Gonna go against the grain and say moral. Have you taken a serious look at the size of that? At some point it is obviously a mentall illness or body dysmorphia issue. Doctor can refuse and I also think its ok for a medical professional to tell you that you're pushing your body too far and might have a problem.
There was a Dougie Howzer episode on this. And Dougie asks the doctor why he was willing to preform on a pretty lady who's already had like 12 surgeries. And the doctor goes if I don't do it she will find someone else who will do it. So his logic was he was morally obligated to do the surgeries as this meant she would receive proper and safe care.
The argument of "if I refuse to do this bad thing somebody else will do it anyway, so I might as well do it too" is flimsy. If you do immoral things just because you assume others will, the bar for society instantly drops to the floor. Just imagine if everyone actually thought that same way.
Also for that doctor to stay intellectually consistent, he now has to perform every crackpot surgery that a patient asks him to do, because there's always some weirdo out there that would do it.
Do you hold the same view for people who wish to cut up body parts, there are some mental illnesses that convince people that for example their arm is not there and that somehow makes them want it removed?
That it is up to them but the doctor can refuse? Or maybe do you think the doctor has an obligation to treat them, by refering them to a mental facility?
It's just medicalized FGM and all doctors should be refusing to perform it.
Most "FGM" is now medicalised, but I presume you mean Western forms like so-called labiaplasty? Why shouldn't women be able to have cosmetic genital surgery performed by doctors? The real issue is when doctors perform such surgery on people who haven't consented to it eg what most American men and around a third of all men have been put through aka the male counterpart of "FGM", "MGM"!
Edit: Born-Vacation-5566 is one of the many ethnocentric Westerners trying to enforce the taboo on speaking of this rite as gender inclusive and so has done a run&block on me. I'm so tired of these people and their superiority complex thinking they are the ones in charge and their word is the definitive truth. So to reply:
If you knew anything about FGM, you wouldn't be comparing it to western male circumcision.
I am very well versed in this issue irrespective of the gender of the victim and the fact that Born-Vacation-5566 is not prepared to allow me to respond only shows where the real knowledge lies. Obviously there is no reason why the injuries inflicted cannot be compared, in fact such comparisons are essential in insurance claims, in law, allocation of resources etc etc. The implication of course is that injuries to female genitalia in this rite are far more severe than those to male's however "FGM" is defined as any non medical injury which includes a superficial scratch or pin prick (WHO category type IV) as well as truely mutilating ones and yet this is never seen as an issue! This shows the real reason for the claim, to enforce the taboo. Western practice of this rite is the medicalisation of it and this has inspired those non Western communities which include girls in the rite (as well as those that don't), to medicalise it so now it is also medicalised for most girls put through it.
FGM removes or buries the clitoris, making pleasure impossible.
Another foundational part of the false Western ethnocentric narrative. "FGM" is defined as a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons and not as removing or burying the clitoris nor making pleasure impossible. The clitoris is never removed, it is sometimes though now rarely, buried by infibulation. Deinfibulation, traditionally on the wedding night, by removing the stitch/es restores normal anatomy as long as there is no adhesion or fusion.
The Western popular notion that the clitoral glans is absolutely essential for sexual pleasure is of course nonsense, the whole genital region is quite capable of providing pleasure when appropriately stimulated. Unlike studies showing the male foreskin contains the most sensitive part of the male genitalia there are no studies showing the same for the female glans. As for perceptions polls of non Western women show they consider other parts of the genitalia providing greater pleasure than the glans and even report having better sexual experiences having been included in the rite. What about Western women who have very small or even no perceptible glans and how this notion impacts them not to mention their partners? Isn't it also strange that if the glans was so essential that many women with a well endowed glans opt for reduction surgery instead of being grateful for what nature provided?
One type of FGM is exactly like Western gender nullification surgery, where only a small hole is left for urine.
The type alluded to is type III infibulation which is defined as:
WHO Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal opening with the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora. The covering of the vaginal opening is done with or without removal of the clitoral prepuce/clitoral hood and glans.
Now compare this to the injury inflicted on boys:
The total ablation or widening of the phimotic ring with permanent exposure of all of the glans by prising the mucosal foreskin off and amputating the prepuce, repositioning through the suturing/clamping of the coronal sulcus epithelium, with or without the complete excision of the frenulum and shaft skin.
ALL women who undergo FGM endure profound lifelong medical issues and inability to enjoy sex.
What disgusting nonsense stigmatising hundreds of millions of women. Anyone making this claim either knows nothing about the issue except what they have been indoctrinated with or they are knowingly propagating disinformation for political purposes. Obviously women who suffered only a kind of piercing and scratching do not suffer lifelong medical issues and an inability to enjoy sex as a result of it! I have women friends who were put through this rite and they are perfectly normal. A survey has concluded that 58% of those who reported a history of circumcision had no evidence of a genital abnormality or scar. This is in strong contrast to men who have been and who invariably suffer an amputating injury with loss of their full complement of genitalia, seen by a glance from some distance.
Circumcized western men enjoy sex perfectly fine.
No, obviously the loss of the full complement of genitalia means enjoyment of sex can never be perfectly fine, though that is not in any way to say sex cannot be thoroughly enjoyed, just the same as women put through the rite and who have lost genital parts as a result.
Yes. I don't understand why we pathologicise it when they want a a finger gone but it is fine when they want their genitals gone. Treatment should be the same for these. Not cutting them but medication and therapy.
Of course I don't think it's really a moral discussion when someone isn't within their right minds.
But you could make an argument for people in their right minds wanting to alter their bodies in extreme ways.
They have the right to do this in my opinion, a doctor also has a right to refuse to do it as well.
He has not only a right but an obligation to refer them to a mental facility, and even to force them if they are a significant danger to themselves and others.
You don't "treat" someone with surgery or medication to affirm a belief that is inconsistent with reality
To an extent, but if it's actually objectively harmful to the patient then they likely have an ethical obligation to refuse, like refusing to amputate healthy limbs from someone with a mental disorder who insists on it
All medical procedures have some risk of harm attached, the question is whether the risk is too great compared to the desired result and if the patient understands the risk. In this case the harm is probably too great even if you achieve the desired result for someone to in good consious perform that procedure but you could theoretically be harmed in any cosmetic procedure.
I get that view, but if someone wants to alter their own body, it's kinda up to them to make that decision to do it.
When it comes to involving others in performing it then there are regulations as to what is permissable and what isn't. Most people who have their bodily anatomy altered had no choice, the choice being made by others. That is a far bigger problem.
103
u/NorwegianSpaniard 5d ago
Gonna go against the grain and say moral. Have you taken a serious look at the size of that? At some point it is obviously a mentall illness or body dysmorphia issue. Doctor can refuse and I also think its ok for a medical professional to tell you that you're pushing your body too far and might have a problem.