Discussions of Technoluxe

Arthur Frank's piece reflects in essence what we are attempting in this class. Engaging in dialogue to test one's views against the reaction of others. Through this "perpetual process" we gain a better understanding of each other, ourselves, and a way to make decisions that are not so easy to make.
Much of "Emily's Scars" details different medical situations that may or may not warrant corrective surgery. we are surrounded by this technoluxe everyday. All forms of advertising, celebrities, even the women in the Minnetonka restaurant I work in remind me of this modernistic expansion of what we need and want. When is enough enough?
Frank suggests that technoluxe depends on accepting that life is a project of shaping(one's body) and that projects are realized through acts of consumption. Keep people afraid AND YOU WILL KEEP THEM CONSUMING. Frank even cites doctors using this fear as a moral defense! If surgery can prevent teasing then surgeons are morally responsible to do so. Wow. If you don't fix that you'll never be normal.
Not all of the situations discussed are so easy to joke about. Children with facial "abnormalities" brings up more difficult questions for me than rich women who want prettier feet. No matter how differently these two situations seem to me I agree with Frank in that it is impossible to determine the amount of pain caused by them or the possible gains of fixing them. It can't be quantified. one can't simply "draw lines between types of surgeries and give some but not others an ethical seal of approval."
In this Socratic approach to bioethics we must consider each other in our so called "personal choices". Not only the decisions we make but also that a choice exists effects everyone. Awareness of the impact on others these decisions have is an essential part of bioethics. This brings me back to dialogue, this class, this blog...