Editorials from David Williams (Editor)

Editorials from BL#1 and BL#2
Editorials from BL#4 and BL#6
Editorials from BL#7 and BL#9
Editorials from BL#11 and BL#12
Editorials from BL#13 and BL#17
Editorials from BL#18 and BL#20
Editorials from BL#21 and BL#22
Editorials from BL#23 and BL#24
Editorials from BL#25 and BL#26

The advances in technology and the benefits each brings never ceases to amaze me. PCs, mobile telephones and the internet have revolutionised the way we work and our lifestyles in a short time.
Plastic and cosmetic surgery has been very much at the forefront of development. The consequence is greater success for established procedures and a wider range of plastic and cosmetic surgery treatments to contend with serious disfigurement and the personal disturbances associated with ageing.
Look at the progress that has been made since the controversial silicone implants of the 1960s or the crude graft punching technique for hair transplants that originated in the 1950s. Endoscopic surgery, newly discovered laser wavelengths and pulsed durations, finer instruments, new compounds for implantsá I could go on, but you get the picture. All have made their contribution in helping people live the lives they desire.
While one may question the importance put on "looking young", one cannot ignore the desire. Few people are prepared to follow the advice of their parents or grandparents and "grow old gracefully". And why should they when there are new choices for increasing youthful longevity that were unavailable to previous generations. The pressure to look young is societal and does not show any signs of abating. This is to be welcomed as consumer choices and rights broaden.
For surgeons and patients, new technology can bring only further improvements reconstructively and aesthetically. For burn victims, for example, plastic surgeons will use new products that reform or regenerate skin tissue. The same product may easily have a purely aesthetic application for treating ageing skin.
With each new technological advance, the time of the future is definitely on the patient's side.

Do you agree that beauty is subjective and eludes clear definition? To nod your head sagely would certainly concur with the politically correct notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But although cosmetic surgery draws inspiration from art, it is also grounded in science. Compelling facial architecture comprises curve formations, angles, and ratios that are perceived as critically beautiful in a manner similar to what constitutes an outstanding building or painting. Beauty can be said to be subjective, but collective critiques can be measured.
Granted, contrasting cultural and historical perspectives make it more difficult to arrive at a consensus of what constitutes beauty. A Rubenesque model may not have the right image for a gorgeous, lean 2000s icon.
Our perceptions are also coloured by how the media influence styles, trends and fads.
Medically, however, would most surgeons like patients to be more objective as to what they want so they could in turn be more objective as to evaluating their outcome? As one surgeon said: “How would you respond if a patient said something like: ‘I want my oblique perspective to reveal a curve in which a horizontal line intersecting the concave upper aspect of it is at the lateral commissure and that the maximum of the convex aspect is slightly above the midpoint of the convexity.
‘Also, do what it takes to do in three dimensions so that a horizontal line drawn from brow tail to brow tail, tangent with the brow arch, when divided into a vertical line starting at midpoint of this horizontal line and ending at the lower lip has a ratio of 1.6 when measured on a two dimensional surface of a photograph of anterior perspective.’”
Beauty cannot be described and rendered with such detachment and precision.