CFS is a trend that's been growing over the last 10 years. For some, it's a way to relieve pain while getting a "foot lift." For others, it's a way to complete the surgical enhancement that began with their face, chest, and legs. In a way, CFS is the "final frontier," cosmetically speaking.

As to public and professional opinion, there are two camps; those who condemn this type of surgery and those who find it beneficial, each side's reasoning based on the perceived need for such procedures.

Any medical procedure involving the foot is usually done for one of three reasons:

1) Medical. The patient is suffering from the pain and discomfort of bunions, spurs, corns, excess bone tissue, broken bones, mallet or hammertoes, or fungus.

2) Reconstructive. Work needs to be done to restore function, or create function where there was none before. Previous surgeries, accidents, birth defects, or complications from cosmetic surgery may be the cause of the debilitation.

3) Cosmetic. A patient may want to be rid of unsightly scars or dark areas on the skin. They may have disfigured toes or complain about feet not fitting into tight-fitting shoes. Regardless of the reason, it is nothing more than plastic surgery done on a healthy, fully-functioning foot to make it look better.

But regardless of the reason, there's an ethical question involved. At what point does a trained and licensed professional tell a client that they will not perform a service the client is willing to pay for?

A podiatrist or orthopedist would shudder at the thought of performing surgery on perfectly good feet just to shorten someone's "ugly" toes. But a person trained in cosmetic surgery may argue that their client's self-esteem is suffering due to their deformed foot, or some Frankenstein-like scars left by a previous surgeon. This doctor knows that the customers are not always right- but they're the ones paying the bills.

But what of the doctor's promise to "do no harm?" Is a person trained in cosmetic surgery breaking that vow by straightening toes, or shortening them, or narrowing the whole foot so it will better fit into that beautiful pair of shoes the patient just spent $250 on- even at the risk of future complications related to the operation? Problems like infection, corns, chronic pain while walking, and nerve damage?

Some will say that they always warn the patient about the risks far in advance, then send them home to think about the wisdom of going through with the procedure. But having done that, what else can the doctor say or do? If the operation is not life-threatening, then it's on the patient's shoulders- or feet, in this case.

Maybe the solution is the one provided by those doctors who combine the best of both worlds- corrective and cosmetic surgery. Or the orthopedic surgeon who, due to better education and technique, follows a new creed: "Do no harm, and leave no scars."