Last week, the online journal BMJ Open published a paper, “An analysis of the content and clinical implications of online advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery.” The researchers examined “the breadth, depth and quality of clinical information communicated to women” on 10 popular provider websites that promoted female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS). Their conclusion:
“The quality and quantity of clinical information in FGCS provider sites is poor, with erroneous information in some instances. Impeccable professionalism and ethical integrity is crucial for this controversial practice. Clear and detailed guidelines on how to raise the standard of information to women on all aspects of FGCS are urgently needed.”
Judy Foreman wrote about it on WBUR Boston’s CommonHealth blog.
Excerpts:
It appears that women are flocking to surgeons for things like “vaginal rejuvenation,” “G-spot amplification,” “revirgination” and “labiaplasty.” According to the BMJ authors, a team from University College Hospital in London, vaginal cosmetic surgery is a growing thing for women who “simply don’t like the way their genitals look.”
Good Lord.
These women are apparently concerned about the visibility of vaginal labia through tight clothing (I must be getting old. Why not just wear looser clothing?). Or, as the BMJ authors put it, they want their labia to look “sleeker” and “more appealing.” The women in question seem to have an “awareness – courtesy of a partner or magazine pictures – of larger than normal labia.” (What kind of partners would say .oh, well.)
…
“Genital mutilation” or “female genital cosmetic surgery.” It’s a fine line, indeed. And tragic, by whatever name you call it.
What I didn’t excerpt, and which you can read for yourself on her blog post, were serious concerns about the issue of female genital mutilation in developing countries. And the fact that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that some of these procedures are not medically indicated and that safety and efficacy has not been documented.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Dr Rhys Branman
November 28, 2012 at 12:35 pmThere is a real lack of information on the Internet about these procedures. I do not perform them. I certainly do not recommend these procedures. I read this study, and I watched a documentary about women having procedures to their genitals. I am greatly disturbed by this trend. Women’s genitals vary greatly. It is absurd to think there is a look that is more preferable. To see a marvelous documentary aired by the BBC, Google “The Perfect Vagina.”
Dr Rhys Branman
Little Rock Cosmetic Surgery Center
Dr Rhys Branman
November 28, 2012 at 12:35 pmThere is a real lack of information on the Internet about these procedures. I do not perform them. I certainly do not recommend these procedures. I read this study, and I watched a documentary about women having procedures to their genitals. I am greatly disturbed by this trend. Women’s genitals vary greatly. It is absurd to think there is a look that is more preferable. To see a marvelous documentary aired by the BBC, Google “The Perfect Vagina.”
Dr Rhys Branman
Little Rock Cosmetic Surgery Center
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like