What if that surgeon's advice had been part of the decision process that lead to you deciding to go ahead with amputation?
Like someone might have a humiliation fetish but not actually like seeing people get humiliated in the workplace, for example. A sexual context and an everyday context are very different.
“Was their professional judgment impaired by their fetish?”
That concern is the correct one.
But: It doesn’t particularly matter how the fetish works, because people will assume that the existence of a fetish guarantees that judgment is compromised. That assumption will often be couched in terms of skepticism and doubt rather than as a flat statement of mistrust, especially here in the US. Unfortunately, the concern is valid, even when the frequent-but-not-always underlying assumption is not.
Has the licensing board ruled on whether or not patient abuse occurred yet?
If not, then, like, maybe don’t read this article at all. Wait for the outcomes of a professional evaluation. Don’t chase this particular ambulance. It’s not healthy to stop and admire a train wreck, and if it ends up not being a train wreck for patients, and professional care was given regardless, then it’s just gossiping about someone making irreversible physical edits to their body — a completely normal event around the world, starting at birth in many cultures, with widespread differences within each around how little/much editing is too little/much. I know HN likes to clamor about slipper slopes, and this is the sort of checkout aisle magazine headline fodder that leads to that:
Should someone who has had breast reduction surgery be permitted to perform them?
Should someone who has had leg lengthening surgery be permitted to perform them?
Should someone who has had a facelift be permitted to perform them?
Should someone who has had a tattoo be permitted to perform them?
Should someone who has had hair removal sessions be permitted to perform them?
Now, replace ‘to perform them’ with ‘to advise patients about them’; does the answer change?
Yes, amputation is ‘extreme’; so are many, many other voluntary (e.g. heart tattoos) and involuntary (e.g. dysphoria-treating surgeries) body edits. The level of concern expressed for the practitioner’s judgment should not be a function of the severity of edit, and we should always be alert for signs of corruption in those practitioners — whether it’s tattoos, leg lengthening, or limb amputation.
https://reduxx.info/top-trans-medical-association-collaborat...
If it is verified that he has performed medically unwarranted amputations, that'd probably result in some kind of criminal charge due to the grave and permanent bodily harm involved. The loss of his medical license would be the least of his problems.
What evidence do you have to back that up? I think you're trying to pull facts out of your a* to rationalize something.
... to say nothing of the monsters that use spaces instead of tabs ;)
FTFY.
In general, the DSM V draws the line at hurting yourself or other people.
Warning for the squeamish: I only made it partway through the article before deciding it would probably make me nauseous if I continued.
Particularly where the agent has specialised knowledge and/or privileged access.
Not uncommonly an issue in IT.
A growing concern with AI, to boot: Alignment.
Point being, cultural biases are reflected in body edit difficulties, and each culture has their own biases and stupidities. That should not prevent us from aspiring towards a better future, where body edits are uniformly treated with care, caution, and consent — rather than condescension and Gillian’s “Brazil” levels of bureaucratic bullshit: https://youtu.be/VveTsyjFlNA
This article may have done a terrible job at advancing any useful goals in the field of body editing, but the headline sure is some top-shelf clickbait.
acjohnson55•1h ago