Indirectly, it has to be. Medical ethics are determined by boards and commissions, made up of doctors and, I presume, lawyers. These are people who come from the society they serve, and will embody the values of that society.
Their reasoning will be more skilled, of course, and more learned, and they will avoid certain pitfalls. But they will – and have – certify ordinary facelifts as “ethical” and the removal of noses as “unethical.”
If their formal definitions of medical ethics varied too widely from the ethical values of the populace, the populace would remove them and substitute others more in tune with those values.
(The same is true for all rule-making bodies, including legislatures and judges.)
Some of the modern cosmetic dentistry seems to be pushing the limit for me, personally. I get why some dentists advertise it heavily - it’s profitable, and they need to pay their rent/mortgage just like everyone else.
Yep.
My Jewish relatives interpreted that to mean no pierced ears, either. My grandmother and great-aunt on that side both had extension earring collections, but every single one was a clip-on.
What weird positions. Assuming no mental health issues, it’s their body, and they can do what they want with it. It’s the only consistent position if you also think women have a right to their bodies in an abortion and believing in the right to commit suicide.
Now, whether a doctor would help out is up to them, but they can’t argue that it’s unethical for them to do so, just that they don’t want to do it. Which is perfectly fine, since it is an elective procedure.
The only issue comes in in what we as a society need to accept. We accept trans people because we accept they are X trapped in a Y body.
As we get better with the science and it becomes less risky, I would bet that body mods will become more and more popular. People already do tatoos and piercings, since they are really low risk. It’s gonna happen.
Not everyone believes a woman has a right to an abortion, and not everyone believes there is a right to commit suicide. Society is far from homogenous.
Excuse me? A doctor isn’t allowed personal ethics in regard to elective procedures? I’m sorry, I can’t accept that. Again, society is not homogenous. A Jewish or Muslim dietician is not going going to be recommending pork chops for dinner, and that’s perfectly OK in my book. A doctor who believes plastic surgery should be restricted to reconstruction rather than cosmetic or body modification is not some mythical being. I wouldn’t dismiss it as “just don’t want to do it” as there are arguments involving risk and the “do no harm” standard.
Define “accept”.
Do you mean if a person doesn’t approve or condone such body mods there is something wrong with that person, or is it you can disapprove as long as you treat the person fairly under the law?
There are a LOT of things in this world I disapprove of, even if I readily concede they’re legal and I have no right to stop others from doing them. Neither do I have an obligation to encourage such things nor should I be pressured to lie when asked to state my opinion.
Yes, but let’s also recognize that not everyone is going to be comfortable with that.
I agree, but I think the “mental health issues” part needs to be carefully examined and the doctors need to think long and hard about the “first do no harm” when someone asks for any kind of cosmetic surgery that might decrease the physical and social functioning of a person before agreeing to perform the procedure.
I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Cutting a tooth down for gold or porcelain if only for aesthetics is the same thing. I do think that competent adults should be able to make those choices. That being said I generally don’t think it is a good idea unless there is a big cosmetic issue. Once you cut a tooth the damage is done.
The law does not declare something ethical or unethical, though: it can declare it legal or illegal and, in government-controlled healthcare systems, payable from the “basic insurance” funds* or not.
This may be single-payer (like for example Spain’s Social Security) or not (like Switzerland’s compulsory, privately-managed insurance). Both cases have the possibility of having other insurance but I’m talking about the basic, “covers everybody” type.
This is true…however the law goes a little further and empowers professional organizations, like the AMA, to make judgements and rulings regarding medical ethics. There are also methods to take away the licenses of doctors who practice unethically. The field is highly regulated, beyond the bounds of pure statute law.
The field of “medical ethics” is a very rich one, with doctors actually specializing in ethics. This is probably a good thing, even if it does limit our freedom a little.
Never a better case for Cecil’s transgender pronoun, if ya ast me. (He or she, it => h’or’sh’it)
Looks like an extra from Big Trouble in Little China. Being flamboyant is one thing; turning yourself permanently, irreversibly and undisguisably into a creepy semi-human indicates big trouble… somewhere.
There are a couple of issues here. Even if a person can do whatever they like to their body, that doesn’t mean it should be ethical for a doctor to perform that surgery. Doctors have to be licensed, and aren’t free to just perform whatever surgery someone asks for. So even though someone wants their ears removed it could still mean that a doctor who performed such a surgery could lose their medical license. It doesn’t always matter what the patient wants. If the patient wants opiates every day that doesn’t mean the doctor should give them opiates.
I dunno, I get the point the “unethical” side is making, but there’s just something about making something impermissible based solely on the aesthetic judgments of other people, even if in general, that makes me a little uncomfortable.
Is that an actual specialty in the US, or more of a line of work? In Spain the Organización Médica Colegial (“National Medical Society”) has a Commission on Ethics, but it’s part-time volunteer work for its 12 members.
Out of curiosity I checked their current general ethical guidelines (there are separate documents for end of life treatment) and the only specific reference about aesthetic medicine is within the chapter on transplants, where Article 50 states: El trasplante de estructuras faciales sólo se llevará a cabo en caso de problema de salud y funcionalidad grave y no solo por problemas estéticos, siempre como última alternativa terapéutica.
“Facial structures will only be transplanted when there are serious loss of health and functionality and not only for aesthetic reasons, always as a measure of last resort.”
In other words, it’s about an extreme case of something which should only be performed as reconstructive medicine.
So anything else falls under general “do no harm” and “what will be best for the patient” rules.
I’m not totally sure what the difference is, but it is a professional category. Most hospitals have an ethical committee, and “medical ethics” is a class in medical school.
A little Googling suggests that “Medical Ethicist” is a specific professional title.
(Believe me, about half the time, I don’t either!)