Advertisement

Nanomedicine and Body Modification: Critical Perspectives

Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 10)

Abstract

This chapter examines nanomedicine in relation to body modification, in particular the increasingly popular form of body modification that is cosmetic surgery. It asks what possibilities nanomedicine might offer patients seeking cosmetic enhancement, and whether there are risks inherent in such procedures which patients might need to be warned about and which require strict regulation. I would argue that this is nanomedicine as opposed to the cosmetic use of nanotechnology as it necessitates the same medical procedures and invasive treatments, with their inherent risks, as non-cosmetic use of nanomedicine. The chapter goes on to examine these possibilities and risks from the perspective of theorists who have sought to safeguard health care rights, particularly those of women patients. Currently in the UK 91 % of cosmetic procedures are carried out on women, and the most requested invasive cosmetic surgery is for breast implants, with the number increasing rapidly year on year: approximately 5,646 breast enlargements were carried out in 2005 (BAAPS 2006); and 8,565 in 2009 (BAAPS 2010).

Keywords

Cosmetic Surgery Breast Implant Body Modification Relational Autonomy Cosmetic Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bordo, S. 1989. The body and the reproduction of femininity. In Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing, ed. A. Jaggar and S. Bordo. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bordo, S. 2003. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. British Association of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery (BAAPS). 2004. Press Release, January 27. BAAPS.org.uk.
  4. British Association of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery (BAAPS). 2006. Press Release, January 16. BAAPS.org.uk.
  5. British Association of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery (BAAPS). 2008. Press Release, February 4. BAAPS.org.uk.
  6. British Association of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery (BAAPS). 2010. Press Release, February 1. BAAPS.org.uk.
  7. Capurro, R. 2006. Reflections on ethical aspects of nanomedicine. http://www.capurro.de/nanoethics.html.
  8. Cullton, B. 2008. Interview: Is special FDA regulation of nanomedicine needed? A conversation with Norris E. Aldersen. Health Affairs 27(4): w315–w317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Silva, J., and G. Van Calster. 2008. Regulating nanomedicine – A European perspective. Nature Precedings. doi:http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2008.2388.1
  10. Davis, K. 1995. Reshaping the female body: The dilemma of cosmetic surgery. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. De Grey, A., et al. 2002. Is human aging still mysterious enough to be left only to scientists? Bioessays 24(7): 667–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodds, S. 2000. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self, ed. C. Mackenzie and N. Stoljar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. European Group Ethics. 2006. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology for health. European Technology Platform. Strategic Research Agenda for Nanomedicine. Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. European Group Ethics. 2007. Opinion on the ethical aspects of medicine. Opinion No. 21, 17 January 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Galiay, P. 2008. Small is beautiful: European Commission adopts a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research in Feb 2008. In EGE Newsletter Ethically Speaking, Issue No. 10, July 2008, 55–60. Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. Gimlin, D.L. 2002. Body work: Beauty and self-image in American culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hermeren, G. 2007. Challenges in the evaluation of nanoscale research: Ethical aspects. NanoEthics 1: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hertz, A. 2007. Inorganic materials for bone repair or replacement applications. Nanomedicine 2(6): 899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latham, M. 2008. The shape of things to come: Feminism, regulation and cosmetic surgery. Medical Law Review 16(3): 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee Bartky, S. 2003. Foucault, femininity and the modernisation of patriarchal power. In The politics of women’s bodies: Sexuality, appearance and behaviour, 2nd ed, ed. R. Weitz. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. McLeod, C., and S. Sherwin. 2000. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy agency and the social self, ed. C. Mackenzie and N. Stoljar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pauly Morgan, K. 2002. Women and the knife: Cosmetic surgery and the colonization of women’s bodies. In Women, medicine, ethics and the law. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Pitts, V. 2003. In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Powell, M., et al. 2008. Bottom up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies. Environmental Management 42: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products.Google Scholar
  26. Renn, O., and M.C. Roco. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8(2): 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, L. 2005. Safety fears over ‘nano’ anti-ageing cosmetics. Sunday Times, July 17. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article141423.ece.
  28. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: RS/RAE.Google Scholar
  29. Rye, S., and I. Illuminato. 2008. Nano and biocidal silver: Extreme germ killers present a growing threat to public health. Friends of the Earth.Google Scholar
  30. Sherwin, S. 1993. Ethics, ‘Feminine Ethics’, and feminist ethics. In A reader in feminist ethics, ed. D. Shogan. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Google Scholar
  31. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2005. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: RS/RAE.Google Scholar
  32. Which?. 2008. Small wonder? Nanotechnology and cosmetics. November 2008. http:// www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/nanotechnology-and-cosmetics-161175.pdf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester School of LawManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations