The real rationale behind the military's policy is to maintain the skills of the surgeons. Some people might laugh at a military plastic surgeon doing a cosmetic augmentation mammoplasty, but if I was a female soldier and had massive breast trauma from combat, I would want my reconstructive surgeon to be skilled and experienced. It is the same philosophy that has the military sending its trauma surgeons to large inner-city emergency rooms. They get valuable real-time experience that will serve their future combat patients well.
I don't know about all of the posters here who are current or ex-military, but in my eight years in the Navy, I have never heard of any female servicemembers getting any kind of breast augmentation. After I first read this article, I immediately thought that military doctors performing "boob jobs" is a horrible waste of tax dollars. But as I thought about it further, I don't think that military commands would approve a medical procedure as superficial as a woman getting breast implants for the sake of just having bigger breasts. I think that in most cases it is likely that the majority of the augmentations are breast reductions. For example, say a woman has a "D" cup and the size of her breasts make it difficult to do a military duty such as running in formation. In this case, the surgery would be needed in order for the female servicemember to perform her job. In this case, this would be a waste of tax dollars. I'll be honest and say that I haven't adequately researched this issue, and that I am speaking on the basis of my prior experience and present assumptions. So, if anyone feels the need to prove me wrong, feel free to do so.
Wow, I would think breast implants would be bad in the military, I mean for the distraction factor alone there a liability. But heck, if thats what they want, there free, and they help train surgeons, then I'm not gonna complain too much . Just send me some pictures and Ima happy tax payer .
Replying to Rob L above, technically, the surgical removal of excess breast tissue is called a reduction mammoplasty. And a 'D' cup would be way too small to qualify for a reduction surgery in the eyes of most plastic surgeons. We would usually be talking an 'L' cup or higher. Many of these patients have neck and back pain and actual grooves cut into their shoulders from the bra straps. These patients are among the happiest a plastic surgeon will ever see, when the surgery is completed.
Replying to Rob L above, technically, the surgical removal of excess breast tissue is called a reduction mammoplasty. And a 'D' cup would be way too small to qualify for a reduction surgery in the eyes of most plastic surgeons. We would usually be talking an 'L' cup or higher. Many of these patients have neck and back pain and actual grooves cut into their shoulders from the bra straps. These patients are among the happiest a plastic surgeon will ever see, when the surgery is completed. Michael, I am not a medical professional-- I was trying to just illustrate an example of when breast augmentation would be performed in the military. However, I am glad you corrected me with the accurate technical information. I don't know when I will ever need to know this information again, but it is nice to learn something new. Thanks! Rob
Rob, if you ever win $ 50,000 on 'Jeopardy' with this information, please think of sharing it with me!
I'm with Rob L Four years in the Army & four in the Air Force has shown me that the military isn't big on elective surgery. I asked about an elective procedure and was told "NO". The military does not often approve of anything that will affect your readiness for duty, as soldiers should always be ready to go in the event of trouble. As a matter of fact, they removed all 4 of my trouble-free wisdom teeth so that they "wouldn't cause trouble in the future". How's that for non-elective surgery
I subscribe to another, military oriented, Forum and this topic came up a few months ago. It seemed to be done most often in the air force. The women were only required to pay the cost of the implants itself, IIRC. As was said above, the main reason military surgeons do the procedure is to keep their skill level up for doing these types of surgeries in cases of truama or mastectomies as a result of cancer. Personally, if it is a choice between paying $700 for a toliet seat and $300 for a hammer or giving some young enlisted woman a nice pair of C or D cups, you know where my vote is . Jon
of course I would choose paying for the C or D cup. Although I don't support this type of operation at taxpayers expense. Military procurement is a interesting thing. Problem is, the military, much like big businesses, utilized preferred vendors. This means Joe Smuck repairman has to order a hammer through Lockheed (for example) instead of driving to the local Ace Hardware. Does Lockheed make hammers? Of course not. But Lockheed takes that order, tacks on a surcharge, and buys the hammer from its supplier. That supplier buys it from the manufacturer. It all adds to the total cost of the hammer. Kind of sucks -
Re: I'm with Rob L I asked my wife about this, since she had 20 years experience in Navy medicine and finished her career as a HMC (SW). She said that the Navy's favorite phrase applies in these situations: "The needs of the Navy". It all pretty much depends on what skills the surgeons are trying to maintain, bed availability, deployment, and the like. She did mention, however, that the chances for something elective went up significantly if the soldier/sailor/airman just so happened to work in healthcare with the very same doctors. As is usually the case, they would bend over backwards for someone they worked with.
Would it not make more senses and save lots of money to send the female that suffered the trauma to her breast, to a qualified plastic surgeon, and have the military cover the costs. This would cost tax payers a lot less money, and by going to a plastic surgeon that has been doing this for years and performed thousands of these type of procedures would probably give the female a lot better results. This seems like a win win situation to me.
WOW! "An L cup or higher" I always thought that the largest possible size was a double G. I am trying to Imagen a female with L cup or higher breasts. I'm thinking she probably would not even be able to walk on her own without tipping over.
mcjon, what forum do you subscribe to? I had some questions about who does which surgery and where, etc. I work at a joint command, and suffice to say, I've had the "priveledge" of working with two women in the Air Force who have both had the augmentation surgery performed. Mind you, this was before OIF, but it happens. I'd agree that it seems to be more of an Air Force-thing, although I've heard that there's a certain Army hospital (down south) that was doing the same. As far as it being a waste of taxpayer money, I wouldn't worry about that too much, since tax money is wasted on far worse, far less productive things within the government. In addition to that, it actually serves something of a purpose, that being, keeping surgeons trained.
Bo79, keep in mind that if the woman needed the surgery due to combat trauma the likelihood of removing the individual from the hot zone would be slim until she could be brought to a suitable location. Therefore, the surgeons do need this training. When reading this thread I thought of a friend of mine who still has tendons showing from where phosphorous burns ate away his flesh. I marvel that we can perform plastic surgery for enhancement (elective) and yet seem unable to at least fix some of the horrendous scars present on our combat veterans. However, In the case of elective surgery I am for the policy if the individual buys the implants and does not hold the government liable for any issues related to the elective surgery.
