title: Should we prevent non-therapeutic mutilation and extreme body modification?
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.
authors.affiliation: University of Wales Swansea - School of Health Science, Centre for Philosophy, Humanities and Law in Health Care, UK. t.schramme@swansea.ac.uk
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Schramme
mesh_terms: D018594:Human Body; D006801:Humans; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010684:Philosophy; D012652:Self Mutilation; D012926:Social Control, Formal