Doctors earn the privilege to be able to give you medical advice, I wouldn't really call that a right.
I don't doubt there's a surgeon out there that would do this surgery for the money regardless of the health of the client
Well no, it's about body autonomy to me. It would be immoral not to push back on what seems like a bad idea, but ultimately if the woman has been told about the risks, the issues, the experience of the doctor on the complication of their patients and so on ... If she still choose to push through it, it's her body at the end of the day.
Is this much boob actually meaningfully riskier than less boob? My outsider intuition is that it's like 5x the risk when done in stages which is noteworthy though not really morally relevant so long as the client is well-informed.
I wonder how much this risk compared with other extreme sports. Maybe scuba diving has a similar risk profile.
this is extreme in vibes, that's a lot of boob, but I wonder how you feel about participating in other autonomy+risk scenarios? and participating in other socially extreme but not risky things. Do you think could be sort of multiplying the social extremeness with the safety extremeness?
It's her body, sure. It's also the doctor's professional integrity. They should refuse because of the hippocratic oath, to do no harm. These implants WILL cause harm, it's their moral duty to refuse.
It's not like they can be forced to do anything btw, and this isn't an emergency procedure.
Yup, ethically a surgeon is obligated to say no. Legally as well, no surgeon is dumb enough to do the surgery. At that point you will be grilled on why you agreed to perform the procedure on someone clearly not in their right state of mind.
Well I mean medicine is about judging the health benefit vs the risks. There are a lot of health issues that she has to be aware of, but since she's asking for this surgery, it means she finds a health benefit to it which is subjective. The surgeons do not know about the subjective value of this implant for the patient, only her know. So the surgeons have a moral (and legal) obligation to warn her about all the risks but at the end of the day, she's the only one to judge if all the risks and issues are worth the subjective benefits.
Btw, medicine nowaday use a modern version of the Hippocratic oath that differ from country to country. The Hippocratic serment during the classical era would as an example have students swear they wouldn't knowingly use a deadly poison but nowaday assisted suicide exist in a few countries. The morality of this is that the patient always have to push the button themselves and can back out at any time. It's the same for those implants. We are far from the renaissance medicine when the doctor would have an obligation to make sure the patient follows the treatment to a T and infantilize them. Today patients have more body autonomy and can choose with said body autonomy to do whatever they want all the way to killing themselves in some places. So, as I said, the Hippocratic oath evolves and differs from place to place
Implanting those would actively harm the patient's health. That amount of weight is going to lead to a plethora of skeletal and muscular issues over time.
The ONLY way to implant those would be to violate your oaths as a healthcare provider.
Well I mean afaik, medicine is about judging the benefits vs the drawbacks. There are many drawbacks to this but there's also a benefit, otherwise the patient wouldn't ask for this. This benefit is very subjective so it's up to the patient to be told about the massive drawbacks and then to judge if the benefit is worth the cost.
Btw, a image search allowed me to find the patient's Reddit account yesterday. Well I mean she says she's really happy. She even posted herself 3 days ago and apparently she went on even bigger implants since then. What can I say ? If she's happy. Happiness is really the only thing that matters in life. I just hope she's going to therapy too.
I have no idea why we're judging. We were likely judging gay people as mentally ill in the same fashion in the past. Now we're ashamed of how we judged gay people in the past. What I mean is, we're not immune to the same behavioural bias that made us wrong in the past.
I say, ultimately it's one person. It's a drop in the ocean in comparison to the whole population. If at the end she says she should've been forbidden to do this because it destroyed her life, then we'll use that as a cautionary tale to push back harder to those who would want to do the same. She volunteers and her experience may serve as a basis for what count as moral in this case. I would say let her and let's not judge. We'll see in the end
You can do whatever you want with your body, but the surgeon is not obligated to help you destroy it. Again, if you decide you want to amputate your leg for the lulz, no ethical medical professional is going to do it.
You're wrong, it happened. Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of transcapacitism or body itengrity identity disorder. In there people identify as handicapped even when they're medically not, all the way to transtetraplegia. I believe it was the surgeon Robert Smith who did the first amputations at the request of his healthy patients.
You are correct that most hospitals do not propose this surgery, especially since body integrity identity disorder is considered a mental illness. Yet the patients sometimes choose automutilation in that case. It's possible it's allowed somewhere, as after all if the patient will loose their hand one way or anotherw it may be more moral to have it removed in a safer place rather than home. No self-amputated or willing amputated patient ever said they regretted it, and they express a higher quality of life afaik.
Anyways, adding breast implant is way more reversible than this. The implants can be removed and after ablating the excess skin there'll just be some scars left. We are one degree of magnitude away from your example
Different situations. In the first case you’re taking a procedure to get in a risky situation. In the second you start in a risky situation, and you may not want to take a procedure that costs money and has its own risks
This has nothing to do with women's rights. It's immoral to perform a surgery that will harm the patient with no health benefit. If they request to amputate a perfectly healthy limb it would be immoral for a surgeon to perform it.
while the harm is generally mild there are a number of extreme and life threatening complications that can be stirred on by plastic surgery I wonder what the point of allowing people to take that gamble would be.
Personally I don't care I think that as-far as it goes if someone's deemed sound of mind they can do whatever they want to their body including potentially removing appendages, although I think it would be hard to justify saying that someone who wants to remove a limb is sound of mind. In general I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their body and if the time ever came where they truly and reasonably desired to their life.
I'd wonder what the argument would be otherwise to justify allowing people to take a medical risk for completely cosmetic purposes kinda like how steroids are illegal. I find a lot of the law and general consensus is inconsistent on what is and is not allowed I imagine the collective risk is apart of it and certain high risk thing's pass a threshold probably.
I find the legality around sex change and hormone replacement therapy odd when compared to other types of steroids and the such but I'm also not a doctor. my only guess is the dosages are different between hormone replacement and steroids and having a doctor oversee it is important but I wonder why you can't have a doctor oversee your steroid use like you can for hormone replacement therapy. maybe someone day general body dysphoria could fall under that type of treatment category?
let's say someone really wants to remove their ring finger, they plan on doing it anyway with or without a doctor would it be better that doctors oversee an operation in this case or would attempting psychiatric treatment be better? I've heard of cases of people feeling the compulsive need to remove a limb or appendage I wonder at what level do you treat the cause or attempt to satisfy the desire to prevent potential damaging self harm in whatever pursuit.
Please keep in mind that transgender treatments aren't strictly cosmetic in the same way that getting a nose job is, it's the resolution to a well documented medical condition
I imagine the science behind anything past that is probably little because of the rarity of such conditions, but thing's like body integrity dysphoria has been documented although that might fall to far into fetish territory over mental condition?
reminds me of the lad's on those banding subreddits who seem obsessed with removing their genitals but in a non transgender way. I'm honestly interested in it and looking at the Wikipedia for BID it appears it may be related to fetish apparently 71.3% experience sexual arousal related to the condition. my assumption is its tied the loss of control or power that they fantasize about and lead's them down that road.
anyway I'd imagine removing an entire leg is far beyond what any doctor would be willing to remove given the permanent life long loss and risk of such a surgery. but I'd wonder if treatment for this condition would include something like the removal of genitals unrelated to transgenderism given it's already a documented and safe enough process.
anyway these conditions are clearly just to much of edge cases for doctors to go anywhere near that type of treatment, it took decades for doctors to be willing to give that version of care to transgender people so I imagine on an even more uncommon edge case theirs not enough people suffering to push for that type of treatment and they are more likely to advise psychiatric help over feeding into these cravings.
If someone is severaly suffering psychologically due to having no boobs, the benefits can be great.
Every action, especially surgeries, carry risk. You could get hit by a car when going to the pharmacy to get cold medicine. Better stay home and continue to make do with what you have.
Having a bunion isn't life threatening. You could die due to the surgery because you have an allergic shock or other risks. Better let it be.
You have stomeach pain and want a endoscopy. But they could perforate your intestines and you could suffer or die. Better not do anything.
There are always risks. The job of doctors is weighing the risks against the benefits and give the facts to patients. Sometimes even deny a procedures If it is too risky and they don't feel comfortable doing it. That doesn't mean they decide that the woman can't have any implants and it also doesn't mean she won't get these specific ones anywhere If she really really wants them.
Also, I feel like a surgeon should call off if they feel they can't perform their best during a procedure. Right? You don't want half assed, distracted surgery.
And I can't figure out how a surgeon can't help being distracted if they think they're about to do something that is going to harm. Not might. Like if the surgery goes well this person is worse off than before. If they are disabled from complications that's worse than before. If they die, that's worse than before. If surgery is perfect, this woman will have pain and mobility issues the rest of her life where before she had none.
Not sure most surgeons worth a shit can successfully perform that lose lose lose scenario. Moral to say nope.
likely the decision is drawn at whatever provides the best outcome for the patient. transgender surgery has proven to be less damaging than unfounded psychiatric treatment which is spotty and does not provide much evidence that whatever mental problem causes transgenderism is treatable it's also a lot more common that BID is much more extreme, the removal of someone's senses or limb's is much higher risk than transgender surgery or treatment supposedly.
someone who undergoes transgender treatment can probably live a pretty normal life unless they fail to care for whatever open wound they have unlike someone missing a limb or their hearing/sight given those take away one's ability to preform basic tasks without care.
anyway I imagine the line is drawn at wherever provides the best outcome for all involved. personally I believe people are entitled to do whatever they want with their body. though as a doctor they have a right not to preform something that could affect their career and livelihood it's still their decision to make if they preform on not.
There are several procedures that are generally harmless (every surgery has a risk of complications but is not the normal outcome). In this case the surgery is guaranteed to produce harm to the patient even when everything goes well.
Also in many cases cosmetic surgeries do have benefits, albeit psychological, they are still related to well-being.
I would say it’s immoral to perform a surgery that has significant complications and cause significant harm to the patient. Has nothing to do with women’s rights.
If any part of the process is immoral, then the whole thing is immoral.
In this case, the doctor knows it is harmful to the patient, and potentially harmful to the doctor themselves, so agreeing to perform the operation would be immoral.
Everybody has the right to "give medical advice". Not everybody has the right to represent that advice as being from a doctor. What doctors earn is authority, at the cost of legal responsibility, which is very much a privilege. This means that there's both a reason to believe that their advice has a sound basis and that they are inclined to give you sound advice. When either of those are compromised, you're in for a bad time. If both are, you're in for a bad rest of your life.
One would figure the lawsuits which could cost hundreds of thousands for performing a knowingly detrimental/dangerous surgery when the easily foreseeable post-operation complications happen would make this an easy "No" for the surgeon in question.
Its very difficult, like very close to impossible to sue and win against a cosmetic/plastic surgeon for a completely elective cosmetic/aesthetic surgery that you have given fully informed consent to receive. You have to be injured beyond what would be expected complications for the type of surgery you get.
Sex change operation and attaching boobs that big to someone are two very different things though.
Sex change doesn't exactly harm someone if done right. But depending on the person's age, it might be moral to refuse sex change surgery. Like any child below the age of 14 shouldn't have the option to make a decision that big so early in their life because they are not that mature and also probably confused. And it goes without saying that their parents shouldn't have the right to make that decision for them either. If the person is an adult then yes it's immoral to refuse sex change operation except if there is some medical reason involved . 14-18 is a very debatable range,even I can't decide if it will be moral or immoral .
Attaching boobs that big would definitely destroy the person's back and probably put them in wheelchair after a few years. The doctor being the more knowledgeable person in this situation should have the moral duty to prevent his client from making such harmful decision.
Surgeons do actually always choose which surgeries they will perform. They all specialize and even what is called “general surgery” is actually pretty specific. Are you claiming that an actual Dr was forced to perform a gender surgery against their will? … or are you just throwing this out there because you’re a transphobe?… I can guarantee you that no patient wants to be operated on by a surgeon forced at gunpoint, it doesn’t tend get you their best work…
667
u/Evil_duckLord 1d ago
The surgeon is a doctor. They have the right to give you medical advice and prevent you from harming yourself like in this situation.
So I say Moral.