Lipo vs Pen

Amidst the debate on aesthetic medicine, I booked a consultation with one of the more well-known aesthetic docs to explore VASERLIPO, i.e. a progressive liposuction method which is less traumatic than conventional liposuction procedures.

There there...
This is NOT an entry to discuss WHY Blinkymummy has decided to go for liposuction. The amount of unwanted fat on one's body is just as subjective as colour preference for a microwave oven. And sometimes, one buys into a gadget not because of need, but to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of experiences. Lasik proved to be trippy for me, remember?

Regardless... This entry is my attempt to highlight, firsthand,

HOW the change in Government policies directly impacts the consumer.

I consulted Dr X in the first week of Apr 2008. A cool clinic in Orchard Road above some funky shopping. We discussed the VASER procedure, the potential effects and side effects, the on-going debate, my 'problematic areas', and price. We then set a date for the procedure.

Today, i.e. a day after the Government's announcement of the proposed guidelines, his clinic called up and informed me that because of the impending policy changes that (1) I had to go for blood test, and (2) the procedure would have to take place in an operating theatre (instead of the clinic) and an anaesthetist will have to be delivering the local anaesthesia instead of Dr X. Of course, this means an increase in total cost of the procedure. And the increase is the heavy straw bushel that broke the camel's back.

It's a 30% increase in total cost.

With a stroke of the pen, the consumer now has to bear a 30% increase in price. And it is not clear whether these additional guidelines on 'safety' are indeed warranted or a symbolic ameliorating product of politics amongst the different camps of aesthetic practitioners. So far, I have not seen any statistics in the local reports on significant levels of botched jobs. Only anecdotal accounts by this and that doctor/surgeon. One does not need to go to Wharton or Kennedy to understand that such presentation of justification is insufficient and unconvincing. But of course, bulldozing and/or acting blur is always an option.

I mean... 'Safety' is a hygiene factor. Beyond a certain point, the marginal benefit of safety is but negligible. So, if one goes on the "you can never be safe enough" argument without providing any concrete evidence/reason, then it has either got to be politics masquerading as 'concerns', or simply, an inability to explain.

Yeah... DR X is a GP and all, but as a consumer, I would prefer to purchase a service from someone with experience, rather than accreditations alone. I have met too many ultra-qualified people who fall below expectations. Judging by qualifications alone is an obviously fallible assessment methodology.

See... No point arguing amongst yourselves and asking a third party to be 'the judge'. Coz the outcome is that nobody wins. The pie just gets smaller.
And my fats are still here. =_=