Where is the line between a disorder and else?

I'm very much a believer that people should be free to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The trouble I run into is defining "harm to someone else."For instance, in Wisconsin, we have two completely at odds laws. On one hand, it is illegal to drive without a seatbelt, on the other hand it is perfectly legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I tend to side with the people who want to be able to choose (poorly) to drive without a seatbelt. I would never make that choice, but I don't think it should be codified in law.However, if that person drives without a seatbelt, crashes and gets hurt, who is really being harmed. The person driving, obviously, but it was their choice, so "oh well". But then, if they have family, that family is distraught, not to mention perhaps financially dependent on them (or even just paying for their medical bills). Even if the person is completely familyless, they're now in surgery in the ER, taking the spot of someone else who may need surgery but not quite as urgently, or who merely got injured a little bit after the first person.In the case of BIID, I'd like to agree that if they truly want to amputate an appendage, and are mentally competent enough to make that decision, then let them. But then again, if they have a family who depends on them for financial support, or if they'll be thrown onto disability and now taking resources from all tax payers (or others who could use the assistance) based on a choice rather than an accident, I'm less inclined to their side.I guess I'd say, if they can be treated and brought closer to the "mainstream" then that should be the first choice. The thing to look at is again, harm to others. Getting piercings, tattoos, scars, etc doesn't stop a person from being able to work. There may be some positions that won't allow a lot of tattoos or piercings, but that's actually becoming more and more acceptable in many work environments. What removing a part of your body does is remove certain occupations from being a consideration. Without arms, you can't carry things, without legs, you can't do many jobs, etc.It might come down to how "extreme" the removal will be. Removing a pinky probably won't have much of an impact, and if ti will really improve their quality of life, then I say "Off with the finger." If they want to remove their leg or their arm, we need to see what the plan is for after the surgery. If they have a job that doesn't require that appendage, and they'll be able to continue to take car eof their obligations, then again, if it will actually increase their enjoyment of life, let them.Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble, but I'm trying to figure this out myself.

That may be true, though I would say that in the event where I would be thrown from my seat were I not wearing a seatbelt, I'm probably not going to be in much control regardless. Only compared to a driver with a helmet. A motorcycle driver could be thrown into oncoming traffic or walkers on the sidewalk, but I agree, the helmet or lack thereof won't make much difference to those people. I'm torn on this. I think stupid idiots deserve as much healthcare as the rest of us, but I can understand the thought that they need to live (or not) with the consequences of their actions. But again, we're left with the fact that they may not be the only victims in this case. They may have family dependent on them, and now you're depriving them of somene who may be able to provide for the family in the future,given care and treatment, but who won't if left untreated.I guess we could insist that they pay their medical bills, regardless of their insurance status, garnishing their pay and such to ensure full repayment. At the moment, not paying your medical bills has nearly no detrimental effect on you or your credit rating.

And that's what I was getting at. If I knew what to do in those situations, then having the stabilization of a seatbelt would be very beneficial. But seeing as how I don't, the stabilization doesn't help me much if I've pressed the brake as hard as I can and thrown my hands over my eyes.Not that I would do that, but there are a lot of drivers who would. Unfortunately, they don't. If they're dependent on Dad for things like shelter, food, electricity, clothing, etc, then what can they threaten him with, leaving and letting him keep more money?Besides, people tend to have an overinflated sense of their own ability. They figure that people who crash motorcycles just weren't as good as them, since they've never crashed one, so why bother with a helmet that won't be needed?

Unconditional? Really? That seems a bit extreme. Are you really expecting everyone else to pay for Joan Rivers' next face lift?I'm for universal, publicly-funded healthcare for all necessary procedures (and I would even use the most loose definition of necessary), but elective ones should be on the person who wants to have an unnecessary procedure.

Neither do I, but that's why there are conditions on what a person can have done. As you said, if someone "needs" it due to a mental disorder, it could be considered "health care," but if someone just wants to have it done so they can face their next high school reunion, it shouldn't. But it's the exact same procedure.That's why I mention necessity. Determining necessity would require a discussion with the patient, any relevant doctor, and the agency that actually pays out the money.

Well, nothing is "cost-free" it would just come out of everyone's taxes, creating a huge pool of "medical money" set aside for each and every person in the country to dip from when necessary. But yeah, I agree with that.

But that's what I want!or something...mutter, mutter.