posted
I got addicted to Nip/Tuck last year. Don't ask. I went back and watched all the eps. And while I could do without the gratuitous sex, I really like the show. The characters interest me.
But last week... they did an episode on BIID. It stands for Body Integrity Identity Disorder. It's extremely disturbing. The more so, because it apparently wasn't made up for the show.
Look... I have friends who changed sex. And they made comparisons in the show... but this BIID is people who want to have healthy limbs cut off. It's like they're claiming to be cripples trapped in healthy bodies. Which I think differs than the whole women trapped in men's bodies (and vice versa) thing.
I'd been putting the whole BIID thing out of my mind since last week, because it really was disturbing. But the cover story on a little paper-let called the Red Eye this morning made me think about it again.
You all know that I'm big on personal liberty. And that I think people should be able to do what they want, so long as they don't hurt anyone else. But I don't extend that to children or to the mentally incompetant. And I can't help but think that intentionally making oneself a cripple falls into that category.
I'll understand if no one wants to chime in here. It's a pretty nasty topic, after all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard of that before, and it still baffles me to think of what must go on in a person's life or mind or chemical balance or genetic makeup to lead them to that place.
I agree that this is different from gender identity issues, though I have some difficulty understanding them, too, on the level of actually wanting to change one's body.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watch Nip/Tuck and I saw last week's episode.
I think that because the man on the show had tried so many other options (i.e. therapy and medicine) and because he knew what he was doing, that he should have been allowed. Like you said, it doesn't hurt you in any way that he did this to himself. Because he had spent so many years with is leg tucked up under himself, he had already learned to live without it (for the most part). Therefore he would not need much training or help to learn to live with only one leg. The sugery would serve to make him feel whole and happy. It would, in a way, increase his standard of life which is what we, as a society, focus on in so many other cases. Why not his?
posted
Should he be allowed to get handicap license plates? That affects other people, and it's by his own choice. Should he be entitled to sue for lack of handicap accessibility?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why he shouldn't have the ability get a handicap license plate. It'snot like he had the surgery just so he could get one. My grandmother got one for heaven knows what, she doesn't really need it. But he might. He might not even decide to apply for one, he has done without one so far.
I would have no problem with him sueing for lack of handicap accessibility. Sure he gets money out of it, but he is also pointing out a flaw and fixing it for others. Somehow, though, I don't think those with genuine BIID would be the type to seek out money and recognition in this way. I may be mistaken and speaking out of a lack of knowledge, but I would think they would just want to live "normally" now.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I've heard of that before, and it still baffles me to think of what must go on in a person's life or mind or chemical balance or genetic makeup to lead them to that place.
I agree that this is different from gender identity issues, though I have some difficulty understanding them, too, on the level of actually wanting to change one's body.
That, at least, I can understand. I dated a woman once who had been born ostensibly male. I could not then, and have never been able to, imagine her as anyone other than the woman I knew. I wouldn't have known if she hadn't told me, but I assure you that had she not had surgery, I would have figured it out all by myself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Nip/Tuck, gratuitous butt shots and all. Last week was pretty interesting - I'd heard of that disorder before, and I think I may have seen a show on TLC about it. I think that the issues for the doctors would be (one) the whole Hippocratic Oath/do no harm dealie, which they addressed quite snappily in the comparison of voluntary amputation to plastic surgery. THe second issue would be liability - ensuring that the patient doesn't turn around and sue because they changed their mind afterwards. That would be about a day's worth of release forms right there - there are a lot of complicated aspects to this, but I do believe that it is a genuine affliction. People have OCD. Would you have thought that washing your hands 20 times a day was a *real* diesease 20 years ago? (Or before you read about Path?) We're odd critters with odder afflictions. On voluntary amputation - I guess with ALL the proper preparation and non-surgical attempts at correcting the problem, if the person is fully aware of the risks and results, then it should at the very least be legal. And up to the doctor to perform it or not.
edited to add linky to BIID Site but you'll have to wait til tomorrow to click b/c they've exceeded their bandwidth
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
