In America, revolving society around the principle of personal liberty is a no-brainer.
Affording people the right to choose the how, when and why of their lives is a luxury that most don’t stop to consider.
Certainly, most by-products of a liberal society are desirable. After all, our lives are immeasurably enhanced by the ability to choose our own diets, clothing styles or beliefs.
In fact, it could be argued that the existence of choice is the most integral part of the concept of freedom. But even the seemingly unassailable idea of choice hits the wall when we move away from the metaphysical and focus on the fleshy bits of our selves that we are implored not to change.
Losing weight and gaining muscle are cosmetic practices that usually produce pleasant responses by one’s peers. No doubt, such changes benefit internal health.
But difficulties begin to arise when individuals desire to change attributes that are not readily alterable — nose curvature, ear size or even height.
A 2006 article published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology found that the overall public opinion of those who want or have received plastic surgery is low, as those who undergo cosmetic procedures are considered “materialistic perfectionists.”
Society constantly reinforces the idea that any attempt to modify external appearance is the product of a sick mind and inadequate protection against body image pressures.
The motives behind such thoughts are nonetheless good-natured, as such thinking dutifully aims to emphasize the importance of accepting one’s appearance. Cautionary tales of eccentrics such as Michael Jackson and Dennis Avner, the man who systematically became a cat, keep any conversation about plastic surgery sober. These examples can objectively show the horrors frequent, uninhibited cosmetic surgery can produce.
But realistic analysis of the demographics seeking cosmetic surgery shows that the vast majority of recipients possess sound minds. A study published in the Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons revealed that cosmetic surgery candidates expressed normal levels of satisfaction with their overall appearance. Dissatisfaction with their image was solely concentrated on the feature they expressed the desire to change.
In this sense, producing an atmosphere in which the personal decision to pursue superficial enhancement is harshly rebuked by peer reaction may be just as unhealthy as supporting unrestrained body modification.
Perhaps the most frequently cited argument against cosmetic enhancement is that it is not medically necessary. A counterpoint that cosmetic enhancement improves health holistically by enhancing body image is also brought to the table.
To truly make a progression in such discourse, both arguments should be dropped.
The idea that a procedure should objectively benefit the physical health of a patient is an antiquated idea and does not coincide with the motivations behind cosmetic augmentations. Patients of cosmetic procedures are looking to improve their quality of life and, in a sense enhance the human experience itself.
That being said, doctors and clinics cannot shirk the responsibility of making sure that patients understand the ramifications of their procedures. Surgeons should also take every necessary step to ensure they are not performing overly dramatic surgeries on mentally unstable patients.
In a way, it’s understandable why society looks at cosmetic enhancement with a disdainful eye. Going under the knife almost always entails the possibility of failure. But physical enhancement via plastic surgery is only scratching the surface of augmentation.
The administration of human growth hormone to abnormally short children that do not exhibit growth deficiencies has already been shown to be safe and effective.
Also, the infant science of gene therapy has revealed that the human genome may one day be a toolbox for manipulation.
As we begin releasing the locks on our ability to transform the human body’s features, societal norms will most likely try to limit the pursuit of such treatments. But no matter how foreign the idea of physical enhancement may seem, the virtue of personal choice in these matters should not be stamped out.
Chris Freyder is a 21-year-old biological sciences senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Cfreyder.