A NEW FREEDOM FOR THE FUTURE

There is a bomb girl who frequents the same gym I go to. She looks like a movie star, and works ferociously at the various sculpting machines there. She keeps looking back at an imaginary fold of fat at the waist, and keeps whining to the trainer, “I am putting on weight!”
This beauty is spending money, time and effort to beat a non-existent disease: obesity. She is also, potentially, damaging her joints and heart when she pounds the treadmills and pumps the weights. Shouldn’t someone stop her before its too late?
There is another girl I know who wants to trim her inner labia. She seeks a cosmetic gynecologist who does vaginoplasties. And another one who wants a surgery to make her a virgin again, before she gets married a few weeks later. These girls are looking to seek potentially dangerous and complication-prone operations that treat no disease. They are merely expressing some inner wish to change their structure, though there may be nothing fundamentally wrong with them.
I had previously highlighted how the American College of Gynecologists (ACOG) is hotly after the man who has made vaginoplasty a commercial money-spinner. This merely illustrates the fact that there are people in the world, including medical experts, who want to stop procedures that alter one’s physical state. Sex change surgery is another example. There are countries where this is illegal.
The future is fraught with potentially more complex and controversial issues like using genetic engineering and cloning to create a new type of human being that may be peculiarly enhanced. For example, a mother may be able to select a baby who is genetically engineered to see in the dark. Or one who will be free of certain deadly diseases. If you have not read my article on ‘Disruptive Medicine’, this is your lucky day. Check it out.
A Swedish organisation called Eudoxa talks of this morphological freedom, defining it as “an extended right to your own life, including your body.”
Why would a man or woman want to alter his structure for overtly trivial reasons?

We express ourselves through what we are becoming.
Self-development is an intense motivational factor for most humans, and by its
nature this is a very personal and challenging achievement.

Look at tattooing. The way many conservative people see it, it is a kinky and perverse thing to do. It is, however, considered quite cool and contemporary by much of modern society.
It is a personal morphological alteration without specific reasons beyond an individual’s personal choice and freedom of expression.

But wouldn’t genetic modification of children alter society and endanger it? Should we not stop this before it is too late?

Recognizing the right to choose among the many options made available through
morphologic freedom also supports the right not to choose them; the positive and
negative rights are two sides of the same coin.
Purely negative goals like the EU Commission’s directive on children’s right to be
born with unmodified genes will often end up in conflict with positive goals such as
providing children with the best possible medical attention. This right is also
mentioned by the Commission, but is undermined by the negative goal.
One of the many ways this positive goal can be attained is through surgery in the
womb for certain congenital defects. This type of operation changes the body and
the potential person much more than any genetic modification we can bring about.

In other words, apart from the issues of personal freedom and choice, these same disruptive technologies that could change future generations could also save countless lives and improve the lifestyle of the suffering. For example, see the use of intelligent prostheses for amputees that work better than normal limbs.
For more details, check out this link and download a pdf of the statement of Eudoxa.

Whatever be one’s views on this, this issue is a sure one for the future. You haven’t heard anything yet!

DESIGNER VAGINA: LIP SERVICE?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is up in arms. The College has just issued a health warning to women who may be interested in surgical procedures that are called Vaginal Rejuvenation or Revirgination.
Proponents of these operations say that in mature women, vaginas become loose from childbirth and age, and so, if you get them tightened up, you are going to have a tighter fit, and greater pleasure, during sex. That is not all. Women of all ages, shapes and sizes are potential customers of cosmetic reconstruction of the external genitalia. If someone wants the inner labia trimmed, or a pigmented portion removed, or the external lips plumped up, she is a candidate for this brand of surgery.

There is even a GShot that claims to amplify the fabled G spot of the vagina. Basically, the G (Grafenburg) spot is a point in the front wall of the vagina where the maximum sensory stimulation is present. By injecting human collagen at the point, the G-spot projects into the vagina by almost a couple of centimeters (it is claimed), and thus is more easily stimulated during intercourse. Testimonials in websites rave about orgasms arising out of bumpy car rides, intercourse be damned! It is claimed that 87% of women benefit from this!
All these procedures are of unproven benefit, unnecessary and have potential side effects, says the ACOG. The College has come out with an advisory release that says:

It is imperative that studies on these procedures be conducted and published in peer-reviewed publications so that the evidence and clinical outcomes can be reviewed. Until that time, the absence of data supporting the safety and efficacy of these procedures makes their recommendation untenable.

ACOG also states “these procedures are not medically indicated.”
Fine, so why doesn’t the College help start trials to disprove this notion amongst some specialists and women that these plastic surgery procedures actually work and improve sexual health?
It seems that there are complicating issues involving professional jealousy, rivalry and questions of the ethics involved.
A gynecologist in Los Angeles called David Matlock patents all these designer vaginoplasties. In case you missed what you just read, these are patented procedures. Matlock teaches these procedures to other interested specialists for $50,000 only. Yeah, you read it right this time! 50 big ones to learn designer vaginoplasty.
Obviously, Matlock’s institute is promoting this surgery in a big way and making money, as are those who have learnt from him.
Philosophically, it seems, the American College is unable to accept this. A small coterie of doctors making moolah on new procedures they are unwilling to teach for free is inflammatory to the rest of the breed.

ACOG is also concerned with the ethical issues associated with the marketing and national franchising of cosmetic vaginal procedures. A business model that controls the dissemination of scientific knowledge is troubling, according to the new committee opinion. “When a new surgical procedure or a variation of an established surgical procedure is developed, physicians typically do not attempt to keep it proprietary or restrict who can perform the procedure,” said Dr. Berenson (a member of the Committee that came out with the warning).

But isn’t this standard business practice in life? Patenting drugs, products and even ideas is part of reality. Yes, it is true, if all procedures were patented, none of us would have been complete surgeons. Knowledge has always been freely disseminated to medical students and doctors.
However, in recent history, new procedures have not been freely shared. Laparoscopic gall bladder removal, for example, used to be (and still is) taught in paid courses. Those who didn’t have the wherewithal to afford these courses never learnt it, or did so only when the procedure became common. The same can be said of many other, newer, procedures. We are seeing something very similar here. The only difference is that a pioneer of a procedure has actually patented a set of operations so that he will make money if someone else wants to adopt them. This is the free market in surgery, and trust the plastic surgery industry to cash in on it!
If the procedures truly benefit the women who go for them, the ACOG will be standing by the highway while the market runs away to newer unexplored terrain. Of course, conceptually, it is difficult for us to accept surgical alteration of normal organs. It has never been thought of before. But is this mere fact enough reason to condemn it?
If the results are not good, or if the surgeries are unsafe, the market will banish the purveyors of these designer surgeries.
Incidentally, The Wall Street Journal had this to say about David Matlock:

He has been quoted in other publications as saying he has treated more than 3,000 women and trained 140 doctors. In 1998, the Medical Board of California tried to revoke his license, alleging insurance fraud, dishonesty and negligent care to two patients, according to state records. In 2000, Dr. Matlock settled with the board and was placed on probation for four years.

It seems Matlock is living on borrowed time, but may retire wealthier beyond imagination!

(I can’t resist an aside that similar augmentation procedures could also tried for males focused exclusively on where their maximum intelligence resides, the penis. If nothing else, the G-spot will cease to be a nebulous point of focus of the sexes. That would not be a small achievement in man-woman interaction!)

Related reading: The Female Vagina And The Rainbow Of Fire