Psychologist Blinds Woman to Make Her Happy

Deleted User wrote: »

No idea if they do - but indeed - but what constitutes "harm" will very much impact the ethical debate on how to treat the various forms of BIID. It certainly is not as black and white as simply declaring the removal of a limb or organ as being a "harm". There is a greater and wider debate to be had on how to genuinely help these people - though as I said above I hope an actual treatment comes to light before such a debate has us making any errors.

But even a treatment would be morally tumultuous. At some level it involves medically altering someone's very identity. And history has shown us that does not sit well in moral discourse.

Imagine as an over simplified analogous thought experiment if trans-gender issues could be "cured" by simply realigning some internal mental representation of identity with the physical reality someone finds themselves in. That is to say - someone who has known from birth they are the "wrong" sex - and has identified thusly their entire life. What are the moral implications of walking up to such a person and saying "Yup - we can quite easily cure this for you".

You would be essentially offering to delete a large part of what made that person who they are - for their entire life - and to what end? To merely conform to what we consider "normal"? How different is this from someone who feels their left arm - or their ability to see - is alien and needs to go?

I hope a "treatment" for ALL these cases becomes an option for all of them in the future. I am all for options. But it will be interesting to see how many refuse it if it comes - and says "No thanks - keep your treatment - just lop off the arm".

You bring up a really interesting point there. It's similar to some people in the deaf community who have reacted negatively to medical advancements such as the cochlear implant, as they are happy being deaf as they don't see it as a disability but rather being part of a community or a culture and they shun any medical aids to help them to hear.

As for the woman in the OP, and for people who identify as ''transabled'', well it is just a mindfcuk for me really. On the one hand I think that these people desperately need psychological help, but if there really is no ''cure'' as such, and these urges or intrusive thoughts about their limbs or bodies cause them so much pain that they consider or attempt suicide, then perhaps the best thing to do is to remove the limb that is causing them so much mental anguish. At least until some sort of psychological support can ease the symptoms this is an option, though it doesn't sit well with me either, I don't envy being a psychologist attempting to treat a patient like this, when the ''cure'' seems to be so obvious, but so radical and I wonder if it the best outcome for the patient. This woman is happy now that she is blind, but I do not believe that any psychologist should have helped her to become blind, regardless of how much she was suffering mentally. However, as another poster said, shouldn't your body be yours for you to do what you please with it? Is it entirely different to body modification or cosmetic surgeries? I am going to watch the documentary that Nachobusiness embedded in his OP because I find this all really interesting.