If patient welfare is the main objection, how about allowing people to take part and be taped, but let them delay giving consent to have thier stories aired until several months after the corrective procedures, when they have had time to assess how they feel about it?

Em Hawthorne, Ottawa, CAN

I do have a good chuckle when I read of "fury over TV programme" type headlines.
There are so many channels to choose from that I fail to understand why anyone criticises any of them.
Just change channels or better still turn off the TV and turn on the radio.
I've lived without TV for years and still have to listen to people discussing the latest dross on offer, even the local paper carries full page stories about characters in soap operas and their future.
Its just amazing how TV dominates our lives now.

Michael Wilkinson, Telford, England

It is up to the people and the producers. If you don't like it, don't watch.
There are plenty of disfigurements that insurance and NHS dismiss as "not medically important" (meaning, you can still eat, breath, talk) that STILL drastically alter a person's personal and professional prospects.
You wouldn't say a word to an affluent friend who paid to help her son surgically alter an under-bite that made him look feeble minded, would you? Or criticize a co-worker for getting a nose-job and braces because she had buck teeth and a crooked nose?
Of course not! Usually you'd find yourself feeling relieved for these people, and happy that they could improve their prospects.
The only difference here is that "these people" are poor and have agreed to let their experience be filmed in exchange for a life-changing surgery. It's still a sort of exchange-just more public.
Stop being hypocritical and let these people make their own choices.

Susan, Santa Monica, CA

Oh dear, when will all this stop????

Surgery whatever, whenever, whereever it has to be done comes with risks.

These are peoples lives we are discussing, and with any disfigurement comes with mental baggage as well. To think that someone may have surgery on the TV for all to see and then it doesn't work (hey, even the doctors will tell you surgery is not always the answer!) who is then going to pick up the pieces.

This is reality television tooooooo far!!!!!

frenchcountrygirl, Londono, England

Chris G. -- In answer to your question why Extreme Makeover got shut down in the US, it's because one episode resulted in the suicide of one of its participants.

The Extreme Makeover producers interviewed the family of a candidate for surgery and got them all to say on camera what a worthless misfit she was -- i.e. the "before" interview. Then the man who was set to perform dental reconstruction backed out of the makeover, saying the patient's condition was inoperable. Extreme Makeover dropped her altogether, and one sister felt so guilty about what she had said that she killed herself. Lawsuit. Show cancellation.

But I agree it's a two-sided issue. There's not a whole lot of daylight between an exploitative show like this and a charity like Project Smile, which everyone agrees helps thousands of disfigured children annually and doesn't mind hawking their faces in its literature. Don't blame the show, blame the culture's voyeurism universally low ethical standards.

Egomet Bonmot, Los Angeles, CA

Who cares?

Bob, New York, NY

I can see the issue about the followup concern. Are the doctors associated with this procedure going to be expected to do followups later if they arise, and if so, are the patients going to be expected to pay for these. If a budget constraint is the main reason for being part of the show, then what if they cant afford a followup procedure if complications arise? Also the psychological stand point, some people will experience a major life change after the surgery, and if they cannot cope with it, who is going to pay for the counseling they deserve. If all of these factors are agreed to be paid for by the production company, then I don't see an issue with a show like this, that would be my only concern.

Matt, Shreveport, LA, USA

what is this planet coming to!

Ron, Jackson H, usa

Why should anyone have a say in this other than those involved. No one who knowingly and without coercion consents to a mutually beneficial arrangement like this. All of the featured guests must believe that this will help their problems, and they, not the public, are the rightful decision-makers about their lives. If producers are able to make money helping disfigured individuals to have a higher quality of life, it is pure spite and tyranny to forbid it.

Dick Clark, Cambridge, MA

I don’t see what the problem is for a show like this. I think that there was another show on one of the big networks that was about giving people “experimental” medical procedures. A lot of the time it saved their life or fixed a horrible problem that was making their quality of life down right bad. It got cancelled pretty quickly and I never heard why. Just look at “Extreme Home Makeover”, they exploit peoples grief, yet you would be hard pressed to find someone that thinks it is not a wonderful program that is helping people.

Chris G., Spokane, Washington, U.S.A.

I suspect this may be an example of charities who don't want the problem they exist for to actually be solved (unless they are the ones solving it) simply because their existence is dependent upon the perpetuation of the problem. Whenever I see people becoming outraged because someone has come up with a clever way of helping others, and coming up with all sorts of twisted reasons why it is "inappropriate" -- and the people who are the "outraged" ones are part of the so-called "helping-profession" -- then I wonder, are these people really interested in helping people, or are they interested in exploiting those in need of help?

Damian, Boston, MA, USA

I think the concern is not just for the people on television, but for others with facial disfigument...and also, the general public's perception of people who have these sorts of afflictions.

The concept of "don't like it, don't watch it," is too...simplistic. How many of us have found ourselves (albeit sometimes guilitily) watching a show we really wouldn't want to admit we'd seen?

The reality is that much of John Q. Public is, truthfully, easily lead, and quite often, quick to judge.

A show like this may change how we see people with facial disfigurments--but in what way? Positive, or negative?

Nancy, Glens Falls, USA NY

What arrogant paternalism! People with disfigurements are reasonable and intelligent, are they not? If I were in their shoes and unable to afford reconstructive surgery, I would view this opportunity as a dream come true. My family, friends, lawyer and doctor would also be part of the decision.

In addition, some people may be able to afford surgery and treatment, but are too scared. This sort of program would help them visualize the ups and downs for themselves. It is in the professionals best interest to make this success.
Let's give them a chance, I say!

Steph C , Ottawa, Canada

not suitable for NHS treatment, because of budgetary constraints, oversubscription or case suitability

It would be interesting if only the above was investigated as to who decides who gets what and why.

H, Sarasota, FL USA

Perhaps if this Government had not destroyed the NHS this type of self publicity would not be necessary. Sooner Labour goes the better !.

Sergei, London, UK

Think "The Running Man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Running_Man_(film))

"We want to offer consultation about surgery to people who perhaps are not suitable for NHS treatment, because of budgetary constraints, oversubscription or case suitability."

Philip, Haywards Heath,

Randy, yes very simple.

Don't like it = Don't watch it.

Don't want to be on TV = Don't apply.

Mike, WI, USA

Sounds like a hoax.

Gerry, Glasgow,

No one is forcing these disfigured people to go on TV and receive free therapy and surgery. This is basically a grant. If they are not happy with their story being on the TV, they can choose not to apply and leave it for someone else. Simple.

Randy, Muscat,

Nobody can speak on behalf of somebody else. Each of us is a unique individual who can only know in his or her own mind what is "right" for them at any given time. Nobody, doctors included, has the right to take that away from anyone.

Doctors are theoretically more qualified than a bartender to resolve medical conditions. Beyond that their expertise ends.

It's fine and appropriate that a doctor point out all the risks and possible negatives that can result if and when specific medical proceedures are carried out in hopes of resolving a specific medical condition. However, beyond that their opinions are not a bit better than the ones offered by the bartender down at the local pub.

Nobody but the disabled qualifies to speak for the disabled and even then that disabled individual can only speak for himself.

Ed, Haynesville, Louisiana

You know who isn't complaining about being exploited?

The people with the disfigurations. Why do so many people assume they have to speak for disabled? We have our own voice.

These meddling doctors are ridiculous. I have many scars and disfigurations. If I could be on a show that would pay to have these fixed, even if they televised me on the toilet or crying or making love to my wife, I would be there in a second.

Exploiting us? Give me a break. Mind your own business and let us make our own decisions.

Robert Hernandez, Cincinnati,