if it is beyond restoration (as in, what the person had previously) and/or beyond what is average or typical, I would find this an inappropriate use of NHS resources.
quote:The point of the NHS is choice? The same NHS that (allegedly) threatened an order of protection against parents who wanted it to pay for treatment abroad?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It seems to me that the tacit endorsement by the NHS is that the solution to a flat chest is a chest, the size of which they give the patient some freedom in choosing. On what basis do you want to withhold this choice from them?
quote:It should be, at least to a degree.
seekingsister: The point of the NHS is choice?
quote:The NHS should base its treatment decisions on the outrage it would generate on the internet
seekingsister: Look at the damage stories like this do to trust in the NHS. If you Google this lady's name you see articles saying "Why did she get a boob job when my son is going to die of cancer?"
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I'm sorry, I don't have time for false dichotomies like this one.
Matt Black: And you don't think the views of those who help pay for the NHS' treatment are relevant?
quote:Yes, but then we wouldn't have been paying for it.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The figure that the DM is getting outraged out - OMG she had a £4,000 op on the NHS - is pretty much what it would have cost to go private.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Is standard cleft lip and palate surgery done to make the person have the lips and jawline of Angelina Jolie? I suspect not.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Ok, why is it acceptable to do cosmetic surgery for the non-functional consequences of a cleft lip and palate, or post mastectomy, or a malformed but functional penis, but not for breasts that have not grown. We'd do surgery for malformed earlobes or a hairy birth mark.
quote:The OP was on the NHS because she had a medical problem that needed to be treated. The treatment was a breast op. Are you and Seeking Sister saying that someone whose breasts haven't developed "normally" because of hormone imbalances or bone deformaties shouldn't get treatment at all? Are we rationing treatment on the basis of "acceptablity" - of either the treatment or the person - now as well as cost?!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, but then we wouldn't have been paying for it.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The figure that the DM is getting outraged out - OMG she had a £4,000 op on the NHS - is pretty much what it would have cost to go private.
quote:It makes people lose trust in the NHS's decision making, because there are a lot of people waiting for essential treatments who feel quite bitter to hear stories like this.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cost between a B or DD should be negligible, so that is rubbish.
We've determined that getting implants can be done for positive, healthy reasons.
So why are we outraged again?
quote:What's wrong with this is that you don't get to determine someone else's treatment. You don't get to impose on other people the cup size that you happen to find 'standard'. You don't get to choose for them.
seekingsister: I still am wondering what is wrong with expecting the NHS to have an average range of breast size for women based on height and weight and propose that as standard in these situations.
quote:As long as there is a medical need for the operation and there are no contra-indications against this cup size, yes. I don't see why not.
seekingsister: Certainly when I fight with my GP over one of my prescriptions (I believe the dose is too low and I have side effects) I'm told that for my height and weight that's the dose I'm meant to have. But for boobs it's a free-for-all?
quote:I'm sorry you're so dismissive of the views of others whose loved ones are dying of cancer because NICE have decreed in their infinite wisdom that their treatment should be withheld and yet have to see their taxes spent on boob-jobs. It's about prioritising of resources and need, surely?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm sorry, I don't have time for false dichotomies like this one.
Matt Black: And you don't think the views of those who help pay for the NHS' treatment are relevant?
quote:Just to make sure, I haven't made this comparison.
seekingsister: I continue to be disturbed at the way a flat chest (whether or not congenital) is treated as the same sort of physical deformity as a cleft palate or as equivalent to the replacement of a body part that was removed as part of cancer treatment, by some on this thread.
quote:I'm not dismissive of the views of people whose loved ones are dying of cancer, and I find your suggestion that I have been offensive. Within this discussion I have assumed that there is an established medical need for a breast operation. I'm not interested in a discussion about prioritization.
Matt Black: I'm sorry you're so dismissive of the views of others whose loved ones are dying of cancer because NICE have decreed in their infinite wisdom that their treatment should be withheld and yet have to see their taxes spent on boob-jobs. It's about prioritising of resources and need, surely?
quote:I'm familiar with this post, thank you.
Matt Black: I refer you to your post at the top of the page.
quote:, if not being 'dismissive of the views of those whose loved ones are dying of cancer'?
quote:The NHS should base its treatment decisions on the outrage it would generate on the internet [Roll Eyes]
seekingsister: Look at the damage stories like this do to trust in the NHS. If you Google this lady's name you see articles saying "Why did she get a boob job when my son is going to die of cancer?"
quote:Yes. Yes, it is, which is why you can't just waltz into your GP's surgery and say you're fed up with your boobs and expect to get them resculpted to your specifications on the NHS, no questions asked. Like Doc Tor, I am willing to believe that whatever treatment this woman had met the criteria for NHS funding and I don't see what her subsequent career has to do with it. Doctors are there to cure you; what you do when you've been restored to health is up to you. Or are you suggesting that we should only cure people whose lifestyle you approve of?
I'm sorry you're so dismissive of the views of others whose loved ones are dying of cancer because NICE have decreed in their infinite wisdom that their treatment should be withheld and yet have to see their taxes spent on boob-jobs. It's about prioritising of resources and need, surely?
quote:You keep saying "internet" as if it matters. I am sure the outrage extends to the actual lives of the people who happen to be featured in newspapers, which have websites that are on the internet.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Under these assumptions, I asked seekingsister on what basis she wanted to withhold the choice for the patient. The basis she gave for withholding this choice (here) is that giving her this choice would cause outrage over the internet, including people who have relatives suffering from cancer.
quote:Some of us are questioning the NHS' position entirely. Just because it met the criteria, doesn't mean the criteria themselves are appropriate.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Like Doc Tor, I am willing to believe that whatever treatment this woman had met the criteria for NHS funding and I don't see what her subsequent career has to do with it.
quote:I know too little about this case and I'm not a doctor, so I can't comment on #1. Vobiscum pax.
Matt Black: OK, thx, I understand what you're saying now; I'm just not sure about #1.
quote:You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't given me a good reason of why the NHS should stay within these guidelines.
seekingsister: My opinion is that if the NHS offers augmentation to "repair" flat chests caused by congenital reasons, it should offer to do so within guidelines that are based on an average size for a woman within certain parameters.
quote:That's what bothers me, too. It's an example of our medical profession going along with a cultural slant that says small breasts are abnormal and huge boobs on a smallish body are normal.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I continue to be disturbed at the way a flat chest (whether or not congenital) is treated as the same sort of physical deformity as a cleft palate or as equivalent to the replacement of a body part that was removed as part of cancer treatment, by some on this thread.
quote:No, it isn't a fact that the cup size Ms. Cunningham has been given will cause her back aches or other medical problems. Not at all. That's very much your opinion, and one you have based on absolutely nothing.
seekingsister: I've given a reason, you just don't like it. I said large breasts cause back ache, your answer is "I trust the doctors." Mine is a fact, yours is an opinion.
quote:So far the only reasons you've given for this opinion of yours are (a) "It's unnatural to have boobs that size" and (b) "Anyone with boobs that size gets backache."
Some of us are questioning the NHS' position entirely. Just because it met the criteria, doesn't mean the criteria themselves are appropriate.
quote:We don't know yet. But as breast implants are typically good for 10-15 years before needing additional surgery, her doctors will know the impact then. And we'll be paying for that too.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, it isn't a fact that the cup size Ms. Cunningham has been given will cause her back aches or other medical problems. Not at all. That's very much your opinion, and one you have based on absolutely nothing.
seekingsister: I've given a reason, you just don't like it. I said large breasts cause back ache, your answer is "I trust the doctors." Mine is a fact, yours is an opinion.
quote:Jane you might want to read upthread. I'm a D. I'm also very tall and in proportion. If they were on my much smaller mother she'd fall forward. And I get older honestly I'd rather less than more.
Originally posted by Jane R:
seekingsister:
Well, with all due respect to you and Twilight, there are women around whose boobs are naturally bigger than a C cup. Some of us even manage to avoid the curse of backache. It's hardly our fault that the current ideal of female beauty is a kind of stick figure with a couple of melons bolted to her chest. Blame Barbie, if it makes you feel better.
And if a treatment is offered (by any doctor) then the patient should have some say in how it will proceed. Anything else would be unethical.
Oh, and what quetzalcoatl said.
quote:So, by your own admission you don't know whether these implants will cause her back aches or not. Yet you have already disapproved of the doctors' decision to give her these implants.
seekingsister: We don't know yet.
quote:We already agreed on the assumption that there is a medical need for her to have implants. As I understand it, she will need this additional surgery regardless of the implant size. So, this is rather irrelevant.
seekingsister: But as breast implants are typically good for 10-15 years before needing additional surgery, her doctors will know the impact then. And we'll be paying for that too.
quote:As I've said before, you have a right to disagree with it. You just don't have any good arguments for it.
seekingsister: I disagree in principle with NHS-funded augmentation beyond they bounds of average size. And you're not going to convince me otherwise.
quote:Why ? Most human characteristics are normally distributed. If your IQ was more than two standard deviations from the norm, you'd probably be defined as having a learning disability, two standard deviations above and you might be described as a genius. If a child falls too far off the curve in terms of their height, we give them growth hormone. Too tall and we worry about that too.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I continue to be disturbed at the way a flat chest (whether or not congenital) is treated as the same sort of physical deformity as a cleft palate or as equivalent to the replacement of a body part that was removed as part of cancer treatment, by some on this thread.
quote:The UK average bra size in 2012 was 34DD
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Jane you might want to read upthread. I'm a D. I'm also very tall and in proportion. If they were on my much smaller mother she'd fall forward. And I get older honestly I'd rather less than more.
Originally posted by Jane R:
seekingsister:
Well, with all due respect to you and Twilight, there are women around whose boobs are naturally bigger than a C cup. Some of us even manage to avoid the curse of backache. It's hardly our fault that the current ideal of female beauty is a kind of stick figure with a couple of melons bolted to her chest. Blame Barbie, if it makes you feel better.
And if a treatment is offered (by any doctor) then the patient should have some say in how it will proceed. Anything else would be unethical.
Oh, and what quetzalcoatl said.
I disagree in principle with NHS-funded augmentation beyond they bounds of average size. And you're not going to convince me otherwise.
quote:Yes, in huge numbers.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Working"?
Originally posted by leo:
Read Chavs; the demonisation of the working class
quote:And I repeatedly said average within height and weight parameters. The average UK woman is also overweight bordering on obese, hence the bra size.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The UK average bra size in 2012 was 34DD
quote:Whereas US women are becoming ever more - taller, bigger and fatter apparently.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The average UK woman is also overweight bordering on obese, hence the bra size.
quote:Do you know what "average" means? Doctors have height and weight charts to see if children are under developing. I've certainly had my chest measured. So let's make the same chart.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And you have some sort of stats on this ? Breast size is not in some sort of totally linear correlation with height and weight.
quote:I sure it does if you want to believe another -everything's the man's fault- feminist myth.
Originally posted by Twilight:
..... if the NHS is proclaiming all flat chested women, "deformed," then it's just one more step in convincing us all that we must exaggerate our bodies beyond nature just to make ourselves acceptable to men.
It angers up my feminist blood.
quote:Having spent some time working on a fairly poor housing estate, I realised pretty quickly the only difference between me and the people that lived there was geography. Being born at the start of the bus route meant I was encouraged to think I could be more than I knew. Being born at the end of it meant being presented with a fairly limited set of options and not a lot of encouragement.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, for me, a case like this doesn't undermine the NHS. In fact, I would say that it is in the spirit of the NHS; that patients are given some choice over their treatment. The fact that this lady has been given a hard time in the tabloids does not really impress me.
quote:Creating such a chart is going to be a very expensive exercise, because apparently you want it to only include people who fall within a medically approved BMI range, who have no condition effecting their breasts, and it needs to be age normed, height normed and pre-post menopause divided.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Do you know what "average" means? Doctors have height and weight charts to see if children are under developing. I've certainly had my chest measured. So let's make the same chart.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And you have some sort of stats on this ? Breast size is not in some sort of totally linear correlation with height and weight.
What is the typical bra size for a 5'5 woman who weighs 150 pounds - 25th - 75th percentile. Let the NHS patient choose her size from this range. Still get the breasts you need.
I think this is pretty reasonable but apparently not based on the reaction here.
quote:It doesn't take into account that some people have this treatment because one breast has developed normally and the other hasn't. The surgeon would normally make the artificial breast a similar size to the other one. Would that be allowed under this system if the natural breast was considered too big?!
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Creating such a chart is going to be a very expensive exercise, because apparently you want it to only include people who fall within a medically approved BMI range, who have no condition effecting their breasts, and it needs to be age normed, height normed and pre-post menopause divided.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Do you know what "average" means? Doctors have height and weight charts to see if children are under developing. I've certainly had my chest measured. So let's make the same chart.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And you have some sort of stats on this ? Breast size is not in some sort of totally linear correlation with height and weight.
What is the typical bra size for a 5'5 woman who weighs 150 pounds - 25th - 75th percentile. Let the NHS patient choose her size from this range. Still get the breasts you need.
I think this is pretty reasonable but apparently not based on the reaction here.
We'd also need to adjust for back size. And revise every five to ten years to allow for generational change.
And maybe adjust for physical fitness level, because BMI is a poor guide for people who have a high percentage of muscle.
quote:And if you were the boss of the NHS, I'm sure this is what you would do.
seekingsister: What is the typical bra size for a 5'5 woman who weighs 150 pounds - 25th - 75th percentile. Let the NHS patient choose her size from this range. Still get the breasts you need.
quote:Yeah, but 'glamour model' fits the Daily Mail mentality: 'Chav gets massive boob job for glamour modelling career, while others die'.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But DD is not glamour model sized, really truly. It's pretty average.
Glamour model sized is out in the G and H cups, Jordan (Katie Price) claimed to be a DD, but was really a 32FF depending on what you read and has now reduced her implants to a 32D.
quote:Men's magazines = big tits
Originally posted by rolyn:
AIUI women do not have cosmetic surgery for the benefit of men, nor do they spend billions on apparell and beautification for the benefit of men. It is done for themselves, one reason being that women compete with each-other on a subliminal level. If the cosmetic industry makes women more 'acceptable to men' then that is a byproduct, it is not the driving force behind it.
quote:Pretty much. The DM hates women, the poor and the NHS so this story is a gold mine for them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Yeah, but 'glamour model' fits the Daily Mail mentality: 'Chav gets massive boob job for glamour modelling career, while others die'.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But DD is not glamour model sized, really truly. It's pretty average.
Glamour model sized is out in the G and H cups, Jordan (Katie Price) claimed to be a DD, but was really a 32FF depending on what you read and has now reduced her implants to a 32D.
quote:Er...no, certainly not at taxpayers' expense...as in, WTF?! As in, she's welcome to have a boob job to further her career if she wants, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it! I go on CPD courses to further my career, but don't ask the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So she shouldn't get medical treatment because she wants to be a glamour model ?
quote:She got medical treatment because she needed it, just like many other people do. Or do breast problems come under the things that the NHS doesn't treat anymore because they're a luxury. Her career choices after that are up to her.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Er...no, certainly not at taxpayers' expense...as in, WTF?! As in, she's welcome to have a boob job to further her career if she wants, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it! I go on CPD courses to further my career, but don't ask the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So she shouldn't get medical treatment because she wants to be a glamour model ?
quote:Missed point error (I think). I believe the argument goes:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Er...no, certainly not at taxpayers' expense...as in, WTF?! As in, she's welcome to have a boob job to further her career if she wants, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it! I go on CPD courses to further my career, but don't ask the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So she shouldn't get medical treatment because she wants to be a glamour model ?
quote:I've been refraining from making the point that if I were in charge of the NHS (which fortunately for everyone is never going to happen) nobody would get any fertility treatment or IVF on the NHS. I've refrained from making this point so far, because I know it's a personal hobbyhorse of mine based on my own emotional baggage. But, Matt Black, if your position is as stated in your last post, do you think the NHS should stop all spending on fertility problems and IVF? Nobody is going to die of not having a baby.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
quote:And herein lies the problem. Lots of people seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy of "essential life-saving treatment v trivial waste of money", but that's not the reality. What the Tory Mail-reading vultures close their eyes and ears to is that the apparently small, trivial operations are the ones that return the true value, both personally and for the country as a whole.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
quote:Preach it Brother Gumby. I'm very glad I left the thread open.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
A "frivolous" operation has exactly the same value as an accident prevention campaign, or a mental health and wellbeing service, and the only reason they don't get the Daily Heil "this money could be spent on teh Cancer Kiddiez" treatment is because it would be too obvious that they're acting like monumentally disingenuous dicks.
quote:And I'm pretty sure that none of the women whom you've seen debating these things will actually manage to get a breast enhancement on the NHS. Look at the NHS website, these things are rare.
seekingsister: I don't wish to spread them around, but in regard to this story I've come across several internet forums where women ask "What should I say to my doctor to get him to refer me for breast implants" essentially asking for the "script" on how to claim psychological problems as a result of a flat chest, when in fact the primary issue is a desire (and not a medical need) to change appearance.
quote:Don't be ridiculous. A vote? A reality show where people send messages costing £2 each! Don't you ever think of the babies who could be saved with this money?
quetzalcoatl: Yes, I think we should have a vote on operations, to decide if they are necessary or life-saving.
quote:I "seem to suggest" nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What you seem to suggest in your previous posts is that you or the comments section of the Daily Mail should have a say in what happens between a doctor and a patient. I'm not British but if I were, I'd find that scary. Very scary.
quote:Do you have any evidence that the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
quote:But this is pure genius. A NHS reality show, where various people have to demonstrate their wounds and diseases, and then we, the caring, kind, British public, get to vote on which ones get the go-ahead for treatment.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Don't be ridiculous. A vote? A reality show where people send messages costing £2 each! Don't you ever think of the babies who could be saved with this money?
quetzalcoatl: Yes, I think we should have a vote on operations, to decide if they are necessary or life-saving.
quote:Herceptin.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Do you have any evidence that the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
quote:Which is clearly bollocks, because apart from the one maverick guy in Harley Street, who IIRC got a smackdown for it, no clinic in the UK will actually do that, owing to regulations etc. etc. (And (cynical) repeat business being good, and (not cynical) also wanting to actually get a good result, not any result).
Originally posted by Zoey:
(I think I've heard arguments that fertility treatment on the NHS should happen, amongst other reasons, because people's mental health is severely negatively affected by not having babies. Also, on a cost-benefit basis, if people scrape together money for privately-funded IVF they're more likely to go for having ridiculous numbers of embryos put in in one go, thereby increasing the risk of having multiples born very prematurely who cost a fortune in specialist neo-natal medical care.)
quote:I'm not sure why you think I have been portraying you at all. As far as I can see, you have accepted the need for this lady's op. My ire is directed at those who would deprive her of it, because she is a chav, and she is a woman, and also, because they hate the NHS. This has nothing to do with you.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quetzalcoatl I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the way you are portraying myself and others who have a problem with this type of treatment as prejudiced. The words you are using in your posts are offensive and I've not posted anything even remotely in that universe. I don't use that language (not being British why would I - but anyway).
quote:Thus, you suggest that negative publicity a doctor's decision could generate should have an influence within the relation between him/her and the patient. In other words, the people who would look negatively upon such a decision should have a say in what happens between a doctor and a patient. Which is exactly what I said before. And it's a very scary thing.
seekingsister: Giving out huge glamour model implants on the NHS draws negative publicity to the service and serves to contribute to a loss of faith in it. This is bad.
quote:And the NHS should only offer sizes that are within the bounds of what you happen to find typical for a woman naturally ... why exactly? Whatever you find typical should not influence what happens between Ms. Cunningham and her doctor.
seekingsister: My problem is with the provision of sizes that are beyond what is typical for a woman naturally.
quote:It doesn't matter. When a doctor performs a medical treatment to repair a body part, whatever we want to do with this body part after the treatment is of no concern to him/her.
seekingsister: You can find articles about her where she says she dreamt of being a glamour model from age 10, so to pretend that her choice to get DD implants was totally unrelated to this stretches credulity, in my opinion.
quote:Whatever you think she would have been well served with should have no inluence on what happens between Ms. Cunningham and her doctor.
seekingsister: She would have been well served with a B/C and we would not be talking about her now if that's what she had received.
quote:Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more that LeRoc believes that it's got nothing to do with you.
quote:No, I don't believe that doctors are always right. Trust me, I've had some fights with my GP over time. But I also don't believe that when doctors are wrong, you should step in and provide the right answer.
seekingsister: LeRoc - if you fundamentally believe doctors are always right, the NHS is always right, and therefore questioning choices made by either is unreasonable, then our conflict is not about breast implants. In which case there's not much more we can discuss with each other.
quote:You can comment. Other people can tell you why they believe you're wrong. That's how it works.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more that LeRoc believes that it's got nothing to do with you.
quote:It's also bollocks as a line of reasoning - by extending that argument, the Health Secretary and all ministers and civil servants within his/her department should all be medically qualified, since only doctors should have a say on decisions in the NHS.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more that LeRoc believes that it's got nothing to do with you.
quote:The original topic was about this lovely young woman complaining about getting shagged by someone she thought was a footballer but turned out not to be, and advising girls that if their A-Level results are poor they can always have a career getting their tits out or escorting (i.e. prostitution).
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
quote:OK then, how do you think decisions should be made in the NHS? Should there be rigid rules that define the treatment available to all people in a given set of circumstances, which will have the advantage of impartiality, or do you accept that clinicians need to be able to treat people as individuals, which will mean taking the wishes of that person into account as well as the availability of resources and the benefits that may accrue to the individual, which can easily appear inconsistent.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more that LeRoc believes that it's got nothing to do with you.
quote:(Maybe I should ask this in the Styx, but may I remind you that the topic of this thread has been 'diverted' at the specific and explicit request of a Host?)
Marvin the Martian: It has well and truly been diverted into a discussion of the morality of her boob job
quote:You may indeed remind me, as I had forgotten that fact!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(Maybe I should ask this in the Styx, but may I remind you that the topic of this thread has been 'diverted' at the specific and explicit request of a Host?)
quote:[More personal anecdotes which I know <>data]
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember when Viagra became widely available, and there was a debate about it being available on prescription, and the Health Secretary at the time made the limpid comment that male impotence didn't cause pain, therefore it should not be given via prescriptions. I think medical opinion was opposed to this view.
quote:Added to that is the point that various Health Trusts can make different decisions about various treatments. I suppose this has the negative result of 'postcode lottery' with some treatments; the positive aspect is local decisions and accountability. But it militates against a one-size-fits-all approach.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:OK then, how do you think decisions should be made in the NHS? Should there be rigid rules that define the treatment available to all people in a given set of circumstances, which will have the advantage of impartiality, or do you accept that clinicians need to be able to treat people as individuals, which will mean taking the wishes of that person into account as well as the availability of resources and the benefits that may accrue to the individual, which can easily appear inconsistent.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Someone posted this topic on a discussion forum - I'm not meant to comment on it? Give it a rest!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more that LeRoc believes that it's got nothing to do with you.
Just wondering.
quote:That's puzzling as a few of my clients did get Viagra on prescription, as I think they ought to. It's not life-threatening, to use your term, but it causes depression and messes up marriages.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:[More personal anecdotes which I know <>data]
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember when Viagra became widely available, and there was a debate about it being available on prescription, and the Health Secretary at the time made the limpid comment that male impotence didn't cause pain, therefore it should not be given via prescriptions. I think medical opinion was opposed to this view.
When I was on a very high strength of anti-depressants a few years ago (which were, rightly IMO, available on the NHS as it was/is a potentially life-threatening debilitating condition, affects my ability to work, etc) these had the unfortunate side-effect, as they often do, of depressing my libido to the extent that I needed Viagra-type stuff. This however wasn't available on the NHS - again, rightly IMO, since it wasn't any of the above and, although having the drug can jazz up one's love life, so can a meal out, and I don't expect other people to pay for that either.
quote:It’s very expensive and no extra funds are made available for it so cuts would have to be made to other services to pay for it. What would you cut? Treatment for lifestyle related illnesses as these are self inflicted? The old as they’ll die soon anyway? Cosmetic treatments such as this one as a pair of socks down a bra will work just as well? The other problem is, I suspect, the media plays up the fact that this drug is a miracle cure without mentioning its limitations. Aside from if you fund that, you can’t fund this, it only works for a small number of patients and the benefits are small – weeks or months rather than years etc.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Herceptin.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Do you have any evidence that the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
[And, like seekingsister, I'm starting to get fed up with the way 'prioritise' is being misrepresented by some posters here]
quote:This is an interesting thought experiment, but the second choice requires an unlimited budget to achieve. Which the NHS does not have.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK then, how do you think decisions should be made in the NHS? Should there be rigid rules that define the treatment available to all people in a given set of circumstances, which will have the advantage of impartiality, or do you accept that clinicians need to be able to treat people as individuals, which will mean taking the wishes of that person into account as well as the availability of resources and the benefits that may accrue to the individual, which can easily appear inconsistent.
Just wondering.
quote:I'll ignore your dumb swipe at the left for a moment. What I'm defending here isn't so much Ms. Cunningham. I don't personally know her, but I do think some of the things she has said and done are rather daft.
Marvin the Martian: It has well and truly been diverted into a discussion of the morality of her boob job, possibly because that's the only thing about her the lefties can bring themselves to defend And they have to defend her somehow, because she's working class and therefore can do no wrong. Unless said wrong can ultimately be laid at the door of someone who is either upper class or tory, of course.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I accept that to a degree. I was asked for an example of where the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving treatment, and this is one. I accept there are reasons for his.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:It’s very expensive and no extra funds are made available for it so cuts would have to be made to other services to pay for it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Herceptin.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Do you have any evidence that the NHS doesn't prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
[And, like seekingsister, I'm starting to get fed up with the way 'prioritise' is being misrepresented by some posters here]
quote:I can just as easily turn this around: given that the £4000 of this cosmetic procedure could have been spent elsewhere in the NHS, what would you cut to fund it?
What would you cut? Treatment for lifestyle related illnesses as these are self inflicted? The old as they’ll die soon anyway? Cosmetic treatments such as this one as a pair of socks down a bra will work just as well?
quote:The thing is, I'm not sure I do agree. (I'm not sure I disagree either, but I haven't even got to the point of agreeing so, for me, arguments about the 'morality' of cup-sizes don't really feature.)
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine,
quote:There is a long history of women's bodies being deformed by corsetry, which pushed ribs inwards, displacing internal organs. Belladonna in the eyes (to enlarge the pupils) caused immediate blurred vision and could lead to blindness in Elizabethan times. The "Alexandra limp" could cause hip problems. Etc etc etc.
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
quote:...
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe we should prioritise life-saving medical treatment?
quote:I can just as easily turn this around: given that the £4000 of this cosmetic procedure could have been spent elsewhere in the NHS, what would you cut to fund it?
What would you cut? Treatment for lifestyle related illnesses as these are self inflicted? The old as they’ll die soon anyway? Cosmetic treatments such as this one as a pair of socks down a bra will work just as well?
quote:The thing is, I'm not sure I do agree. (I'm not sure I disagree either, but I haven't even got to the point of agreeing so, for me, arguments about the 'morality' of cup-sizes don't really feature.) [/QUOTE]
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine,
Then it's the job, the duty of the NHS to treat them. For free. At the point of need. quote:Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
quote:Quetzalcoatl, I love you, I really do. You're always out here ready to mix it up on the threads I'm interested in, and you're very nice about it .... but, on thread after thread, I have the, "You're wrong because you sound like the "Daily Mail," thing thrown in my face.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
quote:I hate to say this as it automatically means I’ve lost the argument, but if you take history as your example and think about the way media and political parties are taking about the sick and the disabled, it ends with Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Tubbs wrote:
The thing is, if people agree that treating women in these circumstances is fine, why is it anyone’s business apart from the woman’s what cup size she selects? Or, what she decides to do with her life afterwards. They might not be life choices I’d make or want my daughter to make, but … And that’s not a lefty thing, it’s more about being tired of people demonising others for making choices that they themselves don’t approve of. Wanting to be a glamour model isn’t a crime last time I looked.
Yes, I don't get the lefty thing. It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
quote:I'm puzzled why you think my comments are about you. The post you cited mentioned tabloids and politicians - why do you think you sound like them, or that I think you sound like them?
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Quetzalcoatl, I love you, I really do. You're always out here ready to mix it up on the threads I'm interested in, and you're very nice about it .... but, on thread after thread, I have the, "You're wrong because you sound like the "Daily Mail," thing thrown in my face.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
I'm tired of this. I never see the Daily Mail or any other tabloids. I read some Google News and watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN and listen to the National Public Radio, all relatively liberal.
Can't we just be responsible for our own considered opinions and not have to worry about sounding like any certain, disliked media?
quote:You don't even have to get into the stigmatisation game.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
quote:Because:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm puzzled why you think my comments are about you. The post you cited mentioned tabloids and politicians - why do you think you sound like them, or that I think you sound like them?
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Quetzalcoatl, I love you, I really do. You're always out here ready to mix it up on the threads I'm interested in, and you're very nice about it .... but, on thread after thread, I have the, "You're wrong because you sound like the "Daily Mail," thing thrown in my face.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is the demonization which gets my goat; it is so common now in various tabloids and politicians. Attack the poor, attack women, attack the NHS - and here they had a joyful fusion of all of them. Very sick behaviour, but it is now the norm in British society, or some sections of it. It makes me quite fearful really, as to where we are heading.
I'm tired of this. I never see the Daily Mail or any other tabloids. I read some Google News and watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN and listen to the National Public Radio, all relatively liberal.
Can't we just be responsible for our own considered opinions and not have to worry about sounding like any certain, disliked media?
I don't see the demonization expressed on this forum, but it is certainly going on in the right-wing press and in right-wing politicians, and also in Labour politicians. I find it scary - attacks on women, the disabled, the poor - where the hell are we going?
quote:But this should be fixed by solving the problem, not punishing a victim.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I agree with Twilight's point regarding the wrongness of surgically altering bodies but I disagree withquote:There is a long history of women's bodies being deformed by corsetry, which pushed ribs inwards, displacing internal organs. Belladonna in the eyes (to enlarge the pupils) caused immediate blurred vision and could lead to blindness in Elizabethan times. The "Alexandra limp" could cause hip problems. Etc etc etc.
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
quote:What about me, then? Non-smoker, moderate drinker,taxpayer, generally take care of myself. Stepped out into traffic without looking while distracted by something else, knocked down (fortunately by pushbike rather than bus), olecronon fracture to elbow necessitating a couple of xrays, plaster, operation to pin it, follow-up physio, day surgery 18 months later to remove pins. My own bloody silly fault but the NHS did it all for me for free. Should I have been charged for all that?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
quote:Ok I will.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Men's magazines = big tits
Women's Magazines = rail thin
Try again.
quote:But are you sure that at the same time, you didn't have that chin modelled a little, so as to get that chiselled look? Just a little extra, you understand; we are a forgiving lot.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:What about me, then? Non-smoker, moderate drinker,taxpayer, generally take care of myself. Stepped out into traffic without looking while distracted by something else, knocked down (fortunately by pushbike rather than bus), olecronon fracture to elbow necessitating a couple of xrays, plaster, operation to pin it, follow-up physio, day surgery 18 months later to remove pins. My own bloody silly fault but the NHS did it all for me for free. Should I have been charged for all that?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, hang on a minute, what about these fat chavs who drink and smoke, while they sit at home on the sofa, on benefits, watching Sky TV all day?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On that basis we'd stop funding most cancer treatment, and I am going to guess that no one would be in favour of that.
Why should my taxes pay for their self-induced ailments?
Yours, disgusted tax-payer.
quote:I suppose the fact that there's no actual evidence for displaced ribs / organs as a consequence of corsetry doesn't bother you, because it's one of those things that everyone knows. And why do you know it? Because it's one of the various grotesque claims made by Victorian anti-corsetry activists in their attempt to halt the trend for tight lacing. Like the claims about women fainting, or dying due to their tight lacing, or the nonsense about women removing ribs.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I agree with Twilight's point regarding the wrongness of surgically altering bodies but I disagree withquote:There is a long history of women's bodies being deformed by corsetry, which pushed ribs inwards, displacing internal organs.
The only thing comparable in history is the trend of foot binding in China and those women were seldom given a choice.
quote:Nah. Not real. If you can't see it it's not a 'proper' illness.
Originally posted by Jane R:
*I'm including mental illness here.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I used to be a nurse in a NHS obesity clinic held by an endocrinologist. We had a programme which combined medical supervision with that of a dietician and a psychologist and it was very popular and successful (I worked in the clinic whilst pregnant and the patients used to comment on my growing size as I'm only 4 foot 11 and spent several months looking like very round). Referrals were mainly from GPs but also hospital physicians.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Nah. Not real. If you can't see it it's not a 'proper' illness.
Originally posted by Jane R:
*I'm including mental illness here.
Anyway, on the question of health care costs... I'm curious whether any UK Shipmates have seen the series Food Hospital, which I've stumbled across here recently. In some respects it's a bit light and fluffy, but it does seem to have a serious basic point, which is that NHS costs could be significantly reduced by addressing some conditions through diet rather than medical interventions like pills. The show has illustrated that even conditions that are technically incurable can sometimes be managed very effectively through dietary changes.
Thinking like that seems a far more effective means of making the health budget stretch further, rather than making moral judgements. There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
quote:I have condemned no one. I have asked why and deplored the trend not the women who follow it.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Examination of the literature of the period shows tight-lacing as an exclusively woman-led phenomenon, a passion indulged in despite the opposition of brothers and fathers and husbands. It was, in fact, a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body.
As to Twilight's claim, it is clearly entirely incorrect, and in itself an unacceptable form of authoritarianism. Perhaps, as the case of tight-lacing demonstrates, you should talk to the women who want to modify their bodies instead of simply condemning them.
quote:So why did they rail against the trend for narrow waists, complaining that they made women unnatural, undesirable and unhealthy?
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I have condemned no one. I have asked why and deplored the trend not the women who follow it.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Examination of the literature of the period shows tight-lacing as an exclusively woman-led phenomenon, a passion indulged in despite the opposition of brothers and fathers and husbands. It was, in fact, a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body.
As to Twilight's claim, it is clearly entirely incorrect, and in itself an unacceptable form of authoritarianism. Perhaps, as the case of tight-lacing demonstrates, you should talk to the women who want to modify their bodies instead of simply condemning them.
I think your view that men play no part in all this is short sighted. Yes, it's women who laced themselves into eighteen inch waists but it was men who, at that point in history found tiny waists desirable and attractive.
quote:And so it is impossible that women might want to reshape their bodies for their own reason. Maybe even because men didn't want them to?
If the most sought after debutante at the ball had a tiny waist, then the next ball might show that women had laced themselves more tightly. If the only Chinese women who were making good marriages had tiny feet, then the mothers might go home and have their daughters' feet bound. If most of the women chosen by the football team to make their cheerleading squad or Playmate of the year, have breast implants -- young women who think this is the way forward in those careers are going to make that choice.
quote:How do you know? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
Yes, it's usually the woman who makes the appointment with the foot binder or the plastic surgeon but it's men who are driving the need.
quote:No, it's naive to think that women cannot get excited by things that the sisters, with their complete lack of historical context, and lack of interest in understanding viewpoints other than their own, have decided to disapprove of. If you read the correspondence in the ladies' magazines of the period, or the horrified commentary by their menfolk, you might see why one might describe it as a passion. People can be passionate about all kinds of things, and it is deeply patronising to assert that women cannot be passionate about something, just because you have (post facto) decided that men might like it.
That doesn't mean I particularly blame men for any of these things because women have to be complicit for it to work, but to say it's all a "passion" of women that men play no part in seems naïve to me.
quote:Oh come on, that is just full of unspoken assumptions. You have decided that men objected because they saw it as sexy. Do you have any proof of that? Do you even know that they did find it sexy? Evidence from contemporary sources (including a large number of quite nasty cartoons in Punch) suggests that they did not.
Evidence that all those things are discouraged by men for their sisters and daughters is not surprising. Men have never much wanted their sisters and daughters to be sex objects.
quote:And it doesn't strike you that that attitude is astonishingly arrogant? Would it not be better to perhaps accept that these women know what they are talking about? You have merely decided that they are wrong. And why should it matter if there are men about? The fact that men might see it doesn't make their decision any less self-empowered.
I've known lots of women with breast implants and they all say they didn't do it to please men but to please themselves. I find it hard to believe that if they lived on deserted islands with no men in sight they would still want to have balls of saline inserted in their chests to make every movement more cumbersome and awkward.
quote:Oh dear, oh dear. Do you actually read comic books? Real comic books? Some of the most well endowed characters have been drawn by women. You check out the work of Melinda Gebbie or Dame Darcy for a start. And, of course, the spectacularly endowed women drawn by the great Amanda Conner. Now Conner, famously drew Power Girl (Shock horror: woman draws superheroine with boobs!), who is extremely popular with more statuesque cosplayers everywhere. Now, you would (on the basis of the above) assert that this is because they want men to like them. Well, no. What they actually say is this: in a society where the image portrayed of feminine perfection is a stick with a duck's beak on top, it is hugely empowering to be able to identify with a character who is (a) stacked, (b) notoriously bad tempered whenever any male even tries suggesting she do something, (c) Kryptonian, and hence immensely strong, invulnerable, super intelligent, etc. Regardless of the 'I know better' argument deployed above, this is not women wanting to please the patriarchy.
Some of them might say they got their large implants as an expression of power, a desire to look like the women super-heroes in comic books drawn by men, they might as you suggest say "it is a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body."
quote:And isn't it arrogant to assume that one knows what is going on better than they, with little knowledge of their context or culture? What gives first world white (I assume) women the right to assume that their issues are those of everyone else?
So might the women say this who have or perform genital mutilation. Wouldn't a better more logical feminist revolt be a refusal to do any of these things and to control ones own body by taking charge of birth control? Is it just coincidence that they are "asserting their identity" by playing to the fantasy of many men? Why aren't they asserting their identity by having large biceps implanted or shaving their heads?
quote:And I don't buy the desire to impose the really very, very unpleasant world view of feminist theory on women and men all over the world. It looks at the world and sees all men as vicious exploiters and all women as dumb slaves. It sees women the world over who insist that its interpretation of their actions is wrong, and replies that it doesn't buy it, and they must be victims really. If any of its practitioners had the slightest shadow of intellectual integrity, they would see this as reason to dump the theory and get a better one. One must conclude that they do not.
I just don't buy any of this. I think it's actually a sad desire to meet a false and superficial ideal that turns women into objects of sexual desire.
quote:Alright then, you tell us how women have been valued through the millennia.
How do you know? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
quote:I don't think I said that they had been. My complaint is at the extraordinary, and frankly insulting to women, theory that just about anything any woman does, that a feminist theorist doesn't like, must be done, not because she is a free agent, but because men are making her do it. In other words, a woman is only truly being herself if she does exactly what the sisters say she should. Is it just me, or is this not simply exchanging one tyranny for another?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:Alright then, you tell us how women have been valued through the millennia.
How do you know? Do you have any evidence? Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
quote:But OMG! that's not lifesaving treatment! What about the children with cancer?
Originally posted by orfeo:
... There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
quote:In a couple of cases they flatly said it WAS life-saving treatment. They told a couple of patients what their current life expectancy was, and it was not flattering.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:But OMG! that's not lifesaving treatment! What about the children with cancer?
Originally posted by orfeo:
... There have been quite a few cases on the show where they've said that a person's weight is a contributor to their health problem, but rather than saying "we won't help you because you're fat", they've said "let's help you NOT BE fat so that your health problem resolves/reduces, and then the need to help you in some other way will no longer exist".
<yes, sarcasm>
One fundamental drawback of prioritizing life-saving treatment is that preventative care gets less priority. Even though preventative care gets more bang for the buck, in so many ways.
quote:Not loaded. Doubting, yes, but not loaded. You list the women of Sparta, but they were not only different to Athens, but the rest of Greece and the Mediterranean. And yes, the list is longer than that. It does not change that the great majority of women in the great majority of societies have been valued primarily for bearing children and that attractiveness has been a main factor in gaining a mate.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Moreover, I am sure that the word 'valued' is loaded in such a way that, no matter how I respond, no matter how strong my evidence, you will still find some way of claiming that it doesn't really constitute women being valued, but is merely exploitation.
quote:And you do not see your "feminist agenda" argument is exactly this?
Originally posted by Figbash:
That is, of course, the advantage of overarching single narrative theories: they can be used to explain anything (and nothing).
quote:No determination to adopt victimhood. It is the same argument faced by black people in the West.
Originally posted by Figbash:
In other words, it is a determination to adopt victimhood as a badge of honour. Which is where we started in on all this.
quote:Yes, we are back to the issue of authority, or in fact, authoritarianism. Should we have a situation where a patient is offered choice, but then told that her choice is not acceptable? Or the NHS could simply offer no choice - but I think that goes against one of its philosophical bases.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What are the suitable size of breasts a woman should have?
quote:The size she is comfortable with.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What are the suitable size of breasts a woman should have?
quote:You seem to be blaming me for all the "feminist theory," in the world simply because I'm against the trend of implanting artificial breasts. I've actually never had a course in feminist theory or read any books on the subject, so it's odd that you think I'm quoting from freshman class 101.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Your argument shows the standard fallacy of feminist theory. It assumes that all women (save, of course, the feminist theorist) are pliant victims who are incapable of doing anything save because men want them to. This is deeply offensive to women. It is also deeply patronising, in that the feminist theorist appears to believe that she has the right to say what women should and should not do, which makes me wonder in what way she is meant to be better than the patriarchs. And worst of all, it has little, if any, basis in truth.
Or is it just something that feminist theory teaches you in its 'All women but me are victims 101' class?
If you read the correspondence in the ladies' magazines of the period, or the horrified commentary by their menfolk, you might see why one might describe it as a passion.
And I don't buy the desire to impose the really very, very unpleasant world view of feminist theory on women and men all over the world. It looks at the world and sees all men as vicious exploiters and all women as dumb slaves. It sees women the world over who insist that its interpretation of their actions is wrong, and replies that it doesn't buy it, and they must be victims really. If any of its practitioners had the slightest shadow of intellectual integrity, they would see this as reason to dump the theory and get a better one. One must conclude that they do not.
quote:No, I don't know what you mean, and your explanation seems like a post hoc rationalization.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Good point, but I think you know what I mean. Apart from anything else, think a few years down the track, some more children perhaps, and the usual effect of age - she may well be very uncomfortable. But as my avatar suggests, I'm a grumpy old man.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:The size she is comfortable with.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What are the suitable size of breasts a woman should have?
quote:I don't think anyone is expecting the doctors to effect cultural change, or to make moral judgments, just that they stick to medicine and stay away from fads. I know that if I went to my dentist to replace a missing tooth and asked him to make vampire fangs, he would refuse on the grounds that he's a serious dentist and not a Hollywood special effects artist. By the same token a doctor who is working to correct abnormally small breasts probably shouldn't be going to the opposite extreme for show business reasons. It's not a moral judgment to make reasonable esthetic decisions.
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The thing about restricting NHS boob-jobs to appropriate sizes is that it's using medical rules to try to effect cultural change i.e. we (society) decide that disproportionate large fake breasts are part of a wider pattern of objectification of women and we want to change that by not paying for them. I think if there were were implants on demand on the NHS then I might agree with that, but as we're talking about a procedure that has a medical justification I'm uncomfortable with imposing a moral judgement on the individual patient.
quote:Now that I would be against. I think what people pay for privately is their own right, be it eight holes in each ear or three breasts, provided they can find a private doctor who is willing to take their money.
How about this instead: tax private cosmetic surgery and use the money to fund public information campaigns promoting positive body image?
quote:She's not wrong in describing the actual state of affairs in our society and many others. Women's bodies have always been an exploitable commodity. The arguments above about feminist theory* seems to be about who is exploiting whom.
Girls don't worry if ur results are poor - you can always have a career getting your t***s out or escorting.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Most, if not all discussions about female porn, prostitution, or the general enhancement of female sexuality distill down to the self-same point.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The arguments above about feminist theory seems to be about who is exploiting whom.
quote:But by even calling it a "fad" you're invoking a cultural argument. And even if it is a "fad" (personally I think something that's been around as long as implants and shows no signs of disappearing has outlived the fad phase) then saying that it's wrong to follow fads is a moral judgement.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:I don't think anyone is expecting the doctors to effect cultural change, or to make moral judgments, just that they stick to medicine and stay away from fads.
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The thing about restricting NHS boob-jobs to appropriate sizes is that it's using medical rules to try to effect cultural change i.e. we (society) decide that disproportionate large fake breasts are part of a wider pattern of objectification of women and we want to change that by not paying for them. I think if there were were implants on demand on the NHS then I might agree with that, but as we're talking about a procedure that has a medical justification I'm uncomfortable with imposing a moral judgement on the individual patient.
quote:Another comparison might be where you are having a "normal" tooth but you and your dentist disagree on which is the best colour match. Choice of analogy tells us something about where our values lie.
I know that if I went to my dentist to replace a missing tooth and asked him to make vampire fangs, he would refuse on the grounds that he's a serious dentist and not a Hollywood special effects artist.
quote:Well I'm not talking about the OP specifically, but I understand that the comments about getting implants for career purposes were made after she'd had hers done for medically sound reasons.
By the same token a doctor who is working to correct abnormally small breasts probably shouldn't be going to the opposite extreme for show business reasons.
quote:See I think it is. If two courses of treatment are medically equivalent but have different aesthetic outcomes then telling the patient that her choice is not "reasonable" is a moral judgement. Why should the doctor, the NHS or society at large get to say that her aesthetics are unreasonable?
It's not a moral judgment to make reasonable esthetic decisions.
quote:It's their right but so are a lot of things that we tax. Using tax as a disincentive toward certain activities as well as a way of raising money is a well trodden path.
quote:Now that I would be against. I think what people pay for privately is their own right, be it eight holes in each ear or three breasts, provided they can find a private doctor who is willing to take their money.
How about this instead: tax private cosmetic surgery and use the money to fund public information campaigns promoting positive body image?
quote:But restricting which cup size of implants a woman can get on the NHS would be a "sort of government action".
I would like to see cultural change in this as well, but I think it has to come from within, not through any sort of government action.
quote:Perhaps she's implicitly arguing that it's a good thing that the government is providing an operation that better fits her for the oldest profession, that so it should, this operation should be available under a start-up grant and other girls should do the same.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
While we're arguing about the right size of boob job, let's not forget how this thread began:
quote:She's not wrong in describing the actual state of affairs in our society and many others. Women's bodies have always been an exploitable commodity. The arguments above about feminist theory* seems to be about who is exploiting whom.
Girls don't worry if ur results are poor - you can always have a career getting your t***s out or escorting.
* And I have no idea what anyone here means by feminist theory, because there are many theories of feminism. Maybe she's a socialist feminist and being ironic.
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
But by even calling it a "fad" you're invoking a cultural argument. And even if it is a "fad" (personally I think something that's been around as long as implants and shows no signs of disappearing has outlived the fad phase) then saying that it's wrong to follow fads is a moral judgement.
quote:
If the answer is that it's because we're paying then that's using medical treatment to effect cultural purposes. I suspect there are people who are OK with that but I'm saying it makes me a little uncomfortable to go down that route.
quote:This is very interesting. Could you refer me to the literature you mention? And where can I read about how women preferred doctors with forceps to midwives?
Originally posted by Figbash:
Examination of the literature of the period shows tight-lacing as an exclusively woman-led phenomenon, a passion indulged in despite the opposition of brothers and fathers and husbands. It was, in fact, a kind of proto-feminist revolt, an assertion of identity and right to control one's one body.
quote:You're painting with a very broad brush here. Google something like feminism + complicity + resistance and you'll find that there are plenty of feminist scholars who recognize that it's a lot more complicated than that.
[Your argument shows the standard fallacy of feminist theory. It assumes that all women (save, of course, the feminist theorist) are pliant victims who are incapable of doing anything save because men want them to. This is deeply offensive to women. It is also deeply patronising, in that the feminist theorist appears to believe that she has the right to say what women should and should not do, which makes me wonder in what way she is meant to be better than the patriarchs. And worst of all, it has little, if any, basis in truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
But by even calling it a "fad" you're invoking a cultural argument. And even if it is a "fad" (personally I think something that's been around as long as implants and shows no signs of disappearing has outlived the fad phase) then saying that it's wrong to follow fads is a moral judgement.
Only I never once said, or implied, that it was wrong to follow fads.
quote:I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seemed like a reasonable inference that you would think following this particular fad would be a bad thing.
I'm against the trend of implanting artificial breasts
quote:
I said I thought doctors should stick to the business of health and leave fashion, including cosmetic surgery, to the people who work in those fields.
quote:The problem with those analogies is that we've already established that the NHS doesn't do implants for purely cosmetic purposes. So the closer analogy would be an unhealthy tooth that you have replaced with one with a particular aesthetic look.
I wouldn't ask my doctor to give me botox injections or a tattoo and I wouldn't ask my dentist to knock out a healthy tooth and put in a gold one. It's against their oath to do no harm and their primary mission to fight disease.
quote:
quote:
If the answer is that it's because we're paying then that's using medical treatment to effect cultural purposes. I suspect there are people who are OK with that but I'm saying it makes me a little uncomfortable to go down that route.
I haven't said a word about the cost. It makes me extremely uncomfortable to bring money into health decisions. Of course my whole point is that I don't think huge implants have much to do with health.
quote:I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's really not my intent.
I am also uncomfortable with the way you keep putting words, and attitudes like this, in my mouth. Talk about moral judgment.
quote:I can think of three reasons against that: one, it's unworkable, since it's very difficult to check what unhealthy habits people have; two, poor people would be told to go away and die; and three, basically, it would privatize half the NHS. Well, of course, you could do that, but I quite like the NHS.
Originally posted by no prophet:
While the term 'chav' is foreign to me, the debates about health care and responsibility arent. What should and shouldn't be paid for?
How about obese people pay for their own gastric banding surgery? Or smokers for their cardiac bypass? And obesity related diabetes self pay?
