Pete Patriarch’s Musings

September 15, 2007

Australian Navy paying for breast enlargement surgery

Filed under: Uncategorized — Pete @ 10:46 pm

The Australian Navy is paying for boob jobs

Wow, can you believe this shit? Can you just imagine this sort of stuff being allowed if men were on the receiving end? How about “After doctors and researchers worked round the clock for years to find a safe alternative to steroids, the Navy and Army are paying for muscle treatment for its deskbound workers who don’t get the workouts that their field-working brethren do.”

This stuff is beyond the pale, it really is. How can this be defensible at all?

Defence officials claim the surgery is justified because some servicewomen need bigger breasts to address “psychological issues”.

Ah yes, “psychological issues” – the same excuse that got Andrea Yates therapy instead of prison, that gets women tons of misandry IV drips disguised as “therapy” and “counseling,” psychological issues is the catchword of the decade. But of course, gotta remember that double standard…

If women have psychological issues, they need counseling and therapy.

If men have psychological issues, they need to be put in prison because they are potentially dangerous.

Anyway, this is the here and now. Right now the women are being paid for the boob jobs, and five years later, they’ll be paid for the reductions/maintenance, and ten years after that, for treatment of the inevitable breast cancer. Women just have a knack for getting the free ride even when there’s no man to pay for it, don’t they.

Full story after the jump.

THE Royal Australian Navy is paying for women sailors to have breast enlargements for purely cosmetic reasons, at a cost to taxpayers of $10,000 an operation.

Defence officials claim the surgery is justified because some servicewomen need bigger breasts to address “psychological issues”.

Darling Point plastic surgeon Kourosh Tavakoli told The Sunday Telegraph the navy had paid for two officers, aged 25 and 32, to have breast-augmentation surgery at his private clinic.

Dr Tavakoli said the women had not been injured but claimed to suffer “psychological” problems.

“I’ve had two female officers who have got the navy to pay for breast augmentation for psychological reasons,” he said.

“I know for a fact two patients claimed it back on the navy. They (the navy) knew it was breast augmentation and paid for it.

“I don’t know why they pay for it. There’s no breast augmentation, that I know of, for medical purposes. You’ve got to be fair to yourself.”

A Defence spokesman admitted cosmetic surgery occurred at “public expense” when there were “compelling psychological/psychiatric reasons”, but refused to say how many such cases were taxpayer-funded.

Cosmetic surgery was also provided for servicemen or women who were disfigured by work-related injuries, he said.

“Cosmetic procedures undertaken solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a person’s subjective appearance will be considered only if the underlying (psychological) problem is causing difficulties that adversely impact on the member’s ability to do their job.

“Operations purely for cosmetic reasons are not allowed.”

The Sunday Telegraph asked Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, formerly a GP, how many members of the armed forces had received taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery.

A spokesman said figures would not be available until next week.

Australian Defence Association spokesman Neil James defended the practice of taxpayers funding medical procedures such as breast enhancement surgery for psychological reasons.

He said young men and women were attracted to defence careers because they offered free medical care. This, in turn, improved the efficiency of the force.

“Just as there are in civilian life, there are some females who feel their breasts are too small and if their breasts were bigger, they might be more of a ‘normal’ woman,” Mr James said.

“If they were lacking in self-confidence, this might provide the measure of self-confidence that would help them tackle their wider job.

“There are privacy issues here for people. It’s not as if they keep a record of who has had a nose job in the Defence Force over the past 100 years.”

Dr Tavakoli, a member of the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons, said the navy officers had visited him in 2005 and 2006.

Each had had $10,000 worth of surgery, which required a recovery period of at least two weeks.

Boosting self-esteem was the biggest motivation for cosmetic surgery, Dr Tavakoli said.

The Sunday Telegraph understands Dr Tavakoli is not the usual surgeon used by the navy for reconstructive/cosmetic surgery.

“I don’t see a lot of them (naval officers) because they have their own plastic surgeon,” he said.

“I know for a fact they have their own surgeon.”

Last year, a Brisbane surgeon revealed that an army cook had had a taxpayer-funded nose job.

Advertisements

4 Comments »

  1. File this one under “can you believe this shit” for sure.

    Comment by The Geezer — September 16, 2007 @ 9:56 am

  2. So does that mean that all men that have below 12″ weiners can get penile implants?

    Comment by chicagoman — September 17, 2007 @ 10:29 am

  3. Where do these women get so much faith in doctor’s from? It’s not like they’ve eliminated cancer or cured blindness. They can’t even stop a guy from going bald! So why are women so ready to get carved up in order to look good? (and we all know it’ll make hardly any difference). Sure as hell beats me. Anything of mine in working condition stays the hell away from any doctor’s malpractice as long as I’ve got any say in the matter. Also saves me from the inevitable side-effects 10 years down the road. But then I’d have to pay for that myself, rather than go bawling to the state for more.

    Oh that felt good. End of rant.

    Comment by Rob Case — September 19, 2007 @ 11:44 pm

  4. It seem to be stupid, i dono for wat reason this australian navy is paying for such a stupid one.Many people suffers from different diseases why cont they offer for such a kind of people..

    Comment by Anonymous — January 24, 2008 @ 4:54 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: