Premium
SHOULD WE PREVENT NON‐THERAPEUTIC MUTILATION AND EXTREME BODY MODIFICATION?
Author(s) -
SCHRAMME THOMAS
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
bioethics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.494
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1467-8519
pISSN - 0269-9702
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x
Subject(s) - irrationality , argument (complex analysis) , flesh , bodily integrity , psychology , philosophy , epistemology , medicine , law , political science , rationality , chemistry , food science
In this paper, I discuss several arguments against non‐therapeutic mutilation. Interventions into bodily integrity, which do not serve a therapeutic purpose and are not regarded as aesthetically acceptable by the majority, e.g. tongue splitting, branding and flesh stapling, are now practised, but, however, are still seen as a kind of ‘aberration’ that ought not to be allowed. I reject several arguments for a possible ban on these body modifications. I find the common pathologisation of body modifications, Kant's argument of duties to oneself and the objection from irrationality all wanting. In conclusion, I see no convincing support for prohibition of voluntary mutilations.