Talk:Labiaplasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale


Contents

[edit] Comment

"Labiaplasty is sometimes performed to revise anomalies and congenital conditions such as large inner labia" A large inner labia is not an anomaly or an congential condition.Spuddy 17 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed external links

I removed several commercial external links. Joie de Vivre 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources being hosted on commercial sites doesn't disqualify them under Wikipedia policy. Sources such as before and after photos of the procedure seem to be very relevant.--Ty580 10:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Number 4 in the list of Links normally to be avoided is Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. The sites I deleted exist primarily to advertise a particular surgeon's work. Therefore, they are inappropriate for the external links section. As far as the necessity of links to such images, why should one surgeon's work be featured over another? These websites don't provide comprehensive, neutral information on labiaplasty and what the results look like, they exist to sell expensive surgical procedures. Google image search can be used by anyone who wants to see such photos. Joie de Vivre 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, I did not follow the guidelines. I found the videos very informative from the patients point of view, that's why I added them, but, yes, they can be Googled. LoveyK 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Globe link

The The Toronto Globe piece no longer exsists on the Globe’s website. The link posted is a text copy on the www.noharm.org[[1]] (National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males) website and only has the one page with a text copy of the Globe article refering to labiaplasty. Preceding the text copy of the Globe article is this controversial and somewhat confusing comment:

“Looking Like Mommy? Labiaplasty Dilemma”, “... If a woman has her genitals altered in this way, and then becomes pregnant with a daughter and feels that it would be in her child's best interests that the girl's genitals should "look like mommy's", would this be sufficient reason for a physician to carry out the "service" of altering the girl's genitals? ... etc,etc.”

I think the link should be removed. Please advise. LoveyK 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I don't really care about this topic, so I'd like to just note people's edits are very far from complying with WP:NPOV. It's an old POV warrior strategy to attribute the opinions of article authors to the journals themselves in order to artificially bolster one's case.--Ty580 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph moved here

I've moved this paragraph from the controversies section to here because it's contracted by both pro and con sources. (The British Medical Journal blasts all labiaplasties, whether for quality of life or cosmetic.)--Ty580 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Labiaplasty evokes strong emotional responses far more often than more common procedures like rhinoplasty. There is considerable controversy surrounding such surgeries for many patients, notably around women who worry that their labia are abnormal. While plastic surgery websites state this procedure may be appropriate for women experiencing discomfort during physical activities, sexual intimacy, or from irritation caused from close-fitting garments, the controversy surrounds the phenomenon of women undergoing labiaplasty for aesthetic reasons alone[citation needed].

[edit] NPOV continued

I’ve interviewed dozens of labiaplasty patients along with surgeons who provide the procedure. In the U.S., hardly anybody is concerned about a so-called “controversy”. Primarily, patients are having labiaplasty for the three reasons cited by Ty 580, because they want it for themselves and possess the wherewithal to happily pay for it. Moreover, when done correctly, the procedure produces positive changes in women’s lives. The vast majority of labiaplasty patients would have the procedure again and unfailingly recommend it to their interested friends.

Overall, I see an extremely judgmental slant against the procedure and the women who undergo it. Moreover, the trend is not driven by clever marketing (people are not such fools) but by popular culture and the changing lifestyles of women of means. Overall, my impression is I’m reading a lecture by a stern, finger-pointing aunt, saying, “Shame, shame for being so vain.” Additionally, the references are not academic references at all but two pieces of news copy and an opinion piece by, not an expert in plastic surgery, but a seemingly alarmed psychologist and gynecologist. At least, I see nothing of the scientific method in their approach to the topic. And what does genital mutilation have to do with the topic?

Finally, any plastic surgeon in the U.S. or the U.K. worth his or her salt fully informs prospective patients about the possible risks from any surgery.

If a truly neutral entry is the object, I recommend starting from scratch. This is what we Yanks call a “hatchet piece.Charles.Downey 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

sooo - my take from your above comment is; "If you can pay for it, then that's okay", yes? I have to question the whole concept of aesthetic labiaplasty in the first place, given that 1) it's a surgical procedure and 2) it's largely driven by hyped social expectation. As with any procedure, there may be complications, esp. given the location of the surgery and the proliferation of nerve endings in that region. You do acknowledge this, right? If you're concerned, mark the article {{npov}}, by all means. If you can provide good primary sources to back up your comments here - then even better - Alison ☺ 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a more correct summary would be: “If you are an appropriate candidate, and can pay for it, then it’s okay.” Given that labiaplasty results are not as visible as, say, a rhinoplasty, the procedure is a fully private matter between a patient and her doctor. One thinks labiaplasty is only driven by social expectations if one lives in a nudist colony. Of course, all plastic surgery -- Botox injections included -- is surgical to one degree or another and is subject to possible risks and complications. However, labiaplasty patients suffer no more, or fewer, complications than in other plastic surgery procedures. Primary sources and references? Happy to oblige. Before-and-after pictures, too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charles.Downey (talk • contribs) 16:34, June 1, 2007 (UTC).
Sounds good. Make sure the images are compliant with licensing here (GFDL or CC or PD) and that the subjects are aware and are consenting. Stats and primary sources would be cool. If you'd like to paste them here, we can go for it. BTW - labiaplasty can be driven primarily by social expectation; one's labia don't have to be publically visible for one to be aware of the implications of 'incorrect' labia (as defined by ... whom?) and the imagined effect it would have on one's partner. That's the primary motivation for this and thus the comparison to rhinoplasty is just a little off. The comment, "labiaplasty patients suffer no more, or fewer, complications than in other plastic surgery procedures", I really would like to see some good evidence for. Fewer? Really? - Alison ☺ 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Really. I'll take care of it shortly, as soon as time allows. Stay tuned.Charles.Downey 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. One point to note: make sure everything stays WP:NPOV and balanced! - Alison ☺ 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Medical Journal article

Does anyone have access to this? Email me, please. Joie de Vivre T 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment 2

I posted the other side of the controversy issue according to a leading expert and it was deleted entirely. I don't think it does anyone any good to have only one side of a controversy. I'll post it again later when I have more time. 6-16-07

I posted this to the Talk page of the registered user who added the section. Basically statement contained no sources to establish the verifiability of the statement, nor did it establish Pam Mirabadi's opinion as being important enough for inclusion. Joie de Vivre T 11:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more NPOV

This looks neutral to me but I supposed we'll have a bit more debate. The surgeon to whom I made the first external link is willing to sign over the rights to that before-and-after Labiaplasty picture if you think it would explain things better. I did have the BMJ article in question but the owner filtched it back. The article does list the reference for that if you want to get a copy.Charles.Downey

[edit] Downey Version

Congrats Charles.Downey on an improved version. The only think lacking was a 'controversy' section which I have added back in. I think this focusses the debate a bit better. I have edited the controversy section to remove some of the weasel words but it still needs better references. Well done. Gillyweed 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that the Downey version is a major improvement & is well-cited, too. Gillyweed - I think your edits have also rebalanced it well, as it had become a bit too slanted and it is a controversial subject. I've also re-added the transsexual labiaplasty section which got excised (if you'll pardon) as 1) it's significant for 2-stage sex reassignment surgery and 2) it's one of the techniques that Dr. Altar (cited) specialises in. Good job, all :) - Alison ☺ 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Downey version

I did a thorough sweep-through of the article, improving the Wikilinking, as well as grammar and sentence structure in a few places, as well as requesting citations. Joie de Vivre T 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraphs

I removed three paragraphs that were either poorly sourced, or constituted undue weight. Here they are, for discussion. Joie de Vivre T 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph 1

However, plastic surgeons like Pamila Loftus and David Matlock, who have been performing labiaplasties and other cosmetic surgeries of the vulva for two decades in the U.S., report that they have been bombarded with requests for the procedure in the last four years. Loftus reported performing about six a week in 2004.[1] One author at the University of Auckland in New Zealand thinks the popularity of female genital cosmetic surgery may also be due to heightened orgasms, because elongated clitoral hoods are also often shortened by the same practitioners. The hoodectomy procedure allows the clitoris to receive more direct stimulation.[2]

[edit] Paragraph 2

Some surgeons have reported that many of their labiaplasty patients have suffered irritating, chaffing tissues in silence, thinking they were alone with their condition. One physician, Robert Ersek, M.D. a Texas plastic surgeon, reported that one such patient, a successful attorney in middle age, had previously undergone several surgical rejuvenation procedures. When the attorney saw on a website before-and-after pictures of a patient who found relief from grossly enlarged labia minora, she, too, requested the surgery saying, she had no idea until now that anything could be done to improve her condition[3] In the same letter, Dr. Ersek observes: “Reconstructive surgery aims to restore form and function to near normal. ‘Cosmetic’ designation is an attempt to improve appearance beyond, or better than, normal. No one is going to request surgery in this or any other area unless they perceive their anatomy as “unnormal.”…..I write to tell you these patients should not be ignored or trivialized.’”

[edit] Paragraph 3

Doctors John Miklos and Robert Moore, board-certified gynecological surgeons in Atlanta, Georgia, reviewed the medical records of 131 patients who underwent labiaplasty over 32 months. They divided the patients into three groups -- those who had the procedure strictly for aesthetic reasons; patients motivated by pain and discomfort and a group who were motivated by both symptoms and aesthetic concerns. They found that 62 percent of the study group had labiaplasty for functional or symptomatic reasons, including discomfort in some clothing and while exercising or during intercourse.[4]

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2067/context/archive
  2. ^ Virginia Braun; In search of better sexual pleasure: female genital cosmetic surgery. Sexualities, Vol 8, No. 4, 407-424 (2005) SAGE Publications.
  3. ^ Ersek, Robert A. M.D. Vaginal Labioplasty: Reply. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 117(7):2007, June 2006.
  4. ^ http://www.i-newsire.com/pr107281.html

[edit] My responses

Paragraph 1: I don't see the rate at which a given surgical practice performs labiaplasty as being particularly important, nor do I see their speculation on the possibility of sexual improvement as well-founded.

Paragraph 2: The phrase "suffering in silence" is rather flowery and, again, I don't see what the purpose is of including one anecdote of one person's reason for having surgery. This part reads like a brochure for labiaplasty.

Paragraph 3: This does not constitute a full report. They only reported the percentage of women who responded as choosing the surgery for a functional reason (62%). This is misleading; because they don't clarify if that refers to women who chose it for functional reasons alone, or if they also included women who chose for both functional and aesthetic reasons. There is no way to tell, because they didn't specify.

My guess is that the 62% refers to those who chose it wholly or in part for a functional reason, which, if true, would mean that any percentage of that 62% cited looks as being at least part of their reason. In other words, if this interpretation of their ambiguously-presented data is correct, at least 38% chose it for an aesthetic reason alone, and the percentage of those who chose labiaplasty at least partially for aesthetic reasons could be 100%.

—Joie de Vivre T 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Please place comments here. Joie de Vivre T 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the neutrality is still in question. How about a second opinion from another editor? If you find that fair, I'll concentrate in the meanwhile on getting the citations called for.

2. How about a citation notice after the following statement under the Controversy section? "For most women, it (labiaplasty) is cosmetically unwarrented, and constitutes a needless exposure to the risks inherient in any surgery." One thinks that is more personal opinion than fact.

3. The Transsexual section really does not fit. For one, the preferred nomenclature for the procedure is the nonjudgemental and more neutral, "gender reassignment surgery." Additionally, a great deal more than labiaplasty takes place during gender reassignment.Charles.Downey 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "think the neutrality is still in question"? Joie de Vivre T 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Why is there such flattery of the doctor and his 'international' recognition or his citation on Dr. 90210? Both feel like marketing and make that section of this article seem like a brochure. There's also the weird weasel language 'was said to be refined' which has no attributable sources. In addition, the tone of the article has some odd points of view and 'some say' attributions. I'm removing the weasel language and advertising. I think the article as a whole could use some clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.130.221.30 (talk • contribs) 11:23, June 22, 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. No proof that his was some sort of big leap forward. Here is the rest of it, can be reinstated if it can be proven by an outside source that it was some sort of breakthrough.
The procedure was refined by urologist and plastic surgeon, Gary Alter.[citation needed] Alter created a more aesthetic reduction of the labia minora, known as central wedge nymphectomy. The doctor’s latest contribution is known as the Alter Labia Contouring Method, which he claims better preserves the normal contour, colour and anatomy of the edge of the labia minora. Alter also removes skin via a partial hoodectomy on the sides of the clitoral hood, claiming that this part of the procedure is undetectable.
—Joie de Vivre T 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate photo??

Is a photo of such a graphic nature appropriate for publishing? I didn't see any sort of 18+ warning. Wouldn't that potentially violate certain US laws regarding showing photography of genitalia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.35.109 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The image does meet guidelines for content, and although I could not find any specific guidlelines for the use of graphic images (other than seeking consensus before adding/removing images), I found article-specific discussions about the suitability and use of graphic photos, including several at Talk:Penis. Per the discussion below, I moved the photo down to the section relating to patient results and reaction, but the image was already set up as a thumbnail per image style guidelines, so I didn't resize it. Flowanda | Talk 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate photo - the person is sharing their story - how is that relevant?

The person who published the photo shares how they got a piercing, etc. How is that relevant? This should be a generic article?

Wikipedia: how do you remove photos?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.35.109 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You raise some good points, and I had not read the caption on the description page. There are caption style guidelines if you'd like to tackle wikifying the description. Although I think the image seems to convey what the procedure does, it may be disconcerting to some readers. This discussion deals with more sexual than graphic: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, but there are comments about not removing images without consensus. Perhaps for now, moving the image down and resizing it could be a temporary solution while I look for how other graphic images have been handled? Flowanda | Talk 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)