Disability for Apothemnophilia

In regards to Bioethics, I think Apotemnophilia could be a seriously controversial topic (well-duh- it already is). I think that society has no obligation what-so-ever to provide health care to the individuals that feel their limbs need to be cut off. Of course you must know, Lewontin brings up the idea of biological determinism. He believes '"the state should provide the lubricant to ease and promote the movement of individuals into the positions to which their intrinsic natures have predisposed them"(70). He believes in a hierarchy within the social world and later claims,"(73) that those inheritable differences necessarily and justly lead to a society of differential power and reward." I agree with Lewontin that biological determinism does play a role in the different "classes" of society. Unfortunately, people with genetic dispositions are looked at as being a liability and are put into a lower class.

Lewontin's argument parallels the idea that people with Apotemnophilia who have removed their limbs could be thought as a liability and fall into a lower class. Whether this is ethically correct is not what I am debating, but specifically, because these people are considered this (a liability), does that give them the right to receive health care from society as a whole? I think not. Cutting off some perfectly healthy part of your body and then getting disability is unfair in many ways. A lot of people that actually need disability don't receive it because of insurance issues or other reasons. How would you feel if someone received disability for cutting off a healthy part of their body? To be honest, I would be upset. Unless tests can prove that the limb NEEDS to be removed, I don't think it should be an obligation of society to have to pay for disability for these people.