The Corner

Bioethicists Okay Adolescent Genital Cosmetic Surgery

Just to show you that the lines of bioethical discourse know no boundaries, writing in Bioethics, two bioethicists argue in favor of genital cosmetic surgery for minor girls suffering from Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD)–an obsessive mental illness in which the person can’t stop thinking about their own supposed bodily imperfections. From the article:

(i) Adolescents with BDD who want labioplasty may endure serious suffering. (Distress, suicidal tendencies)

(ii) Labioplasty will – or is likely to – secure relief from this suffering. (Empirical research.)70

(iii) This relief cannot be secured by other less drastic means.(Lack of evidence for alternative treatments.)

(iv) Securing relief from this suffering is worth the cost of labioplasty, i.e. the effect on the person of the surgery, and the physical consequences of that. (Labioplasty is a simple surgical procedure with low risk, and no on-going physically disabling effects).

Under that thinking, why not also do it for religious reasons, as in female genital mutilation–thwarted religious intensity can cause suffering–if it makes the girl feel more accepted in her community?

(Actually,the American Academy of Pediatrics once okayed a “symbolic” cutting in certain cases before backing off under intense public pressure.)

Some would say the former surgery does not impair sexual response. while the latter does. But in the latter case, that could be precisely what the girl wanted, and indeed, the existence of sexual response might be the very cause of her suffering.

Making the whole thing even more ridiculous, the bioethicists claim that their reasoning is akin to the scientific method:

So we find ourselves pushed to arguing in favour of cosmetic labioplasty for adolescents who have BDD. Initially, we did feel uncomfortable about this, as it is not what we expected and is certainly counter-intuitive, at least to us. However, we have reflected that this outcome shows the power of ethical reasoning.

If pursued thoroughly, using the available evidence and working from first principles, it is similar to the scientific method, in that it leads to a logical conclusion, regardless of what one might have expected at the outset.

No, it merely shows the power of relativism–here, in the priorities of autonomy and the elimination of suffering as dictated within a subjective narrative in determining “harm”–that leads logically to the conclusion reached.

Relativistic thinking can lead anywhere. Indeed, relevant to this post, some bioethicists advocate the propriety of amputating healthy limbs or severing healthy spinal cords of those who “identify” as amputees or disabled people, a terrible mental condition known as body identity integrity disorder (BIID), about which I have written before.

Wesley J. Smith — Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More