as long as they are deemed sane.

Hmm....

"Neil Levy and Tim Bayne argue that patients obsessed with having a limb amputated should be able to have it safely removed by a surgeon, as long as they are deemed sane."

My question is whether "they" refers to "patients", "a surgeon", or "Neil Levy and Tim Bayne"...

Amputee wannabees who are obsessed yet sane? Is this a joke?

The words "Catch 22" come to mind...

Apparently some people will do anything to get a decent parking space.

Remember when philosophy was about wisdom?

Why should insanity be a bar to enjoying all the benefits and pleasures of this exciting development? Just ask the spouse what the true wishes are and you're off to the races.

Look for piercing to become passe, as the pirate look of hook-hand and pegleg becomes required at the hot nightspots...

This is actually a useful discussion. It presents an opportunity to assert principles of reason and morality as to why this is not an acceptable procedure, beyond merely grunting, "Me no like!"

It turns out that voluntarily maiming oneself is unjust to the communuity which in many ways incurs costs associated with handicaps--special parking places are only one example of these. This destructive insanityis where to Roe v. Wade train of thought takes one.

Makes you rethink your oposition to electroshock, don't it?

I cannot speak about the motives of the hypothetical patient, however, wishing to have a limb removed can seem sane, at least so far as Scripture is concerned.

Matthew 5:29: "And if thy right hand offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee, for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not[that}thy whole body should be cast into hell."

This, of course, followed an injunction to remove an eye under similar circumstances, when lust is involved. Consider that.

Now as a mere Christian, I think I get the point that the Author of Creation was trying to make. The same was attempting to illustrate in ghastly terms that hooking up for the moment is not right. Babies are potentially involved and cannot not be ignored. In saying this, He assumed that we, made in His image, can understand what a meta is phor.

For those who cannot, there are always those who choose to believe in a literal understanding of the Koran.

Or the Bible.

A very perplexing dilemma.

However, it doesn't look at the other side of the problem.

The Hippocratic Oath (or something like it) commands that doctors first do no harm.

So asserting in the affirmative that those who are obsessed with amputating a limb does not impose upon doctors the obligation to perform the amputation, and, further, would seem to argue strongly against such a procedure.

Heck, if these people are so damn obsessed, then let them practice some DIY surgery. No need to involve anyone else.

Robert has it right - it is far easier to stir up their brain tissue than to cut off a limb or two. Or perhaps we should start with their noses?

Sadly, philosophy hasn't been about wisdom since Ockham; and doesn't the name "Journal of Applied Philosophy" give you the creeps?

Jeff:

How is it perplexing? They're ill.

"They're ill"

The technical term in "sicko".

Well the high court better get busy on their research. There can only be so many emanations from penumbras out there. They have already used several. You just know some conservative busybody will try to interfere with a person's right to cut off an arm or leg. Gaia protect us.

From the little I know about it, the people who suffer (?) from this state of mind truely feel that parts of their body are wrong. Many will go to the extreme of trying to remove limbs themselves - using knives, home-made guillotines, deliberate car accidents etc.
Surely it is better to allow these people to remove limbs surgically, sterilly, safely?
We allow women to remove a uterus they don't want to have children with, both sexes to have tubes tied (thereby effectively removing those organs), woman have breast reductions. All body parts the owners feel they can do without (or with less of). The amputee-wannabe's do not feel complete with a full set of limbs, so why do we make them keep them? We are in a society which now expects that people adjust the way they look to the way they want to look (nose to big? few more wrinkles? boobs not perky enough?). Why not allow these guys to as well?

Because it's crazy.

And bgecause those other procedures should be banned too unless necessary to the patient's physical well-being.

So what is a healthy person? Someone with all limbs and mentally incapable of dealing with that, or someone with less and perfectly happy with that state of being?

Someone with all their limbs and mentally capable. Taking their limbs because they're mentally ill is like accepting paedophilia, schizophrenia or homosexuality as "normal." It's part of the modernist trend of mainstreaming illness and evil.

Boy, contemporary philosophy continues to show its' worth.

"Someone with all their limbs and mentally capable."

Aren't you then also implying that people without limbs who are happy and adjusted to that fact are not healthy?

Likening it to mainstream evil is, I feel, a bit too much. To me, mainstream evil is Tarantino films and armed schoolchildren. A desire to chop the limbs off OTHER people would also count, however this isn't the case here.

I see no reason why it should be such an issue. It's their body, to do with as they will. Blue hair? Fine. Tattoos/piercing? Fine. Fake breasts? Fine. Volunteering your body for other another Army's target practice? Encouraged even. Subcision? In some cultures no problem. Suicide? Well that's their thing, not mine. Don't like your leg? Your business, that's fine.

wtw:

Tatoos, piercings, hair dyes and fake boobs can be reversed pretty easily and are seen as fashion accessories.

Replacing chopped-off limbs isn't. Since it is the mentally disturbed who request limb removal is it responsible to fulfil a request that results from an addled state?

Several cases I know of have been fully psychologically examined and determined that they are in no way "addled", confused or unaware of the irreversability of this desire. They also didn't suffer from schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. To us following the codex of a modern Western society, the wish to remove limbs is certainly not "normal", but that does not necessarily mean that it is wrong for these individuals.

wtw:

It is ill in and of itself to be that disassociated from your corporeal form. Just because moderrn psychiatry insists nothing anyone does is wrong doesn't mean decent people have to accept the verdict.

So how do you propose "fixing" them? It is all well and good to criticize the proposed "treatment", but perhaps something more constructive is in order? Most have been in therapy for years and that hasn't helped; to paraphrase The Verve: "the drugs don't work" and their final option is an option closed to you. What's left is lying on railway tracks or using a shotgun on their leg.

Saying "This is WRONG full stop" doesn't help them in anyway, nor does it aid our society when we have people in constant therapy, or on drugs, or continually attempting to harm themselves.

Of course it aids society to draw lines and say that there are things we won't tolerate nor allow other people to participate in.

Certainly when it comes to how people interact with each other. However this is about how they interact with their own bodies.

There's no difference.

Yes there is. Ownership is 95% of the law.

Law?

" patients obsessed with having a limb amputated"

"as long as they are deemed sane."

"As long as no other [b]effective[/b] treatment for their disorder is available, surgeons ought to be allowed to accede to their requests,"

Seems awfully subjective.

Personally I don't trust modern psychiatry or its' practicioners enough to allow them to decide whether person A ought to have their limbs removed.

And really this appears to be another of the profession's attempts to have f*****-up behaviour classified as a genuine malady.

If they want their limbs removed they can do it themselves.

I think that´s a large part of the point. They WILL do it themselves, so why not let it be done in a way that is safer than cutting it off in their basement?

what makes you think they will stop after one, two, three, or all limbs ? if they do it to themselves then so be it, but we as a society should declare this behavior as a sign of mental illness. why not just put them under, put in some fake stitches, and tell them they have a "new" limb when they wake up. or even better, try and cure them of their malady.

I am glad to see Orrin acknowledging decency.

Now, if he can just explain the difference between wanting a doctor to cut off your arm and applying to the pope to scourge yourself.

The Catholics say they give permission only to the mentally OK.

wtw:

Evil shouldn't be made safe.

The Pope doesn't allow you to cut your limbs off. Self-mortification is perfectly healthy.

Perhaps OJ would find the suffers' suicide preferable to one or several missing limbs.

Also, OJ should read the biographies of many female saints to find out how healthy self-mortification is.

Jeff:

It would certainly be preferable for them to kill themselves than for us to degrade our society by pretending there's nothing wrong with them. We can'tt make people get well, but we needn't make ourselves as ill as they.

'Self-mortification is perfectly healthy.'

Orrin, you are so easy to lead down the primrose path.

Harry:

It's only a problem for those who worship themselves.

Now, who's opinion changes if the operation in question is a male-to-female sex change?

the wife's?

During the Victorian era, young women had to wear corsets, which were the fashion equivalent of a boa constrictor. Most women who wore these through their development years ended up with severely restricted lung capacity.

I'm not sure how it fits in here, just another example of socially sanctioned self-mutiliation.

Robert:

It fits perfectly because it's a nonsensical urban legend that corsets had dire health consequernces.