MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

17 November 2006

Good news! Women who want dangerous breast implants that might cause illness and will most likely need to be replaced at some point can again have them! Woo hoo!
That's awesome! I've been waiting for fourteen years to get an augmentation!
posted by Specklet 17 November | 18:23
Since then, most studies have failed to find a link between silicone breast implants and disease.

Did they really have a choice is this is true?

posted by mullacc 17 November | 18:34
...is if this is true...
posted by mullacc 17 November | 18:35
It seems like it depends on your definition of "disease."

The rupture issue persists: The implants do not last a lifetime, and eventually they must be removed or replaced, according to the FDA. A 2000 Institute of Medicine report found rupture rates as high as 77 percent.

Women whose silicone implants ruptured have reported years of pain, swelling, numbness and other symptoms that they blame on the devices. Leaked silicone gel can migrate throughout the body, forming lumps. Implants also can cause infection and form hard, painful scar tissue that can distort the shape of a breast.


That's not a disease, I guess, but it still seems like a pretty fucking scary medical issue.
posted by occhiblu 17 November | 18:38
Everybody needs a lump of hard, painful scar tissue for a pillow.
posted by greasy_skillet 17 November | 18:43
"It's a hugely positive piece of newsmoney for plastic surgeons and for patients and for the company — all three — because it really allows us to turn a pagemake more money and to work with what we have believedtalked ourselves into because of the money for a long time is a better technology and better device (and money)," said (the very rich, but still not rich enough) Dr. Scott Spear, head of plastic surgery at Georgetown University Hospital and an Allergan* consultant.

*In March 2006, Allergan acquired aesthetic company, Inamed, to create a world leading aesthetic franchise focused on facial aesthetics, breast aesthetics, and devices designed to treat obesity. -From the Wiki.
Vested interests, anyone? mmmm. yes please.
posted by Zack_Replica 17 November | 18:48
Just about every decision the FDA makes is a financial windfall (or disaster) for someone.
posted by mullacc 17 November | 18:54
actually the pain and scar tissue deal is an issue for *all* breast augmentation surgery - whether silicone or saline. it basically depends on how sensitive your own body tissue is to scarring and inflammation. I recall reading some studies where almost 3/4ths of patients will at some point 'encapsulate' (link NSFW - boobies and not goodlooking ones either!) - this is when the body's immune reaction causes fibrous scar tissue to surround the implant - think boobs that look like medicine balls. I think the new generation of silicone surgeries in the U.S. that they've just gotten approval for is supposed to be using a 'gummy' form of silica that doesn't require bags or leak (they've done this for years in Europe), but encapsulation will happen regardless of the implant used if / when the patient's immune system says 'this isn't supposed to be here'.

and no I never considered this for myself... i've worked in the medical industry for fifteen years tho and in several research facilities including Merck, P&G and Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries

from what I've been told by a reputable cosmetic surgeon I worked for, the average outlook for most breast augmentations is between six to twelve years before corrective / replacement / removal surgery must be done.
posted by lonefrontranger 17 November | 19:10
My painful painful lumps
posted by pieisexactlythree 17 November | 19:14
Because its important to look good now and not worry about anything that'll happen in five or six years.

How sad.
posted by fenriq 18 November | 00:37
In a world where people increasingly think it's cool to "body mod," what's the problem? Bleached/dyed, waxed/shaved, tatted, pierced, branded, scarified, and implanted people feel better, apparently, so I'm all for the FDA giving these things the stamp of approval, and for people paying other people big money to stick them where the sun don't shine. It's not like that money would go to efforts to bring about world peace, otherwise.

A woman I know who swears that she and I are the only ones that ever see it just had her fake nipple re-tattoed on the reconstructed breast which was removed due to cancer 9 years ago. (Apparently, such tattoos fade over time -- who knew?) I could care less, but it matters to her, apparently. Who the hell am I to argue?

But I wouldn't have any kind of cosmetic silicon implants in a million years myself, or tattoos. I think they look bizarre, frankly, like the remnants of a bad idea that just keeps on hanging around like stale cigar smoke. Generally, if I have any reaction to body mods, it's a general feeling of mild pity for the modder, somewhat proportional to my perception of the permanence of the mod, but it's not my place to comment, so I don't.
posted by paulsc 19 November | 04:39
Joan Jett : New York : Urgh! : A Music War || This thread is trying to break your heart (hit "Listen").

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN