02.Suffolk-760-1402-Prohibitions updated 10-08-06, 10-20-2006, 10-30-06, 10-31-06

760-1402 Prohibitions

1.a. Applying any Body Art Procedure to the eyeball, the eyelid(s) or any surface within the orbit of the eye.

Eyelid Tattooing the eyelid is an established practice for permanent cosmetic application for at least the last 15 years. Without evidence that the procedure is causing harm or disease the current practice should not be prohibited.

The Eyeball Tattoo was performed live on June 13, 2015 at the 18th Annual NYC Tattoo Convention by Famous Harvard Eye Surgeon Dr. Emil Chynn with the most technologically advanced tattoo equipment and Electra-Pro Sterile Pigments by Unimax Supply Co. Inc..

The following has been edited on June 15th to bring things up to date.

Eyeball This procedure by Dr. Chynn on June 13, 2015 was the 5th eye correction he performed.
A lot has changed in 10 years between the level of tattooing and the willingness of surgeons to look to the tattoo world for answers to some perplexing problems. I had written 10 years ago that the idea of tattoo shops tattooing eyeballs was an impossible thought. But Unimax now produces sterile pigment and provides amazing machines and innovative needles that can do the jojb with careful training.
The reason (and flaw) for including the eyeball tattoo in the Article is that medical doctors labeled what they were doing as "tattooing” because they used a similar technique, hand-poke tattoo technique, but they are not making tattoos in our traditional sense but as a quasi-medical procedure. 
It is possible this can be done but it requires more than just a video because serious irreparable harm can be done. The future is unknown so I believe it should not be included as a ban because that is forever.

b. Implants

The medical use of implants is still under development and research in the medical community. It is common knowledge that only medically trained individuals with FDA approved implantable devices are allowed to implant.

The body art community knows that medical licenses are needed to perform medical implants. Piercers do not engage in medical procedures.  These procedures are known and accepted as illegal. Including this as a specific prohibition is not instructive not helpful nor will it serve as a deterrent to illegal practices.

If the board wants to emphasize a "get tough" policy, that would be an enforcement issue unrelated to body art regulations. If a person is practicing medicine without a license, they are subject to those laws and regulations designed to prohibit practicing medicine without a license.  This should not be part of the proposal.

c. Branding
Branding is little practiced but is not shown to be a public health issue. It is not reasonable to call it a medical procedure and the offered justification for its prohibition is a complete invention. This should not appear.

d. Scarification
Scarification has the same concerns as branding. There is no justification for inclusion as a prohibited activity. This should not appear.

e. Mucosal or non-dermal tissue
Tongue, lip, labret, and nose piercing have a long and successful history, practiced for thousands of years in every culture in the world.  These piercings are not shown to have a high rate of medical complications. The "Pace Study" used by the Board to support this prohibition clearly comes to the opposite conclusion. In the study 6% reported mucosal complications compared to 24% who reported navel complications (the most). Navels and ears should have been prohibited but tongue piercing allowed. 
The all inclusive phrase "any body art procedure to any mucosal or non-dermal tissue" includes: permanent cosmetic lip tattooing, nose piercing, labret, septum and tattooing inside the lip and all genital piercings. This prohibition must be removed.

We are sensitive to the criticisms from the Dental Community and have dealt with many issues to address their concerns. Manufacturers are the driving force behind the developing technology. For example, we now have soft, flexible tongue and labret jewelry that solves the most serious objection: damage.  The Board's response by prohibiting these piercings is to discourage technological solutions to problems. We think this is decidedly anti-science and should be looked at in other areas as well. These piercings should not be prohibited.

f. Genitalia or genital areas
The justification for this ban was attempted by lifting one half of a quote and leaving off the all-important dependent clause: the rest of the sentence that reads: "...and any other procedures which fall under the definition of FGM."  

This is the definition: according to WHO and all commentators:

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the term used to refer to the removal of part, or all, of the female genitalia. Cutting off the clitoris is the mildest form of female genital mutilation.

The WHO report on Female Genital Mutilation did not imply that tattooing or piercing the genital area falls under the definition of FGM. The definition of FGM was ignored to allow justification for the prohibition.  This kind of scholarship raises serious concern.

In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt the terminology "mutilation" to reinforce the idea that FGM is a violation of girls’ and women’s rights.  It is usually done on girls under 10. More than 100 million women and girls worldwide are believed to have undergone genital cutting, the U.N. health agency said.

 Most Human rights organizations in the West, Africa, and Asia consider female genital cutting rituals a violation of women's human rights. Among these groups and governments, they are regarded as unacceptable and illegal forms of body modification and mutilation of those believed to be too young or otherwise unable to give informed consent. http://www.answers.com/topic/female-genital-mutilation. 

Female genital cutting (FGC) refers to amputation of any part of the female genitalia for cultural rather than medical reasons, not including genital modification of intersexuals or gender reassignment surgery.

Failing to mention that tattooing and piercing do not fall under the definition of FGM, (amputation, removal of any part of a young girl's clitoris), trivializes FGM, shows such insensitivity by the Board to FGM and such a vile accusation against Suffolk County shops that the board, out of decency, should resign.

f. Tattooing beneath the epidermal & dermal skin layers

This reference is incomprehensible seeming to mean tattooing internal organs. This is a further example of circus bizarre ideas that must be removed.  Who can understand what this means.

g. Skin Braiding

Another bizarre reference to an unknown procedure which has no standing as a body art procedure and must be removed.

h. Bones

Another seeming attempt to discredit the sobriety of the body art community that has no cause to be included. This is not considered a body art procedure.

This list of prohibitions has no place within the Article.

i. Tongue-splitting
If tongue-splitting is prohibited by NY CLS Pub Health Sec. 470 (2006) -we are unable to locate this reference -- it does not become a subject of duplicate and conflicting enforcement procedures and penalties and does not need to be re-iterated here. The regulations are not the teaching tool. Explanations of the standards are the appropriate place for a discussion of the intent of the act. This too if considered a medical procedure should be the subject of enforcement.

In summary, Section 760-1402 should be removed entirely.

An Article of this importance must be written by persons who have epidemiologic skills, knowledge of OSHA and CDC standards and an intimate knowledge of tattoo and piercing.

These are personal views and opinions of Wes Wood and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Unimax Supply Co Inc.
Copyright 2006