Quote from: Abysha on January 30, 2016, 06:58:23 PMIf a procedure like that were ever to be developed, it would be a medical treatment, to treat a medical condition. I imagine it would be treated as such. But who knows?
Can't some treatments for medical conditions also be used for recreational purposes, though? For instance, isn't <not allowed> one such treatment?
QuoteI think the ethical concern would be the whole "do no harm" thing. If you were to change the gender identity of a cisgender person, you would basically be causing a gender dysphoric condition in them which most medical professionals would probably be against.
Three things:
1. This appears to be a case of the is-ought fallacy.
2. This gender dysphoria can be successfully treated afterwards.
3. Refusing to provide such treatment to a person such as myself might very well result in greater harm than good. After all, I like feminine eunuchs, I view them as the best kind of men, and I would certainly be overjoyed to live the rest of my natural life as a feminine eunuch. However, if we will develop a cure to aging during my lifetime (or if I will get cryogenically preserved and then successfully revived), then being a feminine eunuch certainly
wouldn't be good enough for me in the long(er)-run. Rather, if I were to live indefinitely, then I would
strongly prefer to live indefinitely as a lesbian or
strongly lesbian-leaning trans-woman.
Indeed, if I will be denied such treatment, then I will probably either descend into alcoholism or torture myself by living non-stop as a woman for several years or more (
with all of the gender dysphoria and everything) in order to get these "gate-keeping" doctors to change their minds about this and to allow me to get and to utilize this treatment. Thus, if "gate-keeping" doctors will deny me this treatment, then they will probably be causing me more harm than good. Indeed, this certainly (and unfortunately)
isn't the first time that "gate-keeping" doctors' actions might have resulted in more harm than good; heck, take a look at this article from a medical journal about "back-alley" surgical castrations for aspiring eunuchs:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4184492/"According to American criminal law, the consent to bodily harm is not a valid defense against a charge of battery; however, this legal principle has sparked controversy [17]. The "mainstreaming" of body piercing indicates a relaxation of cultural attitudes toward consent to body harm, although the legal system does not appear to be changing to reflect current practice. The question of consent becomes more complicated in the context of our research because human castration is drastic, irreversible and, when performed by nonmedical professionals, carries a high risk of pain, infection, and even death by exsanguination. As such, to remove the risk associated with nonmedical surgeries, some have argued for the medical community to provide amputations of healthy limbs for individuals experiencing extreme xenomelia or body integrity identity disorder (see discussion in 18–20). We would extend this argument to genitals to encompass those individuals who seek a eunuch or "third gender" identity. It might be argued that the great difficulty in finding effective psychiatric counseling and medically qualified surgeons for this population may result in greater harm than an absolute adherence to the Hippocratic creed of "do no harm." Within the community of eunuchs and those wishing to be castrated, who frequent the Eunuch Archive website, there is strong opposition both to self-castration and to the use of cutters. However, there are many discussions of "safer" ways to obtain castrations from surgeons. Some now inject toxins directly into the testicles in order to produce sufficient damage that a surgeon will perform an orchiectomy for damage control [21].
As with castrations for sexual reassignment, we favor standards of care for males with extreme castration ideations (i.e., the potential clients of the cutters) that would provide safe options beyond self-castration or seeking the service of cutters [2,10,14]. However, we do stress that the treatment of these individuals and the decision whether to perform the procedure should lie with the discretion and clinical judgment of treating physicians. Healthcare professionals must take individuals who disclose castration fantasies seriously, particularly if risk factors (e.g., history of sexual abuse, having been threatened with genital mutilation, and having witnessing animal castrations) are identified."
Plus, in any case, the "Do no harm" principle was already thrown out of the window when doctors agreed to perform many/most/all elective cosmetic surgeries.
QuoteNone of this exists yet, though. Either way, it is an interesting thread and an interesting question. Almost like a philosophical exercise like those "morality" questions.
Agreed; also, though, it is probably possible that such successful technology/treatment
will eventually be created.
Mod Edit- It's marijuana illegal federally in the United States and as such forbidden topic. TOS 5
