This thread was posted yesterday, and a very knowledgeable FReeper was able to explain to us why it was a hack piece. I borrow meisterbrewer's comments from that thread....
I even saw this covered on Fox and Friends two days ago and it really irritated me that they didn't bring up the truth about these operations. I fired off the following letter to them:
Hi!
Regarding your story this morning on the New York Magazine article investigating cosmetic surgery in the military:
What a hack job by the author. Not once did she mention the real reason such surgeries are done. There is no secret about the surgeries in the military, as she alleged. They have been done and will continue to be done because doctors in the military MUST do them to maintain their certifications, just as civilian doctors do. Within each discipline in medicine, such as neurosurgery, plastic surgery, reconstructive surgery, and so on, doctors must do a minimum number of surgeries and document a minimum number of hours in order to remain certified. The reason most people don't know about them is because they are fairly rare and are only done when necessary to maintain a doctor's proficiency.
But, you say, how can breast surgery, for example, be justified. Simple - cancer treatments sometimes requires breast removal and augmentation. In order to be proficient at such surgeries, doctors MUST perform them on a routine basis. If there are no cancer patients available, the only way a doctor can perform the REQUIRED number of surgeries is to do augmentation on other patients. This does not amount to "practice" as the author states, but is required to maintain proficiency.
And the line about "paid for by your tax dollars" is ludicrous. News flash to the author - military doctors get paid a yearly salary, regardless of how much work they do. They don't get paid for each surgery. Further, the medical facilities used in such surgeries are military hospitals, so there are no additional costs there either. About the only costs associated with such surgeries are the implants that are installed. In other words, the total cost of such surgeries in extremely small compared to civilian surgeries.
The issues mentioned here are obvious, and should have at least been mentioned by an author that was seeking to provide a fair and balanced story. Which leads me to conclude that either she was completely ignorant of the subject and didn't do even basic research, or, more likely, was looking to write a hit-piece on the military and didn't want to concern herself with any information that could provide a reason such surgery is done.
I have learned not to expect fair treatment from the NYT or NYM, or many other news agencies, but I count on Fox News to provide the fair and balanced rebuttal to their assaults.
Could you please bring this up for your listeners so they understand the full story?
Thanks!
A lot of military hospitals hire many civilians. I would think reconstructive surgery after cancer isn't much like the typical boob job done so a woman can feel like Pamela Anderson.
Great letter. Let me just add one more thing--whether we realize it or not, the "taxpayer" (meaning U.S. citizens) also ultimately pay for such surgeries when they're done via a private HMO. Everyone's insurance goes up to pay for these. Not all insurance plans cover them, but many do.
Thanks for the quote! This issue has really gotten under my skin as it spreads around the media. I keep yelling at my TV for someone to mention the obvious issues that many are bringing up on this thread. But no one has done so yet.
FITZ: Actually, reconstructive surgery after breast cancer treatment is very similar to a routine augmentation surgery, at least in a high percentage of cases. Yes, there are some differences, but the fact remains, it is the SAME type of doctor that does the surgery. A plastic surgeon. So, the doctor still gets the hours necessary for retaining his or her certification.