tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post112063056024679361..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Ethics of Gratuitous AmputationRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1162948372423726712006-11-07T20:12:00.000-05:002006-11-07T20:12:00.000-05:00Interesting post, Richard. It reminds me of an ar...Interesting post, Richard. It reminds me of an article in Body Modification Ezine in which two bodymod practitioners made their relationship commitment by <A HREF="http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20050401.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>mutually biting off the first section of their ring fingers.</A><BR/><BR/>"I’m dating flesh, and I want flesh to make a commitment to me ... You can take a ring off your ring finger, but you can never put your ring finger back on once you take it off ... I’m going to skin them and make a pair of amulets so we can each wear each other’s ring finger bones as necklaces."<BR/><BR/>They plan to repeat the procedure with the next segment on their ten year anniversary, and the whole finger on their twentieth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1155494572379823812006-08-13T14:42:00.000-04:002006-08-13T14:42:00.000-04:00When you watch your child go through pain daily si...When you watch your child go through pain daily since toddler to adult and it continues endlessly day after day then this seems a reasonable request. Dentists will extract a tooth that is giving a patient pain. Doctors will remove your appendix or tonsils because it causes pain, infection etc. Many internal organs can be removed or replaced when it poses a physical threat. Well if an individual has researched all alternatives and has consciously considered amputation by choice to relieve pain that is hindering his lifestyle i. e. work, child rearing etc everyday life skills that i believe that individual should be listened to. If a person can not function due to extreme pain, and an amputation would relieve that ongoing pain than i believe he has that right to choose. Once the pain is gone as in this case a leg amputation the person can move forward. People can do many things in wheelchairs. People hold down jobs IN wheelchairs. If a person can not work due to pain, We (tax dollars so to speak) pay. If they can alleviate the pain and go back to work, there goes another person off disability. Ok i will get off my soap box now LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1137631970968758692006-01-18T19:52:00.000-05:002006-01-18T19:52:00.000-05:00I imagine that most people would have no objection...I imagine that most people would have no objection to amputations for medical purposes. (Your desire sounds entirely reasonable, and it's a puzzle why doctors won't allow it.) The other cases are more difficult, philosophically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1134604328189381012005-12-14T18:52:00.000-05:002005-12-14T18:52:00.000-05:00Where do people get the idea that someone who want...Where do people get the idea that someone who wants a limb amputated wants to do it only to get disability payments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1130032704068979832005-10-22T21:58:00.000-04:002005-10-22T21:58:00.000-04:00I am most happy I ran into this post. There are ma...I am most happy I ran into this post. There are many fine points expressed. Productivity of the amputee and the result of amputation as opposed to the result of suffering with BIID, untreated successfully, is a point too. BIID is debilitating and does not give the person with it the ability to be as productive, if at all. There is no question that the amputee candidate should not be given all the pros and cons and the high possibility of Phantom pain which in some cses continues for life, to the one desiring amputation so that they can intelligently make a choice.<BR/>I hope this type of forum or subject continues to provide food for thought on this subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1129940048583464412005-10-21T20:14:00.000-04:002005-10-21T20:14:00.000-04:00Yeah, some good points. I certainly share your exa...Yeah, some good points. I certainly share your exasperation at unreasoned public "outrage" (as should be clear from the main post). The empirical evidence sounds very surprising, and not what people would intuitively expect. So perhaps education is part of the problem. Once people understood that amputation would actually make the BIID sufferer's life go <I>better</I>, it would seem awfully perverse to continue opposing it. (Assuming that no psychological cure will be forthcoming in the near future, as that would surely be the best option, if possible.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1129931745229335622005-10-21T17:55:00.000-04:002005-10-21T17:55:00.000-04:00My apologies--I posted a link with my previous com...My apologies--I posted a link with my previous comment that did not attach. The comments I speak of are those from other blogs, articles, etc, which decry any person who would seek such a thing as "nuts", "crazy", "lunatic", "demented", etc, with no qualifiers as to why this is the case.<BR/><BR/>One of the primary reasons that permission to procede with elective amputations at Falkirk's Imfirmary was withdrawn was because of the violent criticisms and protests that resulted from the media coverage of such treatment--not because of any rational objections to cease the programme. Public outrage/opinion is too often a determining factor the treatment of individuals.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, what constitutes "a significant physical impairment"? Unless we live with a missing limb ourselves, do we really have any right to bring any judgement to bear on how this might/will/could affect the life of an individual? How many times have we been witness to the adamant proclaimations of physicians who tell patient's families that their loved one will never be able to do a, b and c, because of a traumatic injury or disease only to be proven dreadfully wrong?<BR/><BR/>All too often, the limitations of any physical "impairment" are determined by the attitude of the affected person and those around them. Isn't imposing disability on a person by our preconcieved ideas of what a disability "is" even more debilitating than the actual injury itself?<BR/><BR/>So, too, with the assumption that a person who seeks out and recieves elective amputation of one or more limbs is going to depend on disability benefits. Why do we automatically expect that this will be the case? The reseach up to this point has demonstrated that the exact opposite is true--that those patients who *were* recieving benefits before amputation go on to lead fulfilling, productive lives. So, is it fair to say that the idea that we might create a societal burden by allowing such a treatment be, more realistically, an issue of projection and stigma, in and of itself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1129767326368580242005-10-19T20:15:00.000-04:002005-10-19T20:15:00.000-04:00BTW, what "brash stigma" are you talking about?BTW, what "brash stigma" are you talking about?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1129767120518332132005-10-19T20:12:00.000-04:002005-10-19T20:12:00.000-04:00MT, the point of the earlier "medical good" commen...MT, the point of the earlier "medical good" comments was <I>precisely</I> that voluntary amputation is on a par with cosmetic surgery, i.e. doctors should be allowed, but not required, to carry it out.<BR/><BR/>But while I agree with your conclusions, I don't think your reasoning suffices. In particular, the analogy with cosmetic surgery is not good enough. Voluntary amputations leave people with a significant physical impairment, as explained earlier in the comments thread. This is a significant difference. Now, I actually agree with you that the surgery should be allowed all the same, in part because the alternative consequences can be so terrible. But we can't just ignore the difference; it needs to be addressed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1129755876016417492005-10-19T17:04:00.000-04:002005-10-19T17:04:00.000-04:00What about Drs. in Thailand? Even though most woul...What about Drs. in Thailand? Even though most would surely expouse negativity to the idea of removeing a good limb ( going back to Buddhist<BR/>religion ), Thailand has fast become the sex change capital of the world. And Im sure with THAT, there are certainly some items "removed".<BR/>...just passing through and thought I'd drop off a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1129755826288061032005-10-19T17:03:00.000-04:002005-10-19T17:03:00.000-04:00The numbers of BIID/AID sufferers is currently unk...The numbers of BIID/AID sufferers is currently unknown (but is estimated worldwide to be at least several thousand) as the kind of brash stigma illustrated in the comments above needlessly prevents people from being honest with physicians and therapists out of deep shame and embarrassment. But of those known, many are already on disablity because of the clinical depression that often accompanies theie BIID symptoms. Those who do have amputation, however, have been clinically demonstrated to go on to lead very productive lives after resolution of their issue.<BR/><BR/>As to whether elective amputation of limbs is a "medical good", who can tell me what medical good breast implants are for a woman who already has ample cleavage, but still wants (and gets)them. Or lipo-suction for a person who is average weight and height? Rhinoplasty on a person whose nose has no real defect?<BR/><BR/>As long a surgeons can engage in these practises for profit, then there is no legitimate ethical two-way to prevent voluntary amputation on persons who need and want them. The "alternative" is have people endangering their lives to mutilate unwanted limbs to necessitate surgical intervention--that's not a very ethical option, as I reason it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1128448513496261242005-10-04T13:55:00.000-04:002005-10-04T13:55:00.000-04:00Further question: should BIID amputees qualify for...Further question: should BIID amputees qualify for taxpayer-funded disability benefits?<BR/><BR/>How about people who smoke, drink, do drug abuse?<BR/>If they become disabled for example: trombosis from smoking causing amputations, car accidents for drunken or doped drivers that causes the to be disabled, would anybody ask the same question? Would these people qualify for taxpayer-funded disability benefits?<BR/><BR/>How many people become disabled by smoking, drinking, drug abuse and even radical sports?<BR/><BR/>Hom many people want to have a limb amputated?<BR/><BR/>I don´t have these numbers, but I think that the number of BIID patients are very smaller.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1121140348883962982005-07-11T23:52:00.000-04:002005-07-11T23:52:00.000-04:00Though I'm not sure if circumcision (or a sex chan...Though I'm not sure if circumcision (or a sex change) is in any sense a disability. The dodgy thing about these amputations is that they would serve to <I>impair</I> the person, making them less able to perform various actions successfully. Arms and legs are useful and even crucial for many purposes. Foreskins, not so much.<BR/><BR/>So that's a weakness in the analogies. But they are helpful in highlighting our commitment to bodily self-ownership, I suppose.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120743983774178382005-07-07T09:46:00.000-04:002005-07-07T09:46:00.000-04:00Richard's comment 5 is very interesting. I think ...Richard's comment 5 is very interesting. I think that (and I don't take Richard to have challebnged this point) we can force doctors to perform a medical procedure (for here just means if you don't do you will not longer be doctor in this community.) For instance. For instance we can justly force* doctors to treat both black and white heart patients. It might be the case that when we no longer feel as if this force can be levied, then this is a good sign that the doctor is no longer doing "true medicine." The procedure in these cases is elective. No, I doubt we could force* a doctor (even in this limited sense) to give gratuitous amplications in a non-discriminatory fashion. She can give them to whomever she wants to give them to provided that they consent to the procedure. She can even solicit for the procedure if she wishes. Hell, plastic surgeons do it all the time, and this does not seem problematic. Further, it seems wrong to suggest that a doctor cannot perform an elective procedure which places their patient at a social disadvantage. People have a right to place themselves in a social disadvantage if they want to. Odd, but it is surly permissible. Why can't a doctor (provided) she gets consent perform a procedcure which places one in a comparative social disadvantage (having one leg). What's next! The barber won't be permitted to respect the wishes of the punk rocker who wants an outlandish haircut. Imagine the barber saying, "sorry son but my doing this would disadvantage you and for your own good and interests I'm not going to cut yuour hair that way. Of course he can say this, but by the same token there is nothing ethically wrong with him pulling out his barber sheers and cutting the hair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120723191846492122005-07-07T03:59:00.000-04:002005-07-07T03:59:00.000-04:00> identify psychological conditions that obstruct ...> identify psychological conditions that obstruct one in their life pursuits<BR/><BR/>Indeed a utilitarian definition, a good starting point however of course we are all insane because none of us act rationally.<BR/><BR/>> Rather, we act paternalistically because we do not believe that they are in a position to know what is in their own best interests.)<BR/><BR/>Well - you know - I would say that is true of most (even all) humans - in that they do not generally know and certainly dont always act in their own best interests and insane peopel certainly dont always act against their best interests.<BR/><BR/>GeniusNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120698112061755512005-07-06T21:01:00.000-04:002005-07-06T21:01:00.000-04:00CK's post is very interesting, by the way, compari...CK's <A HREF="http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/limbs_ears_and_.html" REL="nofollow">post</A> is very interesting, by the way, comparing BIID patients to (e.g.) deaf people who refuse cochlear implants that would let them hear again. But the latter choice is more understandable, given the flourishing "deaf community" and culture which they are embedded within. Do amputees have a similar sense of community? (Honest question - I have no idea.)<BR/><BR/>Further question: should BIID amputees qualify for taxpayer-funded disability benefits?Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120697825326169672005-07-06T20:57:00.000-04:002005-07-06T20:57:00.000-04:00Yeah, I have no problem with that. The ethical que...Yeah, I have no problem with that. The ethical question here is whether "surgeons ought to be <I>allowed</I> to accede to their requests". I don't think anyone was suggesting that we <I>force</I> them to do so.<BR/><BR/>GNZ - such things are often said, but I think they're mistaken. We can identify psychological conditions that obstruct one in their life pursuits, just as we can physical impediments. If there was some way to cure BIID - i.e. removing the desire rather than the limb - without harmful side-effects, then I think that would be a more appropriate treatment. <I>Especially</I> if the patient consented. But possibly even if not. Successful psychological treatment would solve all the problems (of severe unhappiness, etc.) without the cost of imposing a physical disability.<BR/><BR/>(There is indeed an element of paternalism here, but you have the causal direction backwards. We do not label someone "insane" merely because we want to control them. Rather, we act paternalistically because we do not believe that they are in a position to know what is in their own best interests.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120683507700560652005-07-06T16:58:00.000-04:002005-07-06T16:58:00.000-04:00I basically have to agree with Roark here - I can'...I basically have to agree with Roark here - I can't figure out any compelling ethical reason for a doctor not to comply with that sort of request (given suitable constraints). On the other hand, I don't think there's any reason to imagine doctors to be compelled to perform these surgeries and more than they are compelled to perform any elective, cosmetic surgeries. So barring a good argument against them I don't really see that the issue is an ethical one at all.<BR/><BR/>(Perhaps a religiously based ethical theory might have something to say here? That's the most I can figure out, though.)MHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00573343122387060193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120661762373072722005-07-06T10:56:00.000-04:002005-07-06T10:56:00.000-04:00It seems to be that a doctor may of course perform...It seems to be that a doctor may of course perform this type of procedure if they desire to for payment or whatever, but that if no "medical good" is had from the procedure then a doctor cannot morally be compelled to do such a thing. So I don't think we should prevent the person from undergoing the procdure, but at the same time its up to them to find a doctor willing to do this. And if they cannot find one then so be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120658126114996772005-07-06T09:55:00.000-04:002005-07-06T09:55:00.000-04:00I blogged on this a few months ago, in relationshi...I blogged on this a few months ago, in relationship to arguments for/against sexual orientation and the idea of natural kinds. I'd be interested in your thoughts...<BR/><BR/>http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/limbs_ears_and_.htmlLegacy Userhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110061602523183385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120639848682927162005-07-06T04:50:00.000-04:002005-07-06T04:50:00.000-04:00the problem is that insane just means "thinks in a...the problem is that insane just means "thinks in a way we dont identify with". Or the trait of the people we want to control. It is just a word that classifies all sorts of people we want to control or act paternalistcally towards or whatever. <BR/>GNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com