Beauty Boycott

I've been asked to join a boycott. This was care of a law school friend of mine, Argee Guevara, whom I've known since our student-activist days. (I like the thought of labeling myself an activist, although that self-description might not sit well with real ones. My sacrifices might not compare favorably…). Argee, however, does not realize he is asking a lot from me. This boycott could actually affect my aesthetic future.

Argee is at present orchestrating a boycott against the Belo medical group. Yes, Vicki Belo's clinics, those purveyors of youth in a bottle and beauty in a box, those lures to all who hope that where nature failed, science and money can correct. These are the glamorous beauty centers where all the superficial dreams are granted, and where botox, implants, and lipos are the lingua franca.

Now, I'm at that age where desperation at losing my youth could lead to vanity trumping common sense. I could one day find myself in Vicky's reception area, pretending to be there for only a facial but furiously scanning literature on face and neck lifts. If I ever join this boycott, Argee should know that he's forever made me lose my chance of regaining my looks. All those doctors now working in her clinics might remember me, and make all my pores regret their existence. Yes, I will have, by dint of this sacrifice, been reborn as a full-fledged activist.

Now why would Argee, the earnest yet jolly maki-baka boy, the street-marcher who used to rail against dictators and the military (as well as the only columnist who made pogi-points a worthy and serial topic in a national opinion column) now train his guns against glamour-mama Vicky?

According to Argee, the details of the boycott are simple. He says we should not patronize the Belo clinics for the following reasons: (and then he rattles off some allegations which I'm too scared to reprint, because I might get sued for libel).

Ok fine, forget the exact words Argee used. Here's the gist, which I actually culled from news reports and from the website that Argee directed me to. (For those who're curious, it's www.contrabelo.blogspot.com)

Argee is representing a patient who claims she underwent a botched procedure at one of Belo's clinics. The clinic injected hydrogel on her buttocks, which substance was at that time allegedly not yet approved by our local Bureau of Food and Drugs, nor by the US FDA, as well as banned in Europe. After the procedure, the hydrogel allegedly didn't stay in her butt, and instead caused an infection that led to the patient landing in a hospital.

In the TV interview I watched, Belo's spokesperson said that first, hydrogel was recommended and in use in a couple of South American countries, but second, the clinic doesn't use that anymore, as they now had newer technology. Plus, the patient signed a waiver, pretty much acknowledging she would take all risks of the surgery.

From what I could gather, the issues would now be, did the clinic tell the patient that hydrogel was a banned substance in some countries before she signed the waiver? (This is where the clinic's defense of informed consent comes in.)

Second, even if the patient voluntarily signed the waiver despite her knowledge as to hydrogel's danger, would that waiver now allow the clinic to use a substance that hadn't been approved yet, and one that was potentially dangerous? (This is a tougher issue, one that would require us to weigh whether the state can impose its will on its citizens, and prohibit them from contracting even where both parties are willing to take on the contract - something like not allowing people to buy and sell their kidneys. In this case, informed consent won't wash.)

There are other serious allegations made by Argee (and reported also in the press) such as the claim that not all the doctors in her clinics are licensed or accredited plastic surgeons. It would be interesting to see how true this one is. Meanwhile, I'll think twice before entering a clinic. Anyway, my 5-year old nephews still say I look great as I am.