Abstract
The last decade has seen regulatory discourse on cosmetic surgery explode. Much of the focus first rested on the now well-publicised issue of silicone breast implants, which were the subject of major hearings held by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991 and 1992. Debate in Australia was initiated in 1991 by the Therapeutic Device Evaluation Committee (TDEC) on behalf of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). This debate began as a result of the investigations pursued by the FDA,1 and its recommendations were in large part determined by parallel recommendations in the United States.2 In this chapter I examine a range of sources dealing with the regulatory discussion of cosmetic surgery, including the FDA hearings on silicone breast implants, as well as the 1999 New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC)3 Inquiry into cosmetic surgery. The material examined in this chapter is drawn from a geographically diverse range of sources, but this does not mean the regulatory processes undertaken are separate. For example, US deliberations are central to those undertaken in Australia because class action damages cases brought by Australian silicone implant recipients have been heard in US courts and are subject to US rulings.4
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Stephanie Alexander, ‘Heidi Lindsay et al. v. Dow Corning Corp. et al.: The Exclusion of Claimants from Australia, Ontario and Quebec’, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, May 1995, pp. 419–41 for a review of the 1994 ruling on the global class action brought against Dow Corning.
J. Nocera, ‘Fatal Litigation’, Fortune, 1995, obtained from Fortune web-site at www.pathfinder.com/fortune/archive (1999).
See Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, Beverly Hills and London, 1979; Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology, Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia, 1999.
See Loan Skene, ‘In Their Mind’s Eye: A Different Direction for Cosmetic Surgery Consent Cases?’, Torts Law Journal, vol. 4, 1996; Mark Ballard, ‘Class Action Implant Trial Opens in Big Easy’, National Law Journal, 31 March 1997, p. A10; HCCC Inquiry verbal submission by Bill Madden, Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association.
Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993, p. 104.
Leon Gordis, Epidemiology, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia 1996, P. 3.
Aaron Levine, ‘Fundamental Issues in Litigating Breast Implant Cases’, Litigation Course Handbook, Litigation and Administration Practice Series, Series no. 451, 1992, p. 62.
Rosemary Gillespie, ‘Women, the Body and Brand Extension in Medicine: Cosmetic Surgery and the Paradox of Choice’, Women and Health, vol. 24, no. 4, 1996, p. 74.
Kathy Davis examines the risk model of cosmetic surgery provision in Reshaping the Female Body: The Dilemma of Cosmetic Surgery, Routledge, New York and London, 1995, pp. 29–32.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2003 Suzanne Fraser
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fraser, S. (2003). The Regulation of Gender: Cosmetic Surgery, Regulatory Processes and Femininity. In: Cosmetic Surgery, Gender and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230500228_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230500228_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51160-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50022-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)