Women Journalists Deeply Disappoint in One-Sided Coverage of Breast Implants
On the last day of Women’s History Month, my pride and pleasure in this celebration was diminished by the appearance of an article in Newsweek Magazine by two women journalists at the top of their profession, journalists who until now have always done wonderful work on women’s health issues.
Barbara Kantrowitz and Pat Wingert each have long, distinguished careers emblazoned with some of the most prestigious awards in the news profession. How then could they have produced “Chest Right,” an article intended to inform the public of what we need to know about getting breast implants? This news item is poorly researched, badly sourced and ill thought out, a far cry from the level of journalism we’ve come to expect from these women.
The article’s most obvious shortcoming is lack of balanced sourcing. Kantrowitz and Wingert quote three experts; all have personal stakes in seeing the breast implant business thrive. Not only are Drs. Laurie Casas, Richard D’Amico and Foad Nahai all practicing plastic surgeons, D’Amico is president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and Nahai is president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
Had Kantrowitz and Wingert spoken to independent experts critical of breast implant safety, perhaps they could have managed to avoid buying into the world of manageable and acceptable risk so carefully crafted by the aesthetic industry. Shallow digging would have turned up extensive information on extremely high complication rates, the controversy around safety studies as well as the FDA’s ineffectual handling of breast implants, and the many, many tragic stories of women whose health and lives were harmed by implants. But none of these darker strands of the breast implant story found their way into the article.
The article makes critical omissions and gives just plain bad advice, of which here are just a few examples:
o The article tells us that silicone implants were restricted for 14 years, due to the FDA “responding to concerns from patients and some doctors.” This characterization minimizes the reality of what actually happened by failing to mention the thousands of law suits against implant manufacturers that lead to the FDA taking that step, as well as the Dow Corning class action litigation that resulted in the largest class action settlement in history up to that point.
o The article overlooks a key FDA safety requirement that all potential implant recipients need to know: that doctors instruct implant recipients to undergo biannual MRI exams to guard against rupture.
o The article asserts that, “About a quarter of patients have some kind of complication within the first two years after their first surgery.” Yet studies have shown that the complication rate could be as high as 50 percent within three years, and rising as the implants age.
o The article urges women to do their research by listening to their plastic surgeons, but never suggests that independent research is also critical as the advice of the surgeons may be compromised by the lucrative fees they receive for breast augmentation procedures.
Breast implants are the most popular cosmetic surgery in this country. Close to 350,000 women underwent the procedure in 2007. In a few short years, counting long-time implant recipients and cancer patients, the number of women with implants could exceed 10 million if the current growing demand for them continues. Yet, it is the most invasive of cosmetic surgeries, and the device one of the most defective, with terrible health and financial risks that have and will continue to harm a great proportion of implant recipients.
The ramifications of breast implants are not well understood by the public because news media, still male-dominated, have largely found this issue to be of little interest, even as they splash the story of steroids in sports on front pages and in endless news loops. This is why it is so disheartening when the topic of breast implants is mishandled by women journalists, particularly by the elite few who’ve managed to attain the positions of influence and respect that Kantrowitz and Wingert have. These journalists seem to have turned a deaf ear to the other side of the breast implant story, which is not one of recaptured youth or improved self-esteem, but one of tens of thousands of women suffering from debilitating illness, disfigurement, bankruptcy and families broken by the emotional and financial stress.
I am puzzled that the editors of Newsweek gave a pass to this article, sourced exclusively by experts who profit from implants. I am disappointed that this article appears less like news than a public relations piece bent on perpetuating the false public sense of manageable and minimal breast implant risk. Perhaps more disappointing than the story itself, however, is the failure of Kantrowitz and Wingert to pull out their finely honed journalism skills and just do a professional job on an important women’s health issue that has far too few champions in the media as it is.
Sybil women have for a long time not surprised me anymore with what they do. I always think back to my trial against the plastic surgeon and the all woman jury I had who at the end found him not negligent two of them were at a party apparently after where some of the doctors lawyers staff were at and one had made a comment about yes we didn’t like what happened to her but maybe she got a lot of money from the general surgeon. What I got was 25,000 for the extra incision. I also look at what the women are doing when it comes to politics and Hilary Clinton, for example nancy pelosi and her comments. Women are cowards and they bow to men whether it is to plastic surgeons, politicians, or who ever. They have yet to get some balls sorry for that expression and stand up for themselves and other women. A good example is what we have been put through with the media and others on the breast implant issue. We are hysterical money grabbing women. Women just like these journalists are told what to do they are scared to speak the truth and investigate the truth god forbid they stand up against the manufacturers and the FDA and do investigative journalism it would not be in there best interests career wise to do that. These journalists if we should even refer to them as that minimized the facts deliberately. They are the ones who the manufacturers like to refer to as getting the grass roots movement going and need female journalists to be used for that movement. Maybe these women have implants, who knows but I wouldn’t give them a thought they are cowards. Imagine if this were men who had penile implants and it was reversed and there was thousands of men in this lawsuit my how the media reporting would be different. Then we look at all the women in Congress and the senate and one I am looking at in particular is Delauro what exactly has she done since she got re-elected? on the implant issue to me not much and no where near enough. Where are the other women politicians, NO WHERE!!! The reason why is it is not the politically correct thing to do. Delauro and others could of said enough and said no funding will be approved to the FDA till they produce what they have done and the reasons these implants were approved. If the FDA’s funding is threatened results will follow. But to put out little press releases then do nothing is not representing this situation nor the women in there districts who have been harmed from implants or will be harmed. Women need to smarten up join together and do something to stop the injustices inflicted on women daily with either drugs or medical devices.
Comment by sandra hunt — April 2, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Here is the letter I emailed newsweek on this article.
My written letter to this article I emailed to newsweek.
I have read the article and was amazed to see it was
nothing but a junk piece article selling plastic
surgery to unsuspecting women for plastic surgeons.
I find it equally disturbing that the women who wrote
this did not do a proper investigative report on it
had you both done this and done some fact checking you
would of been able to write a truthful piece.
You have done a diservice and injustice to the many
women who have been harmed, disabled, mutilated and
even suffered death to this unsafe medical device and
for what is my question?
When there is a situation that is so blatantly obvious
with the breast implants, plastic surgeons, FDA, and
manufacturers that they are hiding the truth on these
devices and then you come along minimizing the risks
of this it is an insult to all women and a dangerous
thing to do for women who in my opinion will be
harmed.
Do you both seriously believe that Dow and others
would of settled a multi billion dollar lawsuit for no
reason? Do you think after the past year and the
evidence that has been coming out against the FDA,
that the implants are safe? Do you think the tainted
panel packed with plastic surgeons and other
manufacturer paid consultants who approved the mentor
and inameds implants did it because they were proven
safe? If you can answer this with a yes please redo
another article showing the facts you based this on
and the proof?
Also did you check on the status of the studies to
date that has been imposed on Mentor and Inamed by the
FDA, I am referring to the 10 year study. Did you
check to see how many women have been followed I bet
had you done that you would learn that they are not
following them, that there is a high rate of women
dropped because of complications and that they have
more than likely not followed through with the study
requirements.
Did you question why the plastic surgeons wants the
MRI requirement dropped? Did you ever think it was
because there is a high rupture rate and they didn’t
want this coming out.
I do not look at either of you as journalists I look
at you as women who were used to push a product for
the plastic surgeons greed. I look at you as two women
who were used to get the movement going that implants
are safe and who better to use but women.
I guess it is going to take a male journalist who
knows how to do investigative reporting to dig into
this with the FDA and not be influenced by industry or
scared of losing his career to actually report the
truth.
Sandra Hunt
Comment by sandra hunt — April 2, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Go Sybil! I can’t believe Newsweek would print this. They have previously been good on this topic. Especially Pat Wingert, who often writes very well about controversial women’s issues.
Comment by suzannabanana23 — April 2, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
I agree with every word that Sandra Hunt said. Women should know the dangers of breast implants and how it can impact lives. Thanks for saying what we needs to be said on the dangers of breast implants.
Comment by Judy S. Veal Lawrence — April 2, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Right on Sybil! It’s amazing to me that so many more women will how be misinformed by this article. How could this be so one sided? Smels of manufacturer PR maching to me. After all this time you woudl thing two WOMEN would get it right, fair and report both sides. Fox is more “balanced” than this piece.
Comment by Mary — April 3, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Here is another reporter being used by the plastic surgeons to get free advertsing for there implants.
Sandra
A boom in breast surgery
More than a year after comeback, silicone gel implant moves up as saline alternative
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
By Pohla Smith, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
In the year 2000, 212,500 American women underwent breast augmentation, according to statistics published by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. That number soared to 347,524 in 2007, an increase of 64 percent.
The reason? It may be because Nov. 17, 2006 marked the end of the Food and Drug Administration’s nearly 15-year ban on silicone gel implants. Some 35 percent of the record implant total in 2007 comprised silicone gel; the rest were made of saline solution.
Back in 2006, with less than two months of silicone gel implant availability, the number of augmentations for that calendar year totaled 329,396. That was a 13 percent increase over 2005 totals, which made breast augmentation the top surgical cosmetic procedure performed by ASPS member surgeons for the first time in history.
“Breast augmentation has always been among the top five surgical procedures, but until now has never been No. 1,” Dr. Roxanne Gray, then the ASPS president, said after the 2006 numbers came out.
“With the return of silicone breast implants to the U.S. market, it is likely the number of breast augmentations will continue to increase. Some women prefer the look and feel of silicone implants and were waiting for the FDA to make its decision.”
Surgeons expected the number of silicone gel implants to soar, but the growth has been gradual. Before the 1992 ban, use of silicone gel implants far outpaced that of saline implants. Silicone gel implants are less likely to leak or wrinkle and have a softer, more natural feel. (On the other hand, saline implants cost much less, and the valves through which they are filled with salt water make them adjustable during the surgery itself.)
But non-scientifically based reports began to surface in the late 1980s that the silicone gel implants were not safe. The ban, initially voluntary, was imposed amidst lawsuits and a media brouhaha over the reports that the implants could rupture and lead to such systemic disease as cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome and rheumatologic problems. In lifting the ban, the FDA said that numerous studies since its implementation had shown no such link.
From that viewpoint, “what happened was a good thing. The silicone gel implant became the most studied device in medicine,” said Dr. Kenneth C. Shestak, director of the UPMC Center for Cosmetic Surgery.
“We thought there would be a stampede back to silicone gel,” he added. “The numbers have built slowly.”
However, Dr. Shestak said, “the majority of my implants are silicone gel implants. It’s probably 70 percent to 30 percent.”
At the Shadyside-based plastic surgery practice of Dr. Leo H. McCafferty, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, 60 percent of the patients seen since the ban was lifted still chose saline.
“We’re not pushing one over another,” said Dr. McCafferty, a member of the board of directors of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
“I thought it would have gone totally silicone, but that has not been the case,” said Dr. Michael White, a plastic surgeon at Allegheny General Hospital and partner in the practice of Plastic Surgery of Pittsburgh. “I think it’s 50-50 in my practice.”
Despite the softer feel and look and stronger durability of silicone gel implants, the saline implant is the better choice in many cases.
“When someone who is heavier or whose breast tissue hasn’t fallen and who has not only more breast but overlying soft tissue, then saline will provide a natural result,” Dr. McCafferty said.
“For gel, [the better candidate] is the patient who has very thin overlying tissues, small breasts that have fallen slightly.”
Still, Dr. McCafferty added, “these are very broad generalizations because every patient is different and there are many, many considerations.”
Some of them are each patient’s anatomy, their desires, and their expectations.
For example, if you think augmentation will fulfill someone else’s desire, the surgery is not for you, according to the ASPS Web site, http://www.plasticsurgery.org. But the surgery will improve the balance of your figure and may enhance your self-image and self-confidence.
Other considerations include potential risks and the fact that the implants may someday have to be replaced.
The risks include all of those that go with any surgery — such as unfavorable scarring, infection, bleeding or poor healing — and others particular to breast enhancement itself. The latter include loss of nipple sensation, breast asymmetry, deflation and hardening of the capsule, or scar tissue, that forms around the implant shell.
The two American manufacturers of breast implants, Allergan Inc. and Mentor Corp., offer lifetime replacements of the prosthetics and provide some coverage of surgical costs.
“Nothing that a doctor puts inside of a patient’s body lasts forever,” said Dr. Shestak. “Not a heart valve or a pacemaker or a total hip. A breast implant is no different.”
Pohla Smith can be reached at psmith@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1228.
First published on April 9, 2008 at 12:00 am
Comment by sandra hunt — April 9, 2008 @ 9:33 am
My letter I sent to this reporter above:
My name is Sandra Hunt and I read your article and recently it
appears that plastic surgeons are not satisfied with the patients
they are getting because there seems to be a blitz on getting
favorable articles written on how great implants are.
It amazes me with all the articles I have read lately that not one
journalist has bothered to do any fact checking on the implants.
It is always the same thing no matter what PS is interviewed.
I would love to see someone finally do there job and investigate
what is the real truth.
It was not that long ago when it was shown that mentor lied.
Article from 2005:
Mentor Corporation Hid Breast Implant Defects, Including Flea
Contamination
May 26, 2005
By Shelley Whitcher, Legal Intern
A major manufacturer of breast implants, Mentor Corporation, hid
information of defective implants from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and consumers, say two former employees.
According to a recent New York Times article (”Implant Maker Hid
Defects, Workers Said” by Gardiner Harris, May 22, 2005), Mentor
purposely withheld important information about its safety record and
distributed contaminated products.
The depositions of two former Mentor employees were taken during a
lawsuit brought by Kim Hoffman, who claimed that her Mentor implants
had made her sick. Although the suit was eventually dismissed,
Hoffman provided the depositions to The New York Times last week.
John C. Karjanis, the former product evaluation manager for Mentor,
stated under oath that “top executives instructed him to destroy
reports detailing the high rupture rates and poor quality of some
types of implants because the products ‘are in the customers.’”
Karjanis also stated that one Mentor manufacturing executive
attempted to obtain approval of defective products through
fraudulent documents. When confronted by Karjanis, the executive
admitted to trying to get one past him.
Moreover, Karjanis stated that Mentor “suppressed a report finding
that some implant models had a high failure rate,” and that factory
workers also hid defective products in the ceiling tiles in an
effort to conceal how often the plant failed to make the products
properly.
During the two years that Karjanis served as the product evaluation
manager, Mentor “never met basic quality standards for implant
manufacturing.” Karjanis also asserts that Mentor may have received
contaminated silicone from its supplier; and, shockingly, Mentor’s
implant packaging was sometimes infested with fleas, which came in
contact with the implants’ surface.
As if faulty products and flea contamination weren’t enough, Mentor
also lied about its rupture complaints according to Cynthia Fain, a
Mentor employee for more than three years who supervised the rupture
complaint unit. According to Fain, Mentor received more than 3,000
rupture complaints each year she was with the company. Mentor,
however, only reports a total of 8,060 rupture complaints from 1985
to September 2003. Fain says this discrepancy exists because Mentor
disregards complaints from women who fail to complete a form
allowing Mentor to inspect their extracted implants.
In April, the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Advisory
Panel raised serious public health concerns about silicone breast
implants while reviewing an application from Mentor to market their
implants to the general public. Currently, silicone breast implants
are available only to breast cancer reconstruction patients and
women who already have implants and want them replaced. They must
also enroll in a clinical trial. Silicone breast implants were taken
off the general market in 1992 following numerous reports and
lawsuits when breast implant patients became ill.
The advisory panel inexplicably voted for Mentor’s pre-market
application. FDA scientists reporting to the panel, however,
criticized the data from Mentor for failing to sufficiently respond
to questions regarding the long-term safety of their products. In
other words, there was no basis for the advisory panel determining
that Mentor had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
their product was reasonably safe for women over the long term.
The PS and manufacturers would like everyone to believe this was
disgruntled employees and put a spin on the real facts. It is
actually very truthful because this is what the manufacturers do to
get there medical devices approved.
Do you really believe that Mentor and Inamed and even just as
important the plastic surgeons are telling women the truth about
these toxic bags of garbage? Even when there cash cow would be hurt
that being the mighty old buck. I do not believe they would.
The FDA this past couple of years has been shown for the incompetent
office that they are I am attaching another story to back this up:
FDA Admits it Cannot do its Job
by FDA
Published January 1, 2008 11:40 AMAdjust font size
A year ago, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, an U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) Commissioner, requested that the Science Board,
which is the Advisory Board to the Commission, form a subcommittee
to assess whether science and technology at the agency can support
current and future regulatory needs. It has become quite apparent
that the FDA has failed to do the job required of the agency in an
adequate manner. This special committee recently released its
report, and we have summarized some of its major findings:
• The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has
eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.
• The FDA’s inability to keep up with scientific advances means that
American lives are at risk.
• The world looks to the FDA as a leader in medicine and science.
Not only can the agency not lead, it can’t even keep up with the
advances in science.
• Due to constrained resources and lack of adequate staff, the FDA
cannot adequately monitor development of food and medical products
because it is unable to keep up with scientific advances.
• The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific
workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability.
• The lack of a trained workforce means that the FDA is ineffective
in fulfilling its mission.
• The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its information
technology infrastructure is inadequate.
• Reports of product dangers are not rapidly compared and analyzed,
as inspectors’ reports are still handwritten and slow to work their
way through the system.
• There are inadequate emergency backup systems in place, which has
resulted in the loss of FDA data in the past.
At a time when the Bush Administration and big Pharma are pushing
jointly for total immunity from lawsuits for drugs or products that
are FDA approved, these findings by the FDA should be enough to
eliminate any thought of pre-emption. Previous FDA internal
committees have found problems similar to those now identified
within the FDA. But, this report clearly proves that the crises
warned about in previous FDA reports have now become realities. As a
result, American lives are at risk.
Those Americans who were at risk and became victims are typical of
the folks that our firm represents in lawsuits. Each of the victims
has a constitutional right to go to court when he or she is harmed
or injured by a product or drug. It’s a fundamental truth that none
of them should have the courthouse door shut in their face by George
Bush or by big Pharma. The argument that approval of a product or
drug by the FDA, which admittedly cannot perform its job adequately,
should immunize those products from scrutiny by a jury, has clearly
been refuted by the very organization big Pharma attempts to hide
behind. Once the American people became aware of what the Bush White
House and big Pharma are trying to do to them, I believe you will
see a public outcry against preemption and against a shutting down
of the American jury system.
http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/FDA-Admits-it-Cannot-do-its-Job/
So when the FDA allows tainted panels on the approval of a device or
drug all of whom have a vested financial interest in the approval
why is it so hard for the media to do there jobs and investigate
what is really going on?
It is still in 2008 being reported by the PS that implants are
relatively safe and yet that is furthest from the truth. The
implants are not better, they still rupture, still require multiple
operations, and illnesses are being reported with some women and all
women will at some point be required to have another surgery.
So how generous of mentor and inamed to offer lifetime replacements
of the defective implants. They aren’t doing this for the womans
benefit they are doing it for themselves and the greed of the PS.
I would like to see what the results are of the FDA’s decision to
make these implant manufacturers do a 10 year study on women I have
seen nothing yet.
What I have seen is plastic surgeons lobbying the FDA to get them to
drop the MRI requirment, I wonder why that is? Could it be that they
are already seeing implant ruptures and the rate of ruptures is far
more than is being reported? I would think that is the reason.
Another thing of interest was the 10 year limit that the
manufacturers were given were you aware that alot of implants cause
trouble after 10 years so how fortunate they get it for the 10
years. What is going to happen when 15 years comes and there is
another wave of ill women. Then you have Bush and others making sure
they are protected because in Bushes world it is OK to harm the
consumer but how dare anyone harm the drug or medical device makers
by sueing them.
There is also a huge story on the FDA itself and the monies (bribes)
that are given to get approval. Whether it is campaign financing as
they like to call it when in fact it is bribe or payoff monies to
the politicians or FDA officials it is going on and it needs to be
investigated.
We Have Delauro and other politicians claiming to do hearings and
hold the FDA responsible for its actions especially with the implant
approval but all that was, was pre election lieing. I have not seen
anyone doing anything because the truth is they are comfortable with
how consumers are not being protected by the very agency put in
place to do so.
Then the media is being used by the plastic surgeons to get free
advertising by doing a story on how great implants are. I also
notice that they usually zoom in on finding a female reporter to do
the story if I was a woman reporter I would be extremely angry.
And finally here is another article on Lobbying:
Capitol Hill Watch | Medical Device Industry Spent More Than $28M on
Lobbying Federal Government in 2007, Analysis Finds
[Mar 21, 2008]
Medical device companies in 2007 spent more than $28 million
on lobbying the federal government, compared with $26.5 million in
2006, according to a preliminary analysis of U.S. Senate records
conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics, the St. Paul
Pioneer Press reports. In 2007, medical device companies lobbied
Congress on an FDA reform bill, Medicare legislation, a bill that
would require companies to disclose payments to physician
consultants and legislation that would encourage health insurers to
cover remote monitoring devices.
According to CRP, medical device companies have increased
expenditures on lobbying annually since 2001, when they spent $12.3
million. Stephen Ubl, president of the medical device industry trade
group AdvaMed, said that in recent years, more companies have
established or expanded lobbying offices in Washington, D.C. He
added, “The world in which we’re operating is more complicated, and
there are more (federal) issues we’re working on. So, you need the
expertise.”
Massie Ritsch, a spokesperson for CRP, said that the health care
industry as a whole in 2007 spent more on lobbying than any other
sector, in large part because of expenditures by pharmaceutical
companies. He said, “The government hands out a lot of money, and
sometimes to get it … there’s a perceived need that you have to
hire a lobbyist” (Snowbeck, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 3/20).
http://www.megite.com/health/1206186778/1
I had implants in when I was 28 after a bilateral mastectomy and to
date have had 19 operations have been found totally disabled due to
the complications from the surgeries and the diagnosis of multiple
sclerosis and other diseases so when these Doctors are still in 2008
lieing about the risks associated with the implants to get
unsuspecting women into there offices I get angry.
The PS have no ethics anymore they have found that implants generate
alot of income for them and they have found they can get women going
through there OR’s like cattle they disgust me.
I am really hopeful that one day a reporter with guts will do a
story on this and report the truth. I can dream I guess on this
happening because I really do not see it happening.
Comment by sandra hunt — April 9, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Shame on Newsweek and the two authors for joining the manufacturer’ PR team. People look to magazines like Newsweek to give factual and balanced information. This article falls far short. I cannot call these authors “journalists” because their level of reporting does not reach that far.
The authors should have googled the panel members who voted to recommend approval in 2005. It would not have taken these authors long to find Dr. Barbara Manno’s statement, explaining why she voted to approve one manufacturer and not the other. I call it the Marie Antoinette response. Dr. Manno attempted to have her comments stricken from the records, but thankfully, the comment remains in the official transcript. As soon as the 2005 FDA hearing transcript was posted, I made sure to preserve that comment on my web site.
Congress has fallen short in protecting American women by not giving adequate oversight to these FDA panels and the decisions they make. The rest of the world watches the United States and plays “follow the leader”. I am convinced that the decisions of Congress rely on the campaign donations. If the implanted women had the money to “buy a politician”, we may have been able to get more done than we have. As it is, most of the women have just been struggling to survive and keep their heads above water.
Newsweek owes the American women an apology. I won’t hold my breath until it comes.
Comment by Pam Dowd — April 9, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Online donors buy breast implants for Calgary woman
Last Updated: Monday, February 25, 2008 | 4:22 PM MT
CBC News
A Calgary woman has become the first Canadian to receive enough donations from strangers through a U.S. website to get breast augmentation surgery.
Candace Leadley, a 26-year-old single mother, came across a website called My Free Implants while surfing the internet in 2006. The site connects women wanting bigger busts with men willing to donate money to their operations.
Candace Leadley found enough benefactors through a U.S. website to cover the $8,500 cost of breast implants.
(CBC)
Leadley set up a profile and posted some pictures of herself. Soon, she was chatting online with men from around the world.
“I just had guys wanting to talk to me and messaging me,” she told CBC News. “I made some pretty good friendships from there and then the donations started coming in.”
She eventually found enough benefactors who donated $8,500 for her surgery in April that will take her from a size 29A to a 36C. The money will be transferred directly from the website to her surgeon.
Leadley, who works as a framer, said she suffers from low self-esteem and felt that getting bigger breasts will make her feel better about herself.
Myfreeimplants.com features profiles of women, such as Candace Leadley, who want breast augmentation surgery.
(CBC)
“A lot of people have asked me: ‘Are you crazy? Why can’t you just be happy with the way you are?’ And I tell them, ‘You know, thank you for your opinion or whatever, but I want to do this.’”
More than 3,000 women, including 350 Canadians, are registered on the website, which was started by Jay Moore and his friend Jason Gunstra. The two got the idea after they met a waitress in Las Vegas who just got breast implants and was drumming up extra tips so her friend could get them, too.
Critics of the site call it porn.
“What the message is, is if you are independent and confident about yourself and about your sexuality, then you should prove it by prostituting yourself without getting paid,” said Rebecca Sullivan, a professor at the University of Calgary who specializes in gender and popular culture.
Website revenues hit $1 million
But co-founder Jay Moore disagrees, calling his site a community service.
“Guys can get, you know, soft pornographic stuff on the web for free. It’s not like they’re going to go to this site to pay for it, so it’s really about the people you’re meeting and the connections you’re making,” said Moore from California.
He said some men have been banned from the website because they have asked for too much information, such as an address or phone number, from the women.
Moore said the site made $1 million last year, and could allow him to quit his day job soon.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/02/25/free-implants.html
Comment by sandra hunt — April 11, 2008 @ 10:23 am