| Author |
Message |
    
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 09:29 pm: | 
|
This is just too hard core. And you all know my disclaimer of; “I had to post it”. This particular post is out of the realm of what is normally discussed on this site. I'm aware of this. But sometimes stepping outside the box is not always a bad thing. It was sent to me by a friend who is still on active duty. That is the reason for the language used in the accompanying text. That said, I will let you readers decide for yourself if you approve or not of this particular kind of thing. Personally, I think it is insane. It’s just too over the top for me. But you decide. The photos are extremely graphic so if you have problems with graphic material –back out right now!!! The photos are not for the squeamish.
It looks like we as physicians and surgeons will begin seeing patients with "skin carvings" as the next fad beyond tattooing. It's called "scarification". Some are done by tattoo shops, and a lot are home-made with exacto knives, tweezer and rubbing alcohol. It's getting a lot of internet attention at the tattoo websites, so that can only mean the numbers of those attempting this will be on the rise.
This is probably not only illegally performed surgery, but potentially infectious, being done under less than ideal aseptic technique and post "carving" care. You'll note from the included photos of the carving environment and the scalpel blades to perform it, along with a dab of antibiotic ointment on the blue drape.
I have not heard any official DoD policy against "skin carving", but it probably falls under the rule that all elective surgery MUST be approved by the service member's commanding officer. If anyone can inform us of any further policies, that would be good.
See pictures below for graphic illustration of the process involved in scarification.
|
Jackie
Regular Poster
Username: Jackie
Post Number: 239
Registered: 04-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Barf ! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 5723
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 12:14 am: |
|
Jeeze! Will it be worth the trouble? What if the carved design grows a scab and the scab drops off and the skin clears up instead of scarring? That's what happens to the carvings I get from this damed kitten a well-meaning grandchild gave me, thinking I needed company. What I really need is to not be carved up by a krazy kat. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 02:26 am: |
|
You have to ask? |
Unpolitical
Newbie Poster
Username: Unpolitical
Post Number: 24
Registered: 09-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 06:16 pm: |
|
To each his own but scarification is nothing new. In African, Polynesian, Australian and Native North and South American cultures the scarfs endured has meaning and in some cases are rites of passage. Here it seems like more of an extreme form of self expression. Personal I wouldn't go that far to express myself or proclaim my individuality. I wonder if this young lady has thoughts about what her children may think or better yet what a potential mate might think or her disfigured body? Personal I would have a problem with woman that disfigured herself purposely if the area of disfigurement diminish our intimacy.. |
Unpolitical
Newbie Poster
Username: Unpolitical
Post Number: 25
Registered: 09-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 06:54 pm: |
|
Ntfs...
When I was in(U.S. Army)if memory serves me correctly the actually disfiguring of ones body was not the issue as much as the affect it had on a service members duty performance and uniformity. The specific article or regulation escapes me and I don't know how public the UCMJ is. I will look however. I do know one thing at the end of all regs and articles is a disclaimer that gives the commanding authority the authority to add to but not take away from the reg or article as they see fit depending on circumstance or situation. Though there may not be a reg or article that would specifically address an issue by name, failure to obey a lawful order would be a violation of Aticle 92 of the UCMJ. I'll keep looking unless someone else finds this information first. |
Nels
Veteran Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 562
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 01:34 am: |
|
Tough world. |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 04:36 am: |
|
"When I was in(U.S. Army)if memory serves me correctly the actually disfiguring of ones body was not the issue as much as the affect it had on a service members duty performance and uniformity."
True, but it can be a hazy area. It’s up to the commanding officer.
"The specific article or regulation escapes me and I don't know how public the UCMJ is. I will look however."
Adopted in 1950, these laws revised the Articles of War that the United States military had officially approved during World War I. The UCMJ is service wide but the regs are tailored to each specific branch of the service. Acquiring a copy of the UCMJ or military regs is open to any and everyone. They are legal guidelines and not related as such to national security as say publicly stating whether or not a particular ship is carrying nuclear weapons or divulging the frequency band widths of counter electronic warfare equipment.
"I do know one thing at the end of all regs and articles is a disclaimer that gives the commanding authority the authority to add to but not take away from the reg or article as they see fit depending on circumstance or situation."
This is true. The commanding officer has complete discretion for enforcing or ignoring the implications of a particular reg.
"Though there may not be a reg or article that would specifically address an issue by name, failure to obey a lawful order would be a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ."
True again. For example, if you go to a particular foreign port and the CO has concerns about AIDS or hepatitis from needles, he can forbid any service members under his command to get tattoos even though there is no specific UCMJ article or reg that prohibits you from having a tattoo (unless the tattoo is deemed racist, extreme, obscene or covering ones face or hands). In fact the Army just readjusted his regulations regarding tattoos under AR-670. So if a service member gets a tattoo, no matter where it is, how small it is or what it says or depicts, he or she can be written up and punished by the CO as a NJP offense (Article 92) even though the UCMJ or military regs does prohibit the service member from getting a tattoo.
|
Email This Page