“Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”, a well-known statement that outlines that beauty is relative to what an individual believes is beautiful. In my paper, I will explore the positive rights of ownership that individuals have to their bodies in the case of desired amputations which should not be hindered by physicians, and then strengthen my claim by comparing the situation to how cosmetic surgery is an accepted surgery where individuals are practicing their positive rights.
I will explore the motives for which the patients wish to be amputated, explain how these individuals are rational and autonomous, compare these conditions to those of cosmetic surgery, and lastly explain my response to said objections. First, before I begin my argument, I will outline the motives of the patients who wish to remove their otherwise seemingly healthy limbs. Tim Bayne and Neil Levy explain how there could be various motives for amputating limbs.
Amongst those listed are the, “mismatch between the wannabe’s (desired amputation) experience of their body and the actual structure of their body…as they experience it.. known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or BIID”, and because “the individual believes , incorrectly, that part of their body is diseased or exceedingly ugly” .
I find these claims that BIID is a real serious experience, plausible, because for example, if an individual had suffered a stroke and from that experience had acquired BIID, after this traumatic experience he or she should have the right to give himself the feeling of being whole, and in control of his body when one of his limbs is immovable.
Strokes are terrible experiences for patience, however the aftermath of the stroke, given that the patient had loss function in a limb could be even worse to experience. Given the option to feel complete, in which all limbs are in sync, would be a fulfilling experience, which would help the patient feel fully functional if desired amputations could be performed for them. I will now argue that those who desire to have their limbs amputated have the ability to be rational and also autonomous, or can self-govern their decisions on their own lives.
Patients are being rational when they are using their own logic and are acting upon this logic. Bayne and Levy outlines, “BIID sufferers meet the reasonable for rationality and autonomy: so as long as no other effective treatment for their disorder is available, surgeons ought to be allowed to accede to their requests” , which supports my claim that these requests are sensible, given that this means will allow the patient to be happy with oneself.
As Bayne and Levy state that patients are being autonomous, I want to stretch the definition of autonomy and what it means to be autonomous. Imagine a college student who had understood that the social norm of her community was to go to college, finish her degree, but after graduation instead of seeking a career, she is expected to marry. Although she is aware of the social norm, a teacher approaches her with many job offers from corporations she has admired and desired to work with since she was a college freshman.
As the students teacher is giving her the option to live happily and the way she desires to live, she also has in hindsight the social norm of marrying after college and being a housewife. In my definition of autonomy, the college student, similar to the patient who desires to have their limbs amputated, has the choice to live happily versus the choice that will satisfy the community and society. The college student is a less extreme paradigm to the given situation of the patient in the way that she is faced with a decision of happiness versus satisfying the community.
In selecting the career, the college student is aware of the consequences of society, but given her own logic she is acting autonomously. Given the circumstances and the known consequences, individuals who desire to be amputated are well aware of their deliberations, and still wish to undergo these surgeries in order to achieve happiness. Next I will argue that all individuals have the right to their own bodies; to remove that right is illegal. Each individual has a positive right to their body and no one else is to own it in anyway after birth.
As exemplified in the case to slavery, in which another individual holds ownership over another’s physical body, an individual without rights to their own body would live miserably. For a surgeon to deny a desired amputation, the surgeon is denying the patient of their rights to their own body. If one is being denied the right to his or her body, the individual denying the patient is immoral by denying the patient the right to his or her body. To extend this idea of positive rights, I will define that to have a positive right must require others to act upon this right.
For example the surgeon is giving the choice to the patient for his or her own body, which shows that the patient has a positive right to his or her body. Therefore, if a surgeon is denying an individual the ability to have an amputation, the surgeon is acting immorally and is denying the patient his or her positive rights to his or her own body. As highlighted before, individuals who experience BIID do not feel as they are themselves, to allow them to remove their alienated limbs grants these individuals to live with integrity and live satisfied.
In Bayne and Levy’s article, they point out how people who desire amputations, “appear to be born out of an inability to change the way in which she ( or he) experiences her (or his) body”, stating how this misfortune that they are experiencing seems like it is unchangeable leaving them hopeless to live miserably. However if surgeons granting requests for amputations, these individuals are given hope to feel whole and live happily. Many individuals live their lives unhappily, and through their unhappy lives they cause themselves unhappy deaths.
These surgeons, as qualified caregivers are indeed supposed to give care to their patients. Surgeons have the role and obligation to give patients comfort and place their needs before their own. Therefore, surgeons are obligated to agree to these amputations, not as good deeds, but in order to fulfill their commitment to being a caregiver. In giving desired amputees their requests, more patients will be able to live happier, more fulfilling lives due to satisfaction with self. This overall formula leads to content people who could live and die with integrity.
To strengthen my claim that allowing patients to have surgery to remove limbs will allow individuals their rights and integrity, I will focus on the issue of cosmetic surgery and its acceptance in our society. Cosmetic surgeons had faced similar criticism addressing the issue of changing one’s looks for self-satisfaction. The critics state, “The practice of cosmetic surgery may be criticized on the grounds that it is fueled by vanity and narcissistic fixation on bodily appearance.
It reinforces intense, concern with body image and culturally prescribed standards”. I disagree with these claims because as culture is static in a way that the need for individuals to change their appearance for satisfaction of the cultural norms or self-satisfaction is universal. As make up, and weight loss services are culturally accepted to promote the culturally valued and idealized “look”, why should cosmetic surgery be denied?
Individuals are scrutinized by society if they are over weight, or have too much hair, not enough hair, a big forehead, and etcetera. Sheldon and Wilkinson state, “cosmetic surgery is sometimes used as a means of improving someone’s mental health, in which case it again seems to be deliberately health-affecting”, to show how cosmetic surgery is more than simply changing appearance for social satisfaction; it is also used to boost moral and improve mental health.
Critics focus heavily downgrading cosmetic surgery in a sense that it holds no purpose, instead it is simply for individuals who desire to improve they appeal to others. However I disagree with this claim because to change one’s appearance for the sake of vanity is extremely different than changing because an individual does not feel accepted within society. Therefore, cosmetic surgery allows individuals to feel secure within them and secure within society. Similar to these claims found in cosmetic surgery are those in my case of individuals who desire to amputate their limbs.
One objection from critics against my claim is that removing limbs is damaging because it will lower an individual’s functionality in society. Critics outline that amputating a limb will deem that individual a non-functional, disabled citizen to society. I will argue this claim by tying it back to my example of the individual who had a stroke and a non-functional limb. With this circumstance, the individual already has the non-functioning limb because of the stroke and simply removing it will not change the functionality of the limb.
If the way an individual is perceived in society is the issue, the look of disability does not define an individual as disabled. One can adapt to society and figure out how to be functional. If morals stand with ethics, all individuals should have the right to their bodies and their integrity. In this paper, I have argued that individuals have the right to their body and integrity. There is, and will continue to be individuals who are unhappy with the body that they are in, and we should not reject them the right to feel whole.