Citation

Schramme T. Bioethics 2008; 22(1): 8-15.

Affiliation

University of Wales Swansea - School of Health Science, Centre for Philosophy, Humanities and Law in Health Care, UK. t.schramme@swansea.ac.uk

Comment In:

Bioethics 2008;22(8):455-6

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x

PMID

18154584

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.

Language: en