Should a surgeon be alowed to amputate a perfectly healthy limb, if the patiant

so desires? There's a condition in the brain that causes some people to want a limb removed, that can't be cured by drugs or talk therapy.

There are other therapies besides drugs and basic talk therapy, so at the very least I would suggest the person try all of those first if I was the doctor..

That noted, removing a limb that is useful (not cancerous, badly injured, super painful, etc.) seems unwise in general, and the person who doesn't want it can effectively destroy it him/herself if he/she wishes, by immersing it in freezing cold water for an extended period of time (I saw a program in which a guy did exactly this), and probably by other means as well. This would remove any moral dilemma from the surgeon, assuming he acted ethically in prior interactions with the person..

Given these circumstances - plus the potential for new treatments that might work to get the person to accept the limb as a positive - I would be hesitant to promote removing a healthy limb, and would certainly not want to pay for it to any extent through taxation or insurance costs, etc.

As for "being allowed", I suppose it might be OK if the amputee was paying for the operation and associated costs him/her-self and could be proven mentally competent to make that decision, though this would be a pretty high standard to meet I think given the decrease in functionality that would occur by way of getting a perfectly functional limb removed.

I read that there was a surgeon who actually did offer the procedure, and did it three times. There is supposed to be no known treatment for the disorder, by the way. He said he did it to keep them from resorting to drastic means to get it amputated, which often caused more injury than just getting it cut off by a surgeon in the first place. I would assume no insurance was used to pay for it, and no disability was paid afterword.

Yeah, I guess if the procedure prevents more dangerous actions it would be justifiable as well..

I know it's WEIRD, but if they really want too, let em go for it.

No, the surgeon must not assist in the amputation of healthy limbs. My reasoning is similar to that of assisted suicide. When a person may want to have a limb removed for no reason other than their desire to remove it it is an indication that they are mentally ill. It is the same as with desire for assisted suicide. The desire for life and self preservation is built into everyone by instinct. Only exceptions are in situations such as a certain danger to others in which someone sacrifices themselves to save another (example: jumping on a live grenade if it would shield others from the blast.) I realize I could be wrong about this, but same should go for desire to amputate one's own limbs. It is an indicator of mental illness. It would mean that the patient is not in their own mind. They're not themselves so to speak. In such cases the right thing to do is to preserve the life and health of such person, but of course within limits. They shouldn't be institutionalized by force or forced to take some pills (which would probably help them) if they do not want to for some stupid reason.

But shrinks claim it's it's not a mental illness. Other than that, they are perfectly normal. They were born with an area in the brain wired in a way that makes them feel the limb doesn't belong there. The doctors say there's no cure. No pills to help.

Group's dormant, I see.

no. if its healthy, then its a mental illness.

its like killing a suicidal person. it doesnt fix the underlying issue