Botox

[dulwichgirl2]

Interesting thread on another board of the forum.

Would you attend a Botox party in ED with a dr doing the injections?

I wldnt do Botox anyway but the idea of the party doesn't bother me and probably makes the health side of it less worrying to me.

Here is my query - I use a bit of make up most days, have a warm tint in my hair and use fake tan (from time to time, not the constant orange look!). I really don't fancy Botox but cannot rationalise why not.

What are your views about it, especially If you use other "aids" like makeup etc.?

[Lochie]

How can you compare Botox to make up? Only similarity is they are both there to 'improve' looks. I find idea of Botox ridiculous and the look of Botox even more so.... E.g. The richest of people with access to best Doctors don't look great with it....kylie, Jen Anniston, they don't look younger they just look botoxed!! I also find it a bit frightening in magazines that a 40 year old model might look the same as an 18 year old youth wise.

I completely understand the desire to halt ageing especially since having kids - in last 3 years I feel I have aged about 20 years!!! But I'd never resort to needles or knives.if I had time I would defo put make up on each day and get hair done but upkeep of appearance and motherhood don't seem to mix.

Maybe I am naieve and Botox will become as normal as fake tan but I really hope not - for me there is a big difference between applying make up and creams externally to improve looks, and injecting a poison into the head!!

[Saila]

Poison? What do you mean by that?

It's medicinally used to treat migraine (and therefore approved by a strict regulatory proceedure for that indication).

Fwiw, my personal view on botox to reduce wrinkles - wouldn't do it myself, but don't give two hoots if someone else did. Who cares what other ppl do?

[midivydale]

Not looking to get drawn into a debate on what is morally right or wrong but here goes. I have used botox and these are my views/reflections. The advantages for me was that as i have very sensitive skin i am unable to treat my very prominent frown lines with creams (they also cost a fortune). Botox enabled me to treat my "worry lines" and then i was able to use creams to calm the sensitivity on my skin rather than anti ageing if that makes sense. For me, that helped hugely.

Secondly, botox dramatically changed the character of my face. My very deep lines on my forehead made me look permanently angry, worried and unhappy. Post botox my laughter lines (crows feet) around my eyes were much more prominent which meant that the only lines visable on my face were laughing ones. It just changed the characters of my face and people commented on how happy and relaxed and i look (note, not how smooth my forehead was).

For me, it was at the time a good financial option as i had wasted so much money on anti wrinkle creams that didnt work and also couldnt be tolerated by my hypersensitive skin.

On the downside - since having my son i am getting increasingly concerned about any potential health issues (ie want to stay as strong and fit for him as i can) and as a result i prefer a more holistic life style approach.

I find this discussion interesting, if we can all stay on topic. I have no intention of "defending my position re botox" so let us take the topic for what it is:)

[dulwichgirl2]

Midivydale, in my view you have nothing to defend! I completely understand why you had it done and why you don't want to going forward.

I'm confused by myself though - maybe it is the child thing as well and becoming less risk averse. I just don't understand why I am open to all sorts of "intervention" (including teeth fixing) but not injecting this stuff.

I wonder if it will become mainstream and done by Boots for ten quid at lunchtime?!

[midivydale]

I agree 100% about the risk factors. After I had my son i just do not feel comfortable with injections as i have yet to read research findings about effects of long term botox use. Besides, havent got much time these days to be concerned about wrinkles:).

I feel the same about "going under the knife", too scared of complications, although i realise these are rare.

As much as i am all for natural beauty, in my case i can do with a little help :) hence the dabbing with injections in the past. If carried out by a qualified dermatologist it can look very very subtle and not at all sharon osborne like.

Oh may i just add, another forumite eco79 told me about using olive oil with a hot cloth as a cleanser! Whilst not as effective as botox, it has helped my sensitive, hormonal skin enormously.

[Saffron]

Could it be that some people are averse to injectable treatments simply because of their invasive nature? Although arguably self-tanners and nanoengineered wrinkle creams are blurring the line over "invasive".

Then again, dentistry can be very invasive. However, people don't usually become addicted to having their teeth reset. So maybe it's perceived association of Botox-style treatments with addiction to cosmetic interventions that is the real issue for some people?

Also, when people say cosmetic interventions look bad or wrong, what they should really say is that poorly contrived cosmetic interventions look rubbish. When someone has had a really good cosmetic treatment or surgery, you wouldn't even know they had had "work" done if you bumped into them on the street. Celebrity addicts simply cannot be compared to the everyday gal (or bloke) on the street who had a little nip and tuck along the way. It would be like comparing someone who has the occasional tablet of codeine to someone who is addicted to prescription painkillers.

I'm very much in the live and let live camp on cosmetic treatments. And as for growing old gracefully, doesn't that included attitudes not just looks? Someone who grows old "gracefully" by not using any make-up, hair dye etc, and then acts in a judgemental way towards people who make other choices about growing old, is possibly not growing old very gracefully in his/her attitudes.

We're all different. I think there's room for variety between individuals and also within ourselves. At one time in our lives, a thing that seemed useful may at another time seem not so. Hey if you can come up with a way to solve internal conflicts in 10 min, you can sell your self-help secrets to the lunchtime crowd at Boots, right next to the botox service. ;-)

[LondonMix]

Very well said Saffron. Right now I wouldn't do it but who knows what my attitude will be in future. Personally, the outcome (when its badly done I imagine) isn't natural enough but I totally understand midivydale's motivation. Growing old gracefully is such a cliche. Unless you really let nature take its full course (no creams, no hair colouring) you are already fighting the good fight. The fine line between "not letting yourself go" and being too vain is always shifting. For the under 30s, Brazilian waxes (based on my anecdotal observations at the gym!), have become de rigueur and alas appears to now be considered basic grooming...

For me, growing old gracefully is being happy to be the age you are and enjoying the stage of life you are in. If you have a nervous breakdown thinking about turning 40 /50, whether you use botox or not, your not ageing gracefully.

[Lochie]

Oh dear whoops sorry if caused offence. I only know the bad Botox look shown in press, if it can be used for a natural look then I had no idea (perhaps that is the point). And yes each to their own etc etc. TBH its less Botox itself and more the fact that ageing is seen as a bad thing that needs to be 'treated' with injections that I object to....perhaps because I've just had a daughter and don't really want her to think that looks are so important. But then I'm probably being naive it will be as normal as face cream when she is 40. Who knows...

[dulwichgirl2]

All very inertesting, thank you. I love your ten minute advice booth next to the botox, Saffron.

I wonder if "ageism" will flip and the elderly regain their historically important roles in society.

At which point, we will be painting on wrinkles!

[civilservant]

Lochie, no need to apologise for saying what you think. I agree with you.

Botox is a highly toxic chemical - derived from the botulin toxin, which is a very potent poison - and needs to be used with care, and under proper medical supervision. Just because toxic chemicals are used for pharmaceutical purposes doesn't mean that they are 'safe' to use. I don't think that the people who use botox so casually appreciate the risks that they are taking. The thought of a 'botox party' makes my skin crawl.

Having said that, if people want to botox/liposuction/get breast implants, then fine. So long as they don't then expect the public purse to sort them out if things go wrong - the public purse has enough to do sorting out the consequences of people who eat/drink/smoke too much.

And no, I don't do fake tan, I don't do hair dye, and I don't do makeup, but I did have a tooth fixed after the dentist advised me to. I'm not sure why I've bothered to take up the anti-botox cudgels, but feel that someone has to.

Anyway, it looks like I'm an endangered species in ED. I'll just think of all the time and money I save through not 'looking after' myself!

[midivydale]

Lochie, your post was certainly not offensive I was just trying to pre empt the comments i thought i would receive after my admission:).

[Saffron]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...if people want to

> botox/liposuction/get breast implants, then fine.

> So long as they don't then expect the public purse

> to sort them out if things go wrong - the public

> purse has enough to do sorting out the

> consequences of people who eat/drink/smoke too

> much.

>

>

But what about someone who doesn't smoke or drink alcohol or other drugs, and who eats well and exercises but who just wants to try a little Botox on a deep wrinkle that's been bothering him/her for a while... Then imagine this person has a severe allergic reaction (rare but possible, and btw you can also have a severe reaction to creams not just injections) to a properly applied Botox injection under the supervision of a licensed medical doctor. This person wouldn't get NHS treatment, but a chronic alcoholic who smoked his/her whole life, took drugs, never exercised, and ate rubbish could expect to be treated?

I'm working at extremes here, but you can see the slippery slope it creates. The NHS sorts people out from all kinds of crazy stuff they do to themselves. It's in their foundational remit. It was accepted that this would be the case when the NHS was founded.

[civilservant]

I don't get your point, Saffron

What would a chronic alcoholic who smoked etc. be treated for? They would be treated for the same ailments that anyone else would be treated for, e.g. liver failure, heart disease, just that their risk factors for these would be higher. As you say, this is the NHS's 'foundational remit'. And in fact, if someone had an allergic reaction to Botox, they would get treated on the NHS, just like anyone else with an allergic reaction, as part of the same remit.

But the chronic alcoholic/smoker/addict also gets public health messages with their treatment as well as interventions designed to help them change their ways. And there is loads of evidence that addiction (to food, alcohol, tobacco) is associated with deeper psychological problems, which are also - and correctly, in my view - treatable on the NHS.

So does a Botox devotee fall into the same group? Are you suggesting that their devotion to appearance is symptomatic of psychological malaise?

[dulwichgirl2]

CS, I think Saffron's point, with which I agree, is that it is difficult if the NHS starts attributing "blame" to the appearance of or extent of certain conditions. Either the nHS treats everyone who turns up (ie regardless of contributory negligence) or it doesn't. Yor own first post actually made the same point when one of your arguments was that treating voluntarily created Botox problems is stretching the NHS which already has enough to do dealing with the diseases caused or exacerbated by other voluntary behaviour patterns such as smoking or drinking.

[Jessie]

But addiction and having Botox are two very separate issues and should not be compared, I think. Yes, the NHS should treat all, with that I agree, but to compare someone with an addiction to someone who has cosmetic work I think just confuses the matter.

[Saffron]

Addiction and Botox are not two separate issues, if someone becomes addicted to Botox.

The OP seemed to be asking why Botox perhaps has a stigma that other treatments do not, for example face creams or dentistry. So in reply, I put forward that perhaps it's the perceived association with addiction to cosmetic treatments which causes some people to feel uneasy about it's use.

Not everyone who has a cosmetic treatment like Botox is addicted to cosmetic treatments. I was not implying such. However, some people do become addicted to cosmetic treatments. It adds an additional angle to the topic, but I don't see that as confusing the matter so long as we're not comparing Botox addicts to occasional Botox devotees (which I was very clear about in a previous post above).

[civilservant]

DG2, I did point out that the NHS DOES treat everyone who turns up. But remember that there is a finite pot of resource, so that time and money spent on treating a Botox victim in A&E is time and money that won't be spent on you or your child.

I also added that prevention is increasingly important: the thinking is that if you deal with the problem at its source, you won't incur the increased cost of treatment etc. later. Hence the anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns.

Obviously, Botox-(ab)use is not on the same scale, but is part of the same problem. To me, people who condone or promote Botox are no different to those who condone or promote smoking.

Of course addiction and Botox are not the same thing, but they are not 'very separate issues' either.

[civilservant]

Saffron, we cross-posted! I haven't got a problem with lotions and potions - although most of them don't work.

I do have a problem with people seeking invasive interventions, because they are puttign themselves at such high risk and very often doing so unthinkingly.

The cheap implants scandal just brought this whole issue out so clearly - the cosmetic surgery industry, like the tobacco industry and the food or drink industry, is based on fundamentally unethical marketing and persuasion techniques, and people with poor self image or other problems just buy into the fake reassurance they peddle.

I'm not trying to set myself up as Michael Moore, but I feel very strongly about people trying to use the Forum to sell snake oil. We've already had a debate about the ethics of using the Forum to sell puppies. This is more of the same.

I am now going to shut up and get back to work and let the blokes put the 'demand for Botox' idiocy into context on the Lounge thread. I did laugh!

[Saffron]

dulwichgirl2 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> CS, I think Saffron's point, with which I agree,

> is that it is difficult if the NHS starts

> attributing "blame" to the appearance of or extent

> of certain conditions. Either the nHS treats

> everyone who turns up (ie regardless of

> contributory negligence) or it doesn't. Yor own

> first post actually made the same point when one

> of your arguments was that treating voluntarily

> created Botox problems is stretching the NHS which

> already has enough to do dealing with the diseases

> caused or exacerbated by other voluntary behaviour

> patterns such as smoking or drinking.

Yes, dulwichgirl2, that's the point. Civilservant implied that people who use Botox and then develop problems shouldn't expect the NHS to sort them out. I used allergy to Botox as an example, because there is no inherent bias in it. Anyone can develop an allergy at any time. Compare this to smoking and for example lung disease. It isn't just that smoking increases the risk of lung disease. Smoking actually causes lung disease. And the fact that people are offered help to quit, turn the help down, and then get NHS treatment for lung disease anyway just shows my point that the NHS fuctions without attributing blame.

So, actually, people CAN expect that the NHS will provide a minial level of medical support, should they encounter a medical problem caused by Botox. (Drooping eyelid is not a medical problem, btw. I'm talking about health problems.)

Indeed taking the issue further, if someone feels that s/he has developed an addiction to cosmetic treatments which is causing him/her serious pychological problems, then that person could probably also expect to receive psychological or psychiatric treatment through the NHS.

Of course some people aren't going to be comfortable with that aspect of the NHS. Nevertheless individuals can expect that the NHS will provide treatment, and indeed the NHS does so.

[Jessie]

Or: the NHS *does* help with addiction though what you get depends on where you live in the UK (addiction services suffer a lot from the postcode lottery of NHS services).

[Saffron]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DG2, I did point out that the NHS DOES treat

> everyone who turns up.

Sorry, was that in the Lounge thread? I missed that here. I just read the bit here where you said Botox users shouldn't expect the public purse (I was reading that as the NHS) to sort them out. Apologies if I misunderstood.

> But remember that there is

> a finite pot of resource, so that time and money

> spent on treating a Botox victim in A&E is time

> and money that won't be spent on you or your

> child.

>

But then surely it's obvious why this route becomes a slippery slope. Yes, anyone who comes to A&E having done something silly to themselves is taking resources that would go to others who are more "worthy"... oh, wait, hang on a minute... that's exactly the point: The NHS doesn't apply a sliding scale of morality to patching up people!

> I also added that prevention is increasingly

> important: the thinking is that if you deal with

> the problem at its source, you won't incur the

> increased cost of treatment etc. later.

I get what you're saying about prevention, but you can't prevent the human condition. People are going to do silly, sometimes stupid things to themselves, because they're only human. We're all prone to human frailties in one sense or another. Everyone has a vice, and everyone has accidents.

Perhaps what's needed is tighter control on the cosmetics industry in the UK, but that doesn't mean that the entire industry is "snake oil", or that people who want to pursue a little consmetic intervention are somehow less worthy than those who don't. Although, of course, opinions do differ.

[dulwichgirl2]

Actually this is so much more interesting than my original thread.

Here is another example - crazy mountaineers. A lot of nasty frostbite and broken legs.

I would do Botox first personally. ;-)

[Saffron]

And much more interesting than the Lounge thread too!

[LondonMix]

Agree with everything Saffron says. If the NHS started attributing blame, that would really be the slippery slope. Who exactly would get to decide what risks we take in life are legitimate vs. unnecessary? Jumping out of a plane, not taking medication that is designed to treat your illness, smoking, high risk pregnancy? Once someone needs legitimate health intervention (so not cosmetic correction), the NHS has got to step in...