Check out this story here.
Turns out this lady, Lindsay Avner, decided to have her breasts removed so that she has no future risk of breast cancer.
This one seems to spark passionate positions on both sides. Where do you come down?
Ethically, is it right for her to do this? Is it acceptable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I guess the argument here is how much control do you have over your own body - similar, but more extreme, to getting a tatoo or a piercing. In this case I would side with Lindsay, I think it's her perogative to do with her breasts what she would like, be that getting implants or getting them removed. Ethically, since she voulnteered to have the surgery, since it is her decision, I would say it is ethically right, however socially unacceptable or controversial it may be...
I would agree that the the argument is how much control you have over your own body, but Terrence's argument is unsound. Certainly, Ms. Avner elected to have the surgery on her own body, but that does not make everything you do to your body ethically right. Self-mortification, suicide, etc. are morally wrong. In comparison to JWT, this her surgery was a matter of prevention-not pre-emption. Certainly, she was predisposed to breast cancer, but it was not imminent. People who commit suicide do so voluntarily (otherwise its not suicide), but this "volunteerism" does not justify such actions.
I am the first to admit my ignorance on this matter. I am unclear as to whether Lindsay's double masectomy will result in a hormonal imbalance or a void in an area intended to produce maternal instinct, as well as whether hormone therapy could correct any foreseeable problem. Statistically, if "virtually every woman in her life, her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, aunts and cousins, suffered from or died of breast cancer" there is more than a chance she will get it. I don't believe the surgery is "self-mutilation" any more than circumcision is self-mutilation. If the mamectomy will not hinder her duty and ability as a mother, will provide her with a healthy and worry free life, and will not cause any adverse problems I see no harm in what she did. Everyone (at least I hope) can agree that if she had breast cancer a mamectomy would not be wrong for her, so where should the line be drawn? This is not a decision I would wish upon anyone and I don't feel I'm in a place to criticise anyone who has to make it either. Linday's decision was done with just cause and in my uneducated opinion still upholds the dignity of life. The results: a worry free and healthy life. The consequences: not certain, but if they are only manifested physically(with the help of medication), Lindsay has done nothing wrong.
Personally, I would agree with Brady and say that this would be in the same category as circumcision and not on the same scale as suicide or assisted-suicide. It is a bit like getting breast augmentation, which no one would put on the same scale as suicide. It is Ms. Avner's body and she does have a choice in how she takes care of it. I would say that it is much healthier to try to prevent the problem than try to deal with it later. I know that there are a few treatments for breast cancer, but all of them may do nothing after the fact. I would say that it is a bit severe for a woman, who's mother had breast cancer, to have her breasts removed, but I don't think that is the situation that Ms. Avner was in. Almost every woman related to her had breast cancer and she was predisposed to have it. I don't feel that this was morally wrong. She was healthy, but in such a situation it would make sense to have a surgery where she's more likely to recover. And in comparison to premeption and prevention, I don't think that this applies because those terms concern actions against foreign countries. While the cancer can be described as an enemy of the body, it is still part of her and thus under her control.
In response to Caley's argument, comparing it to breast augmentation is the worst possible argument for allowing a double masectomy. I am not sure is she wants to go down that road...the road of comparing a purely cosmetic surgery to a surgery with at least perceived positive "health" consequences. If the surgery was purely cosmetic to satisfy her own vanity, she definitely made an immoral decision. A predisposition does not guarantee anything. Fighting a predisposition against alcoholism is one thing--one can moderate an intake of alcohol--but fighting a predisposition to cancer is certainly different. I think Ms. Avner should do everything in her power to monitor for breast cancer. Over-monitoring is better than under monitoring, but taking such drastic action that has incredibly significant side effects, including death during surgery, cannot be a risk that all women in Miss Avner's situation should take.
If this is the case (that she is not morally required to have the surgery or not have it--I don't think anyone would argue that she is morally required to have a preventative surgery) than the only argument is that the decision to have a double masectomy is amoral (it is neither moral or immoral--the decision lies outside of the realm of morality). I cannot see how this could be the case. All decisions are somehow linked to an absolute truth and a moral decision.
The point of normative ethics is to identify this absolute truth and seek it in every decision.
Post a Comment