Like many others that have posted, I still find the apotemnophilia issue rather vexing. The debate about the topic really sent my mind into a tailspin over it.
On one hand, I'd like to go the politically correct route and say that everyone's different and society should fund everyone's attempts to normalize themselves. I can see how this works when it comes to free counseling, or reduced prices on treatments for genetic disorders. However, society need not fund personal choices like getting tattoos or plastic surgery. It's difficult to determine which category apotemnophilia falls under.
In light of the debate, I think that if it fell under the former category, as a disorder, that would be the best classification for the condition. That would open up new approaches for research and treatment options. If apotemnophilia were to be considered to be a mere social phenomenon, then apotemnophiliacs would only be studied by sociologists. However, as a disorder, apotemnophilia can be studied with not only sociology, but also genetics and medicine.
On the other hand, I feel that healthcare providers and taxpayers should not need to subsidize such an invasive treatment for a condition about which so little is known. This is another question of category. It seems cruel to refuse subsidized treatments to poor people with expensive diseases. They shouldn't have to go broke just to simply survive. But apotemnophilia is not life-threatening unless an apotemnophiliac severs his or her own limb and suffers from complications. Were they forced to perform that action by their genetic makeup? Or is that simply a question of personal responsibility?
This topic really brings up more questions than answers. I suppose it should if you've really thought about the material. Wink, wink.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment