A physician, as any other professional, has a job to do. Granted, the job does
entail the preservation of human life, a characteristic which holds great importance and
prestige in our society. But why should he/she also be burdened with the responsibility
of making society's moral decisions? A physician has no more responsibility for our
view of 'normal' than a fry jockey at McDonalds. Although Little's article does raise
some truths, I will argue that physicians, particularly cosmetic surgeons, should neither
be responsible for nor influenced by society's social norms when approached by a
patient requesting cosmetic surgery of any sort.
Little argues (with a typical Postmodernist's attitude) that "requests for cosmetic
surgery are often motivated by deep and genuine suffering . . . not from a desire for
beauty, but from a desire to end a distressing sense of alienation from some body part
or to escape incessant teasing" due to the "suspect norms of appearance" (Little,162,
163). Men and women alike are deceived into thinking they need these surgeries due
to the deep rooted norms within our society, similar to the way our largely male
dominated society has deep rooted itself into our understanding of biology (Freedman).
With this in mind, it is difficult to disagree with this argument. However, I do disagree
with her query into the appropriateness of medicine to provide cosmetic surgery for
purely vain intentions, in an attempt to conform to these norms. If someone is pursuing
such a surgery, he/she has his/her own reasoning behind it. What right does a
physician have to tell him/her that his/her reasons are not of "medical necessity" (Little,
162)? The origins of his/her reasons are insignificant. It is true that doctors are
obligated to discuss medical risks with their patients, but why should they inform them
of ...