Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

SHOULD WE PREVENT NON-THERAPEUTIC MUTILATION AND EXTREME BODY MODIFICATION?

Buy Article:

$52.00 + tax (Refund Policy)

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.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: body modification; duties to oneself; harm to self; mutilation; paternalism; voluntariness

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: January 1, 2008

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more