If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

I really enjoyed the article by Arthur W. Frank and how he addresses "biopolitics". Unlike apotemnophilia or the more strange fixations of changing one's appearance, Frank focuses more on how people have changed their bodies to be a principle of "capital". He discusses how our bodies have become a reflection of our selves and how we now have a choice to "fix" our imperfections, with plastic surgery.

I am one of those individuals who do not believe people should be allowed to chop off limbs just because they feel like it. The same goes for lengthening legs and designing vogue-approved feet. The implications of these procedures go beyond the individual who chooses to do them. Frank talks about how by choosing to do some of these procedures we almost begin to look down upon the individuals who do not "fix" their imperfect nose/feet/face etc. In the beginning of his article he talks about the person he sees walking who has some abnormality, and he finds himself asking why the individual didn't get it "fixed". Frank states, "Patients become consumers of medical products a status that empowers those with sufficient resources and disenfranchises others who lack these resources" (p. 20).

Medicine and medical products have become extremely consumer-driven. Frank explains how a magazine puts these perfections into discourse with an example of Vogue's article on the perfect foot, "Vogue presents a potent lesson in what patients are entitled to expect from their physicians, as well as what people should expect of their bodies". This is extremely dangerous.

This idea of plastic surgery and getting any procedure that changes the appearance one's body is tricky. It's is extremely difficult to justify reconstructing a person's face because of an unsightly birthmark and to not justify a person whose feet cause them distress because they see them as not being normal. So, my question is where do we draw the line? I do not know how to honestly answer that question, however I do not think a procedure should be done if there is any substantial harm that could come to the individual by doing the procedure. I remember reading an article somewhere about a woman who had a foot procedure done, so I tried to google it but found this one instead not as good but still worth looking at.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/health/07FOOT.html?ex=1071378000&en=02b427cf212c36d5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=2