Amputee wannabes

Remove all ads!

There have been more and more cases of people having healthy limbs removed. Some make it so that the limb has to be removed, sometimes, however, surgeons agree to remove a healthy limb.

Some doctors claim limb removal is treatment for apotemnophilia or BIID -- Body Integrity Identity Disorder.

1. What do you think about the desire to have a limb removed?

2. Should people who willingly have their healthy limbs removed receive any help from their country in removing them or in living the life of a disabled person afterwards?

3. Should doctors be allowed to remove a healthy limb, disallowed but not punished or downright forbidden and punished for doing it? Or maybe you believe that doctors should have no right to refuse to remove the healthy limb of an insistent patient.

Link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=pl&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=amputee+wannabes&spell=1

 

1. They're bloody insane

2. Absolutely no way. Why should the country pay for their weirdness?

3. No they should refuse. Every operation involving general anaesthesia carries a risk. Why undergo the risk for no good reason?

 

1. It's fairly strange, but different people like different things I guess... Still, that's a bit extreme.

2. No. No, no, nonono! They should get no benefits, they're disabled by choice. It's not like they were in some kind of accident, or a war. They chose this, they live with the consequences.

3. If someone is actually considering doing this, they're not likely to give up after the first doctor says no. It's best they get it done properly, rather than go to a backstreet doctor and end up dead. Still, doctors should be able to refuse to do it.

 

1. It's insane.

2. No and no. The only treatment these people need is psychiatric, and that's the only funding they should get.

3. Doctors should have the right to perform or refuse to perform any procedure that has been licensed by the state, according to their personal morality. Nothing stops a patient from seeing another doctor, and nothing prevents the public from picketing a doctor they think is doing the public a disservice.

 

And what does picketing change? Perhaps he will retire early or move to another town or whatever, but that would be it. I'm not sure I would like to be treated by a doctor who would cut off a healthy limb vecause being a medic is just a job that earns cash. I'd rather stick to those who believe in their vocation. Of course, I already have the right to do that but sometimes I have no choice in practical terms or I simply don't know. And if such things are forbidden, I still don't know if a particular doctor would do it if it were legal, I'll grant you that. But I'm still put off by the idea of such doctors being in public service. Aren't you?

 

I'm sure you're equally put off by the idea of doctors who are willing to perform abortions being in public service, whereas that idea doesn't bother me at all (I was trying to not mention that here, but you're forcing me to make the comparison explicit). Picketing or other forms of protest give other potential patients information about the doctor that they might not otherwise have, thereby allowing them to make an informed choice of their service provider.

If the state or federal medical authority deems such a procedure legitimate, it's not for me to gainsay them - I don't have the expertise to do so. But what I can do is opt to not patronize a doctor who performs that procedure, and let him/her - and, more importantly, the insurance company who's paying the bills - know the reason for my boycott.

 

Just how does this differ from those people who eat themselves to disability?

If you are going to restrict one group of people from disability status then you must restrict others. Otherwise, everyone gets aid according to the law.

Oh, yeah. The individuals are sick puppies and need treatment.

I also agree with Rallymama -- I don't know whether or not the doctor should be punished for the operation (that really depends on the laws of the area the operation is performed). However, the doctor should have REASONABLY known the patient was ill and should be held liable at some later date for performing the operation (one sucessful suit in this procedure should make any doctor hesitant to perform the operation again). However, a doctor should never be required to perform a procedure according to his/her personal beliefs.

 

1.) They're nutso, but its their choice and I suppose it doesn't really harm anything.

2.) No way in H-E-Double Hockey Sticks!

3.) Well, there's always the Hypocratic Oath, but concidering #1, I'll leave it up to them. They should refer the person to a psychologist first, however.

 

The comparison is fitting but it's like I'm forcing you by the sole fact of you knowing my preference, Rally. It's just something you want to say and you think begs for saying, but there's no psychological compulsion there.

And yes, I'm troubled with abortion doctors being in public service because in my eyes their respect for human life is missing, while they are also perjurers by virtue of breaking the oaths they take. It's much worse than having sex with a patient or student and imagine a doctor getting away with that.

@T2Bruno:

When you eat, you eat is because you like eating, not because you want to be fat. When you drink, you drink because you like alcohol, not because you don't like your liver. Having limbs cut off is going straight for the harm, not just indulging in a pleasure with bad side effects. If we blur the border too much, we could end up sending off people who break a limb while jogging (sports are to smoking what smoking is to having healthy limbs removed).

As for laws, medical regulations differ from place to place but severe bodily harm is pretty much the same everywhere. As cutting off a healthy limb on demand is not an act of medical care or treatment, the doctor can't claim his special status as a defence and there's no reason to treat it differently from let's say you or me helping a desperate neighbour with a chainsaw and calling an ambulance. Acquittal would be a fair stretch of imagination in such a case.

Next, if we allow such amputation to take place, imagine what happens when someone regrets that kind of decision and sues the doctor. Or when his wheelchair can't access something. Or when he can't work, do shopping etc. Someone will have to take care of him because he was being stupid 1, 10, 30, 60 years ago. I can easily imagine lawyers starting choice-amputation inequality lawsuits.

Your Honour, my client's amputation was an expression of his self-identity as warranted by amendment/article this and that and he has done nothing illegal to deserve punishment. In shaping his body after its mental image, my client was exercising his right to pursue happiness in the form he desired and doing it he was justified in his expectation of equal treatment with other victims of disability in modern democratic society. Investigating and discriminating against the reasons why he pursued amputation is in violation of his constitutional right to privacy. In addition, failure to provide equal treatment with other disabled persons violates the core principle of equality under law. As such, refusal of healthcare benefits and social aid is unconstitutional... Yadda yadda...

And dmc could do ten times better.

[ April 24, 2006, 18:20: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

That's not true for everyone. For some people these are addictions -- this is no different than anyone else with a mental disorder (including the fruits that want to have their limbs removed).

Chev, your amputee's have a mental condition which prevents them from thinking rationally. One of the many roles of a doctor is to help those who are mentally ill. If the doctor instead chooses to give in to the mentally ill patient's delusions, that doctor violates a basic premise of his/her profession. Attorney's will easily argue the patient was mentally ill and the doctor was extremely negligent in fulfilling the deluded wishes of a mentally ill patient.

 

1. Yes, they're nuts, but so are the rest of us in our own ways. The lengths these people will go to are disturbing, though.

2. No help, other than the minimal amount which is normally provided to disabled people. Because they are disabled now, even if by choice.

3. Doctors should follow their conscience. It's very easy to say, "these people are crazy and need mental help, not surgery". But quite a few people say the same about homosexuals or transsexuals(sp?), and I don't think it's true there either. Most of these people, when the offending limb is removed, lose their psychoses completely and go on to live normal lives with their new disability. OTOH, I have not heard of anyone being 'cured' with therapy, and the psychoses just get worse over time.

 

1. I'd rather die then be disfigured

2. I suppose, they have a mental illness (they do after irrationally pursue a harmful goal, which is damn close to the definition of a mental illness)

3. Undecided, people should have control over their own body, but I question the state of mind then they make such a decision. As the son of a psychologist I can't give the full go ahead before wanting a psych eval.

 

It's tricky because when they are completely sane, they gain the power to make decisions they can't when insane, but they lose excuses they previously had.

 

I find myself in a quagmire in situations like these. The authoritarian in me wants to say, because obviously the loss of a limb in not in said person's best interest. On the other hand, the liberatarian in me says man has to have his freedom and it's that person's body.

 

Yeah, I have some of that libertarian thing too but more in the responsibility sense, i.e. no sparing them the difficulties disabled people normally face. If it weren't bodily harm, I would be in favour of letting them do it and suffer the consequences, but it's irreversible and too close to the body, so to say.

 

1. No desire to have my body disfigured, but if some people want to, so be it.

2. They should get no help. None whatsoever. If they chose to chop off an arm, and they can't work afterwards, they should get no benefits. Look ahead before cutting off...

3. The doctors have the right to say no. Why should they have to choose whether or not to take a perfectly healthy limb or not? Its money for them, but it is kind of wrong... if the person had a serious condition, on the other hand, they should do the best to heal them. But in this situation, they don't, and therefore, the doctors can say no.

 

1: WTF?

2: Hell no.

3: Isn't that a violation of the Hypocratic oath?

 

Gnarff hit the nail on the head with his 3rd response. The first rule is do no harm, and removing an otherwise healthy limb certainly is harming that person. I asked my brother (the one who is a doctor about this) and his he stated that as an emergency room doctor, he will never have to do something like this. Sure, they sometimes have to amputate a limb, but usually it's because it was mangled in a car accident. He wouldn't perform this procedure, and he recommends that people with this condition receive psychiatric care.

 

1. WTF

2. WTF

3. No F*****g way. Treat the psych issue, don't take off good limbs.

 

1. Maybe if there was a medical reason I'd be fine but that's obviously not the case with these people.

2. No financial assistance at all. They're limited to just disabled parking spaces (and that's only if it's their ability to walk).

3. Doctors should seek professional advice from a psychologist before any such operation. They must find what the cause of wanting the limb removed is. If there is indeed some menal issues with the limb that isn't just a fetish in disguise then go ahead and maybe they should also get financial assistance for their condition but this is clutching at straws.

My overall opinion has been summed up by Gnarff and Brall:

W

T

F

?