yenmor writes:
First of all, I am not a troll. I know people on forums love to accuse someone of being a troll when a controversial topic is presented.
That's exactly what a troll would say!
I have a philosophical dilemma that I can't solve for myself. At what point should we stop calling it natural and begin calling it a disorder? ...
... The dilemma I have is what about body integrity identity disorder? My common sense tells me that it is natural for me to be gay but it is not natural for a person to want to amputate a limb or two. But philosophically and morally who am I to tell them there is something wrong with them?
I don't really care if we call it "natural" or "a disorder" or whatever.
It sounds to me like your question is more along the lines of "should I do what I can to prevent them from amputating a limb or two? Or should I accept that this is something they feel is important and necessary and not stand in their way?"
Which is a very interesting question.
Personally, I'm a proponent for the personal option of suicide. I don't think it should be totally taboo. I think that if I want to end my life, I should be able to make that choice.
Now... that doesn't mean I think all suicides should be deemed "right"... I think there are a lot of factors at play.
I believe it comes down to being of "sound mind."
If you can rationally, objectively judge your circumstances and suicide is the option you want to pursue... then I think it should be just fine.
Like if I'm old, and my wife had died, and I have no kids, and I don't owe anyone any money, and my personal finances are running out, and I have done all I wanted to do in life, and I am ready to end this existence.
Then I don't see a problem with suicide and, in fact, I think it's stupid if someone actually does have a problem with suicide in this sort of scenario.
But... let's say I'm 35, and I have 4 kids depending on my income in order to survive. And I'm a very large part of my extended family unit... and I have all sorts of other obligations and responsibilities... then I don't think suicide should be a valid option.
I think that BIID should be viewed in the same way.
We are people, and we should be able to do what we want with our bodies... being of sound mind.
We first have to look at our obligation and responsibilities first.
If the person can look at their situation rationally and objectively and see the following:
-there is a plan to take care of themselves after removing the limbs
-they do not have certain obligations or responsibilities which removal of the limbs will cause them to be unable to fulfill
-they understand this is a permanent solution and cannot be 100% reversed
Then, I have no problems with it and I actually do have a problem with anyone blocking their right to do what they want with their body.
I think they should also listen to other people's objections (if anyone has any) and see if those objections are valid or not.
But there's another side to the situation as well.
-does the person have a chemical imbalance in their brain that may be affecting their state of mind?
-does the person have obligations or responsibilities that cannot be fulfilled if the limbs are removed?
-is this a rash decision that has come up quickly?
There are many situations where the answers to these questions will be "yes"... if so, then I think it's fine to do what you can to prevent any amputations and try to help the person in other ways.