It's no secret
the culture has shifted regarding the personalizing of one's body. I've been
exploring the question of body modification in a series of articles where I hope
to bring some clarity to this contentious issue. I first argued that the
human body holds intrinsic worth; the body has value in itself as opposed to
merely having value because we give it value. Thus, we should be thoughtful as
Christians when thinking about any kind of body modification.
In my last
article, I also said that
one shouldn't discount any type of modification as some kind of violation of
that worth. I offered reconstructive surgery, braces, hair plugs, or even
certain forms of tattoos as examples that demonstrate one cannot simply classify
any tattooing or body modification as sinful or wrong. But those fall into one
aspect of the four different classifications of body modification. There are
other types of modifications that are not so easily dismissed.
Further
complicating the issue is the question of personal autonomy. As human beings, we
know our bodies better than anyone else. We control them and they affect us, not
others. If we wish to alter our bodies, shouldn't we have that right? Even some
of the more extreme cases, most people are reticent to tell others they cannot
do as they wish with their bodies.
Take Pixee Fox, a North Carolina woman who had several plastic surgeries
including 1400cc breast implants and the removal of six ribs to provide a
cartoon-like hourglass shape. Most may call such actions foolish, but would they
describe them as sinful or wrong?
Damage for Self-Fulfillment
I think
there are instances where certain modifications that present themselves as
violating the inherent worth of the body and shouldn't be allowed, even
though they may infringe on the autonomy of the person requesting them. There
are of course modifications done forcibly against one's will or before one can
give consent, such as female genital mutilation. Since informed self-choice
doesn't really factor into such cases, I would consider them separate issues.
I'd like to look at a group of people that are becoming better documented in
medical literature. These people suffer from a condition called
Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) and
they have the common trait in feeling that one of their body parts is foreign to
them and needs to be amputated. Realize these are healthy limbs or
appendages that function normally; there is nothing physically wrong with them.
Those with BIID, though, "feel ‘over complete' and want to have the alien limb
amputated."
1 They will seek out medical intervention,
although there are no hospitals that currently allow the amputation of healthy
limbs.
2
Many may say that such an extreme condition is
clearly a mental disorder, and shouldn't be included in a discussion on body
modification, but some in the medical community feel the issue isn't quite that
cut and dry. Tim Bayne and Neil Levy argue that patients suffering from BIID
have an autonomous right to modify their body just as those who undergo extreme
breast enlargements or other plastic surgeries have the right to alter healthy
body parts for their satisfaction. They note that reproductive surgeries, such
as tubal ligation or vasectomy cripple healthy organs, too. They also state BIID
patients "who succeed in procuring an amputation seem to experience a
significant and lasting increase in wellbeing" and stop seeking to
self-amputate, which is much more dangerous and has led to death in prior cases.
3
An Autonomous Lifelong Desire
Sabine Müller
points out that those suffering from BIID are not making their choice off the
cuff. Instead, they have agonized over their foreign limb and they report having
these feelings since childhood. She states "Because of the early onset of the
disturbance of the body image, BIID patients cannot remember a life in which the
affected limb was integrated into the body image."
4
Annemarie Bridy argues the initial revulsion over removing the offending limb as
a form of treatment may be simply showing a bias most people have. She writes:
In contemporary society, the body is regarded not as a physiological given
to which we must reconcile ourselves, but as a malleable instrument of
self-expression amenable to a wide range of medical and surgical
interventions…
At the turn of the twentieth century, many physicians
believed that cosmetic surgery undermined fundamental tenets of the medical
profession by violating the ethical injunction against doing harm…. Body
parts perceived to be too small are augmented; those which are thought to be
too large are reduced in size or prominence. While the dramatic shift in
attitudes toward cosmetic surgery hardly forces the conclusion that elective
amputation will one day be as common as rhinoplasty is today, it does
suggest that beliefs about the integrity of the body and the nature of
bodily harm are culturally mediated and historically contingent. As
anomalous as it may seem when viewed in a historical vacuum, elective
amputation becomes less incomprehensible when it is viewed as a
manifestation of the continuing social and cultural evolution of attitudes
toward the body and its modification.5
What further complicates the issue is the question of autonomy. All of those
writing on this issue underscore how important it is to respect autonomous
decisions by the patient even when we disagree with their decision. Bayne and
Levy point to decisions based on religious autonomy that may be harmful, such as
Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.
6
Yet, not all procedures are morally justified by claims of autonomy. Müller
uses the example of an anorexic patient who deeply desires stomach-stapling
surgery.
7
Where Do We Draw the Line?
While Bridy along with Bayne and Levy see circumstances where they believe
amputation of healthy limbs is permissible for BIID patients, I agree with
Müller who sees the condition as primarily a psychiatric affliction that should
be treated as such. As a Christian, I would recognize the body has a telos, that
is it shows design for a purpose. To claim that one's arm or leg is foreign to
the individual is to claim there is no objective telos to the body. The only
value or purpose the body has is whatever the individual wishes to ascribe to
it. Those with BIID are being honest in their feelings of detachment from one of
their limbs and their misery in their current state. However, they seem to
believe their mental state should dictate their physical state. This doesn't
follow for me. Anorexics have mental states seeing themselves as fat, but
it would be immoral to allow them to modify their bodies through stomach
stapling or some other procedure. It is their mental understanding that is
failing them.
BIID is an extreme aspect of body modification. I would argue
it holds strong parallels to those who seek sexual reassignment surgery and the
issues are nearly identical, although individuals who claim to be transgendered do have the opportunity to modify their bodies to match their mental state while BIID patients do not. Why? What's the difference? One
of the reasons for opposing SRS is that it also disregards the intrinsic worth
of the body and gives subjective value to it.
The real question, though, is just
how far down the road should Christians go? What about less drastic forms of body modification? Where do we cross the line from
personal expression and harmless autonomous choices to demonstrating a
subjective value for the body God gave us? Does tongue-splitting qualify? How
about vasectomy or tubal ligation? These aren't easy questions, but in a future
article I hope to perhaps offer some guidelines to explore them more fully.
References
.
