SHOULD WE PREVENT NON‐THERAPEUTIC MUTILATION AND EXTREME BODY MODIFICATION?
- 5 June 2007
- Vol. 22 (1), 8-15
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Amputees By Choice: Body Integrity Identity Disorder and the Ethics of AmputationJournal of Applied Philosophy, 2005
- Aristotle: Nicomachean EthicsPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2000
- First Report of Nonpsychotic Self-Cannibalism (Autophagy), Tongue Splitting, and Scar Patterns (Scarification) as an Extreme Form of Cultural Body Modification in a Western CivilizationAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology, 1999
- Body Modification, Self-Mutilation and Agency in Media Accounts of a SubcultureBody & Society, 1999
- Female Genital Mutilation and Cosmetic Surgery: Regulating Non‐Therapeutic Body ModificationBioethics, 1998
- Consequences of foot binding among older women in Beijing, China.American Journal of Public Health, 1997
- On Duties to OneselfEthics, 1959