“After the doctors and scientific experts testified in Congress that cigarettes cause or compound not only cancer but a number of other diseases and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths annually, the senior senator from Kentucky stood up just shaking with anger and moaned, ‘You’re trying to wreck our economy.’ And what did Henry Ford II say when the government began insisting on safety devices in cars? ‘The American people don’t want anything that’s going to upset the economy.’ And what’s more, Ford was right. Fifty thousand a year dead on the highways, but don’t rock the economy. Look, America is no more a democracy than Russia is a Communist state. The governments of the U.S. and Russia are practically the same. There’s only a difference of degree. We both have the same basic form of government: economic totalitarianism. In other words, the settlement to all questions, the solution to all issues are determined not by what will make the people most healthy and happy in their bodies and their minds but by economics. Dollars or rubles. Economy über alles. Let nothing interfere with economic growth even though that growth is castrating truth, poisoning beauty, turning a continent into a shit-heap and driving an entire civilization insane. Don’t spill the Coca-Cola, boys, and keep those monthly payments coming.” — Tom Robbins, Another Roadside Attraction
Month / February 2004
NYTBR — A Dead Place for Fiction
Perhaps an inadvertent confession from Laura Miller? “The only thing more powerful than a worldwide conspiracy, it seems, is our desire to believe in one.”
Incidentally, the NYTBR fiction coverage is still looking grim. Far too much non-fiction (and yet another review of the Biskind book). The most telling sign is that David Markson’s Vanishing Point, which would seem to me one of the most ideal literary books for the Times to cover for a full-length review, has been ghettoized to the “And Bear in Mind” section.
Olivia Goldsmith Update
It’s been a little more than a month since Olivia Goldsmith passed on, and comments and send-offs still roll in, responses to my visceral reaction from the news. This suggests to me that the Goldsmith death is an issue that’s resonated with a lot of people, both in Goldsmith’s premature loss and the potential dangers inherent within plastic surgery (to say nothing of discussion over why it’s considered a necessity). Unfortunately, as someone passes on, the circumstances that led up to the death sometimes get ignored or left by the wayside. In an effort to look into what’s been happening, here’s what I’ve been able to determine:
This week, a second patient died at the Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital, which was Goldsmith’s clinic. Manhattan Eye had already been under investigation by state officials. This time around, it appears that Manhattan Eye was more careful with confidentiality (probably because the woman wasn’t a bestselling author and, accordingly, journalists weren’t nearly as hungry to dig up the dirt), but the cause of the second death, which occurred on Monday, has turned out to be the same: anesthesia-related. Manhattan Eye claims that it was following “all hospital protocol and procedures.”
The Post broke the news this morning. The second victim, like Goldsmith, was only 54. All that is known about her was that she was the wife of a cardiologist.
Some additional details about Manhattan Eye: Lenox Hill Hospital owns Manhattan Eye. Manhattan Eye, however, does not have an intensive care unit. It experienced a 20% increase in cosmetic surgery in 2002 over the previous year.
The plastic surgery division is headed by Sherrell Aston, considered the top facelift doctor in New York. Aston has performed work on Tipper Gore and Anna Wintour. He’s also a full professor of surgery at NYU. Aston is the husband of Muffie Potter Aston, prominent Manhattan socialite (who also chairs the New York City Ballet Committee). Muffie’s pretty ascetic about her diet. As she says herself, “My attitude toward food is not obsession, but it’s not far off. I am religious about what I eat. I start the day with a bowl of sliced cantaloupe, three apricots and three prunes; then I go to the gym. Being three pounds overweight drives me to distraction.” (The happy couple can be found pictured here.) They have a son, Matt, who opened up a bistro called Calliope in 2001 (thanks to family cash). Their other son is Jay, a money manager and ladies’ man known to date people like Soshanna Lonstein.
I raise these biographical tidbits up to convey exactly where the Astons stand in New York society. They are extremely affluent, extremely elite, and we might also infer that they are extremely protected, particularly from any criticism of surgical procedure.
But according to the New York State Department of Health, Aston has paid out three malpractice settlement payments in the past ten years: one on 5-27-01 for a “below average” amount, another on 12-03-96 for a “below average” amount, and a third on 4-9-96 for an “average” amount. It should also be noted that the NYS DOH indicates that “Below average means the doctor has made a payment that is less (in amount) than New York doctors in his or her field and in the same geographical area.” Since Manhattan Eye is the top-rated surgical clinic in its area, we might infer that “below average” might be a veritable bonanza compared against the average cosmetic surgery clinic. Furthermore, since Aston is loaded with cash, it is likely that he retains an ace deal-cutting attorney.
The most investigative piece on the matter has been Ralph Gardner, Jr.’s piece for New York Magazine. However, Gardner seemed to pay more attention to Goldsmith’s life and mental health, rather than investigating the procedures undertaken. He did note that Goldsmith had come close towards getting discounted or comp surgery when she was researching her book, Flavor of the Month. He also noted that Larry Ashmead, Goldsmith’s editor, recalled that Goldsmith wore a long blonde wig for her cover photo in The First Wives’ Club, and that Ashmead forced Goldsmith to retire it.
Gardner also consulted with an unnamed plastic surgeon who suggested that Goldsmith may have withheld the fact that she was on antidepressants, and that this may have affected her pulmonary system. But the question I have here is whether Manhattan Eye had the duty to determine whether or not the patient was on any other medications before undergoing procedure. If two patients have died because it’s not current Manhattan Eye procedure to check for factors which might affect a patient during anesthetic procedure, then this may suggest a major screw-up.
The surgeons for both the cardiologist’s wife and Goldsmith have not been revealed by hospital representatives. However, the Gardner article revealed that Dr. Norman Pastorek was the doctor responsible for Goldsmith’s surgery.
This cached message board notes that Pastorek was trained by Dr. Eugene Tardy, a prominent cosmetic surgon in Chicago. Pastorek (and Manhattan Eye) is also involved with NYU. In fact, NYU offers a fellowship program with Manhattan Eye.
However, as Rush and Molloy pointed out, the person who carried out anesthetic procedure was never identified in Gardner’s piece. And according to the New York State Department of Health, Pastorek has not had any malpractice actions since becoming an M.D. in 1969.
As of last week, Goldsmith’s attorney, Steven Mintz, has not yet proceeded with legal action. And a search through the New York State Unified Court System revealed no recent actions filed by Mintz’s firm.
The Sydney Morning Herald used Goldsmith’s death to play up the increasing allure of plastic surgery, noting the recent desperation of a 51-year old British schoolteacher who submitted herself to $120,000 worth of televised plastic surgery. The surgery did little to alter her features, but it had arisen from jealousy directed toward’s her sister’s looks. And even Good Housekeeping was forced to save face, justifying their support for a lucrative beauty industry by tying in an article related to the Goldsmith death recommending “10 Ways to Cut 10 Years.”
But the larger issue here, beyond whether Goldsmith was emotionally troubled or not, is why two women had to die during an anesthetic procedure in an exclusive plastic surgeon clinic. Why did one of them die while the hospital was under investigation? Why has there been no independent unbiased statement issued to the public? And while I can understand why Gardner would dig up dirt on Goldsmith’s character to write a good story, this still doesn’t excuse why he wouldn’t be similarly penetrating about the safetys or hazards of anesthetic procedure.
If there is danger within current Manhattan Eye procedure, then the public needs to know about it, so that these problems can be exposed and rectified, and nobody else has to die.
[UPDATE: I did a defendant search for “Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat” on the New York Unified Court System site and was able to turn up three active cases. Case No. 24786/1999 is a complex medical malpractice case. Case No. 8382/1999 is another complex medical mal case. Case No. 8898/2001 is yet another complex medical mal case. Gordon & Silber represents Manhattan Eye.]
Match.com — Maintaining the Status Quo Since 1995
Well, if Haggis can do it, so’s can I. The Match.com Physical Attraction Test, purportedly millions of dollars and years in the making, is a disturbing image-oriented Flash thing that asks you such terrible questions as “If these were the only five women left on Earth, who could you tolerate?” Now how the hell can any vaguely humanistic-minded person answer that? Well, dear readers, you’d be surprised by how quickly you cross into darkness. Particularly if, like me, you’ve seen The Omega Man and Logan’s Run more times than medically recommended.
Make no mistake: This test is fucking evil. The phrasing of questions makes this test perfectly designed for nihilists, pyromaniacs and armageddon enthusiasts. Namely, people like me. Worse still, it’s all visual. Never mind if the lady I was sharing a sleeping bag in a post-apocalyptic Times Square could quote Robert Burns or engage in mischevious banter. There was a stage in this that reminded me of Press Your Luck, whereby you’re supposed to single out women you can’t stand. Except, in my case, I was concentrating on the women that I’d have no problem spending six lifetimes lovin’ and found it difficult for my libido-charged mind to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
The results would indicate otherwise:
The choices you made in the test suggest you have strong, automatic preferences for certain types of women. You made your choices quickly suggesting you have clear physical instincts.
Uh, maybe because I’m a dude and I’m more visual-minded, mayhaps? Or I was clicking desperately on the choices to make this hard Hobson’s choice objectification stop? You make the call, Match.com. You evil bastards.
But onwards.
My Favorite Features:
- Your photo choices suggest a woman over 55 is probably getting a little old for your tastes (Seems a sick Freudian joke to start this out with.)
- You seemed interested in dating a woman at least 30 or older (Yeah.)
- So-called “Ecto-Mesomorphs,” with narrow chins and nicely angular faces (What the hell is this, Ghostbusters?)
- Blue eyes (Oh, don’t get Kristallnacht on me, muthafuckas.)
- Light brown hair (This morning, maybe.)
- Wavy hair (Yeah.)
- Straight hair (Yeah. But doesn’t that contradict my previous choice?)
- Medium-length hair (Not quite.)
Unique Traits:
- Sometimes, you like younger women, by a good gap. (Saturday night after a lot of Jamican rum? Yeah, a roll in the hay with an undergrad ain’t bad.)
- Sometimes, you like women over 5 years older than you. (Damn straight.)
- More unique than “mainstream” appeal (Fuck Maxim, anorexia and silicone implants.)
- Thin, angular faces with a classic or refined look (Bingo again, but only if they look like Liz Scott or Ann Sheridan. Not that your culturally amnesia-charged minds would know anything about that.)
- Cute, button or small noses (Cute? Fuck no. But I do like interesting noses.)
- Glasses and the sophisticated and smart look that goes with them (What can I say? Me like smart women.)
- You appreciate someone with a few extra pounds (As opposed to, say, the starving waifs you presented me with? Jesus, does “plus size” these days mean anyone who has more than one meal a day? If so, count me in.)
Not Your Type:
- Women over age 55 (Again with the Freudian shit.)
- Women under age 30 (Maybe because I might have, you know, specified this at the beginning of the test?)
- High “mainstream” appeal, with little unique flair (We’ve covered this, I think.)
- Long and narrow “rectangular” faces (Only if someone paid me to kiss Bruce Campbell.)
- Thin lips (Yup, labia latitude’s a plus.)
- Black hair (No. Anyone who knows about my obsession with Jennifer Connelly will testify to this.)
- Curly hair (Not necessarily.)
- Women of Black/African descent (Oh, bullshit. You want to play the fucking race card, Match.com? I clicked on hot mommas of all ethnic dispositions, as your “Maybe” photo collection, asking me why, will attest. Maybe because they’re, uh, hot? You didn’t exactly present a lot. Something like ten out of 100?)
- Hispanic or Latino women (See above.)
How You Compare to Other Men:
4% Very attracted to women my type
14% Attracted to women my type
21% Somewhat attracted to women my type
61% Not at all attracted to women my type
Yeah, mofo! How you like me now, Match.com?
Body Types:
One body type that seems to appeal to you is scientifically called “Endomorph,” which roughly translates into solid, “plus-sized” women. She’s not overweight, but her big bones and large frame make her hard to miss. Endomorphs are definitely curvier than the other body types, with hips that are wide in proportion to shoulders. Although she is prone to gain weight over her lifetime, at this point she doesn’t have a “pot belly” or “love handles,” just nice womanly curves! As she ages and puts on weight, she usually carries it in her hips and butt. This type usually makes up 7% of single women. Telling signs of this body type include wide and curved jaws, round faces, “chubby cheeks,” a girlish look, a very short and wide neck, plus larger legs and butts.
In other words, the kind of woman that people had no problem with in 1962, but that carries a stigma today. Or as Elizabeth Hurley once said, “I’d kill myself if I was as fat as Marilyn Monroe.”
Breast Size:
While you may enjoy looking at different breast sizes, based upon the choices you made, you prefer a well-endowed woman with much larger breasts.
And while you’re conveying this earth-shattering piece of news, why not expound on the Third Law of Thermodynamics while you’re at it?
My Ideal Match:
Reese Witherspoon? I must confess, I like her as an actress. But, dear Match.com, you clearly do not understand the kind of women I fantasize about while I’m jerking off. As such, you have proven your test, purportedly millions of dollars and years in the making, to be irrelevant and silly.
But there’s a far larger issue here: Within seconds of taking the test, you sent me a list of profiles of women who “matched” my purported ideal. That may be fine and dandy with the Sears catalog set, but that disturbs me on multiple levels, Match.com.
So I have to ask, Match.com. Since you’re in the business of profiting off of instant objectifying of the opposite gender, how do you sleep at night?
Shameful Joy? I Don’t Think So.
Derek has posted some marvelous photos of City Hall marriages. It’s bad enough that the Republicans seem shocked or outraged by the idea of other people experiencing happiness. (What kind of a sourpuss do you have to be to deny that?) But I cannot fathom why the Democrats (including John Kerry, that so-called all-American bastion we’re all doomed to vote for in November) don’t have the courage to get behind normal people who want to be married. Do these swell folks look like they’re going to destroy this nation? Has happiness become a weapon of mass destruction?
And another thing: How can any reasonable person be against same-sex marriages while simultaneously supporting the 30 second Las Vegas marriage? In this country, I guess it’s perfectly okay to enact a life partner decision when you’ve snogged a stranger and had far too many margaritas. But heaven forfend that we grant the same right to two people who have been with each other for decades and who base their decision to marry on something more than drunken vagaries and killing time between blackjack tables.