NationStates Jolt Archive

The issue is sparked by this story (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2956940&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

"Three men accused of operating what police described as a sadomasochistic "dungeon" that included castrations have been sentenced to jail time.

Superior Court Judge Dennis Winner said it was difficult to call the dungeon's willing patients "victims," but he said six castrations performed there were certainly a crime. "

Alright, now in this case, the men undergoing castration were willing, and gave consent. I would of course take issue with this procedure being undertaken by those not medically trained to do so.

However, if I as a woman, could go in and get a double mastectomy (and I could), either as a gender reassignment procedure, or as a preventive measure if my genes ran to breast cancer...then why can a man not go and get his testicles lopped off? *I can hear you wincing, men*

Eunuchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch) have existed, and do exist in various cultures around the world. So this is nothing new really. I would never support forced castration, but for various reasons, there are men out there who want to be castrated. Currently, it isn't actually criminalised, but I know that here, you have to undergo a psych evaluation before you are allowed to get those wobbly bits dislocated permanently.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Vomiting?

The issue is sparked by this story (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2956940&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

"Three men accused of operating what police described as a sadomasochistic "dungeon" that included castrations have been sentenced to jail time.

Superior Court Judge Dennis Winner said it was difficult to call the dungeon's willing patients "victims," but he said six castrations performed there were certainly a crime. "

Alright, now in this case, the men undergoing castration were willing, and gave consent. I would of course take issue with this procedure being undertaken by those not medically trained to do so.

However, if I as a woman, could go in and get a double masectomy (and I could), either as a gender reassignment procedure, or as a preventitive measure if my genes ran to breast cancer...then why can a man not go and get his testicles lopped off? *I can hear you wincing, men*

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch]Eunuchs[/urls] have existed, and do exist in various cultures around the world. So this is nothing new really. I would never support forced castration, but for various reasons, there are men out there who want to be castrated. It might freak some people out, but I really don't see why it should be criminalised.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Vomitting?

You would go to a trained surgeon to get a mastectomy.

This looks like BDSM Amateur hour, and probably without anesthesia.

You would go to a trained surgeon to get a mastectomy.

This looks like BDSM Amateur hour, and probably without anesthesia.

Oh, I agree, completely. Not something you want to let people do with a rusty blade and a lighter.

But...are men able to go to a trained surgeon and say, 'Alright then, lop em off, doc?'

As far as I can tell, the newly made eunuchs weren't charged with anything, just the non-doctors who operated the garage surgery parlor.

Sure, why not. Altos are in short supply anyway.

So assuming informed consent, proper medical procedure and so forth...should there be any other barriers to voluntary castration?

Men should definitely be able to go to a doctor and be castrated, if they want(shudders). However these guys should be arrested for doing so without a doctor's license, who know what unsterilized....implements they were using(winces).

see I'm torn on this. On one hand my thought is to go "hey, these men consented they wanted it, they were aware of the risks, why is this illegal"

But then you have to wonder, should we be allowing performing medical treatment without a license as acceptable in any circumstnaces? Moreover, I find myself sticking on the "made aware of the risks". Can some dudes operating out of their garage really tell them, or indeed even themselves be fully aware, of the risks?

In that sense, while they certainly consented for the purpses of making this not an assault, it is difficult to say they truly "consented" in the full meaning of the word, because it's difficult to say theyw ere fully and totally appreciable of the risks involved, considering the people they went to were not properly trained to know, and communicate, those risks.

Which I think is the fundamental basis for these kind of laws. It wasn't that these were BDSM freaky people, it's that they were performing surgery without a license. This is not something we should encourage because:

a) there's a good risk here
b) it's difficult to say that, without proper training, they could ever allow their patients to form informed consent, due to the fact that they are not trained enough to know enough about what they're doing to properly inform.

And then you have compulsory chemical castration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_castration_in_California). Apparently some men want access to chemical castration to 'try it out'. Should men be able to access this sort of 'treatment', free of barriers (such as psych evaluations etc)?

The issue is sparked by this story (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2956940&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

"Three men accused of operating what police described as a sadomasochistic "dungeon" that included castrations have been sentenced to jail time.

Superior Court Judge Dennis Winner said it was difficult to call the dungeon's willing patients "victims," but he said six castrations performed there were certainly a crime. "

Alright, now in this case, the men undergoing castration were willing, and gave consent. I would of course take issue with this procedure being undertaken by those not medically trained to do so.

However, if I as a woman, could go in and get a double mastectomy (and I could), either as a gender reassignment procedure, or as a preventive measure if my genes ran to breast cancer...then why can a man not go and get his testicles lopped off? *I can hear you wincing, men*

Eunuchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch) have existed, and do exist in various cultures around the world. So this is nothing new really. I would never support forced castration, but for various reasons, there are men out there who want to be castrated. Currently, it isn't actually criminalised, but I know that here, you have to undergo a psych evaluation before you are allowed to get those wobbly bits dislocated permanently.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Vomiting?

The last action.

If the law allows people to consent to unnecessary grievous bodily harm, with the argument 'it's my body, I can do what I like with it', then there is no logical reason for it not to take the one step on from this, consent to being killed.

I don't think the law is ready to do that just yet.

AHA!

Exactly where I'm going with this!

Kind of ruined it for me, but whatever :D

If the law allows people to consent to unnecessary grievous bodily harm, with the argument 'it's my body, I can do what I like with it', then there is no logical reason for it not to take the one step on from this, consent to being killed.

I don't think the law is ready to do that just yet.

Can you become fertile after chemical castration?(is it permanent?)

It appears to be temporary, but I am unsure as to the long term effects.

The idea, however, grosses me out no more than elective plastic surgery. (which is to say, a lot)

However, voluntary castration also makes me wonder about voluntary female genital mutilation.

At what point can someone be proven to be acting totally freely, and not because of cultural expectations? And who whould bear the onus of proof when it comes to making a case for free, informed consent to something like FGM, or castration...or death?

Apparently some men want access to chemical castration to 'try it out'.
Can you become fertile after chemical castration?(is it permanent?)

If the law allows people to consent to unnecessary grievous bodily harm, with the argument 'it's my body, I can do what I like with it', then there is no logical reason for it not to take the one step on from this, consent to being killed.

I don't think the law is ready to do that just yet.

I have no problems with consent to being killed. See, for me I agree, it's my body I can do what I like with it, provided the person in question has made informed consent.

INFORMED is the point here. Namely that the person has had access to all the information he or she needs. I dont' think that was done here, because the people holding themselves out as the surgeons, were not trained to assess all the risk involved.

:p Heh. Sorry, about that.

Am I right in thinking you're training to be a lawyer?

Yes, and once I finalise selling my soul completely to satan, I'll be given an LLB and unleashed upon the unsuspecting world.

Sure, why not. Altos are in short supply anyway.Altos? These people have special names you know. They were known as the Castrati, and they used to have an honoured placed in society too.

Can you become fertile after chemical castration?(is it permanent?)

a male body constantly produces testosterone. Chemical castration involves a chemical that neutralizes that testoterone. Once the chemical is stopped being introduced to the body, the testosterone goes un neutralized.

So it is not permanent.

AHA!

Exactly where I'm going with this!

Kind of ruined it for me, but whatever :D

:p Heh. Sorry, about that.

Am I right in thinking you're training to be a lawyer?

I have no problems with consent to being killed. See, for me I agree, it's my body I can do what I like with it, provided the person in question has made informed consent.


So you do not support state-imposed restrictions on the ability of individuals to consent to medical procedures* intended to mutilate them, or even result in their death, so long as they have given free, and informed consent?

*medical procedures in this case carried out only by licensed, and competent medical professionals

If the law allows people to consent to unnecessary grievous bodily harm, with the argument 'it's my body, I can do what I like with it', then there is no logical reason for it not to take the one step on from this, consent to being killed.

I don't think the law is ready to do that just yet.

I don't have a problem with that. I support euthanasia laws that adequately protect the ill from coercion. Oregon already has such a law. Yeah, I'm sure you're imagining a bit different scenario here, but the principle, I think, is sound. The only problem with consent to being killed in the someone-shooting-you-in-the-head-execution-style sense is one of how the government could possibly distinguish between a gangland-style execution and a consent to be killed situation.

I think that such a thing should only ever be done by medical professionals who want to do it.

Though there may be a good case for its illegality, in that the man may not be of sound mind. He may regret it later, thus may require protection from himself.

So it is not permanent.

Ah, thank you. I thought it was akin to sterilization via radiation, where the testicles themselves were disabled/destroyed.

its his body. if a man wants to remove his testicles its his business.

he would have to either do it himself or get a licensed professional to do it for him. it might be quite difficult to get a doctor that would find that ethical or be willing to risk his license on it.

Alright. So if a woman wanted to undergo female genital mutliation, is that also her business?

Assume she is from an ethnicity where FGM has become a common practice.

I think that such a thing should only ever be done by medical professionals who want to do it.

Though there may be a good case for its illegality, in that the man may not be of sound mind. He may regret it later, thus may require protection from himself.

What are your thoughts of protecting people from themselves when they undergo permanent cosmetic surgery?

its his body. if a man wants to remove his testicles its his business.

he would have to either do it himself or get a licensed professional to do it for him. it might be quite difficult to get a doctor that would find that ethical or be willing to risk his license on it.

Alright. So if a woman wanted to undergo female genital mutliation, is that also her business?

Assume she is from an ethnicity where FGM has become a common practice.

That depends. Are they doing it to a young girl who cannot make informed consent? Is the woman being forced or coerced into having the proceedure done? Is the young boy being circumcized at birth when he has no choice (as I was)? Then it is definitely immoral and I think should be illegal without cause. Common practice makes it easier for people to accept, but it has no bearing on informed consent.

So assuming informed consent, proper medical procedure and so forth...should there be any other barriers to voluntary castration?

I don't think there should be. But what do I know, I'm not a doctor or a lawyer or anything.

The issue is sparked by this story (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2956940&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

"Three men accused of operating what police described as a sadomasochistic "dungeon" that included castrations have been sentenced to jail time.

Superior Court Judge Dennis Winner said it was difficult to call the dungeon's willing patients "victims," but he said six castrations performed there were certainly a crime. "

Alright, now in this case, the men undergoing castration were willing, and gave consent. I would of course take issue with this procedure being undertaken by those not medically trained to do so.

However, if I as a woman, could go in and get a double mastectomy (and I could), either as a gender reassignment procedure, or as a preventive measure if my genes ran to breast cancer...then why can a man not go and get his testicles lopped off? *I can hear you wincing, men*

Eunuchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch) have existed, and do exist in various cultures around the world. So this is nothing new really. I would never support forced castration, but for various reasons, there are men out there who want to be castrated. Currently, it isn't actually criminalised, but I know that here, you have to undergo a psych evaluation before you are allowed to get those wobbly bits dislocated permanently.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Vomiting?
All kind of sounds disgusting. And painful. And disgusting. But, to answer the question, castration by a doctor, who is licensed to perform surgery, should be just as legal as the vasectomy I had.

Kinky..

I smell oestrogen in the air here


why not compulsory castration by majority vote?

for drooling rapists and known no-goods as the prez, and the pope, for example

Thoughts? Suggestions? Vomiting?

I pick vomiting.

Yeah, exactly, why not? As long as it's done safely, I can't see a reason against it.

So you do not support state-imposed restrictions on the ability of individuals to consent to medical procedures* intended to mutilate them, or even result in their death, so long as they have given free, and informed consent?

*medical procedures in this case carried out only by licensed, and competent medical professionals

I don't support such restrictions, either. My body, my business.

I smell oestrogen in the air here


why not compulsory castration by majority vote?

for drooling rapists and known no-goods as the prez, and the pope, for example

sooo you think its wrong to allow people control over their own bodies when it comes to procedures that wont cripple or kill them?

So you do not support state-imposed restrictions on the ability of individuals to consent to medical procedures* intended to mutilate them, or even result in their death, so long as they have given free, and informed consent?

*medical procedures in this case carried out only by licensed, and competent medical professionals

It should be unrestriced, as long as they prove themselves mentally-fit to make such a decision. Otherwise, what's going to prevent the brain-damaged and mentally incompetent from harming themselves? And what happens if someone has second-thoughts afterward? How would you prove that they knew what they were doing?

Thoughts?Mainly ones of shocked horror.Suggestions?Seeing as it's something that affects people greatly in a number of ways, something that a few find sexually gratifying (which is likely to impair their judgement), and something rather permanent, I think it's a good idea to have people undergo psych evaluation. It's not that people shouldn't be allowed to keep their 'nads in a jar, or whatever (Oh damn this is nasty...), it's just that they'll be screwed if they ever change their minds.Vomiting?Very nearly. You gonna pay for my PTSD treatment?

What are your thoughts of protecting people from themselves when they undergo permanent cosmetic surgery?
I'll let Michael Jackson's face answer that one.

Nutty.


*blink*


Bwa-hahahahaha!!!!! :D

I smell oestrogen in the air here


why not compulsory castration by majority vote?

for drooling rapists and known no-goods as the prez, and the pope, for example

you just stepped to the head of the backroom-castration line.




Anyway- A man that voluntarily consents to have his healthy balls removed has to be deemed imcompetant and thus lose his choice to do so.

Especially when an investigation reveals that the one offering to cut the balls off works for Oscar Meyer.

This is clearly a conflict of interest.

So wanting one's testicles removed automatically renders one incompetent to make that decision?

What about a woman who wants her breasts removed?

If the law allows people to consent to unnecessary grievous bodily harm, with the argument 'it's my body, I can do what I like with it',

The (UK) law does not allow that.
Or at least the House of Lords didn't allow it in Brown (1994) when I first heard of this issue - I doubt the law has changed, but I'll be corrected if you know different.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Wilson (1997) suggests that you can use a consent defence for actual bodily harm, but that is quite a bit less serious than GBH.

Add:
Altos? These people have special names you know. They were known as the Castrati, and they used to have an honoured placed in society too.

Hmm... having an honoured place in society... having genitals...
Tough choice.

So wanting one's testicles removed automatically renders one incompetent to make that decision?

What about a woman who wants her breasts removed?

Yes.

And - Healthy breasts? Yes.

The (UK) law does not allow that.
Or at least the House of Lords didn't allow it in Brown (1994) when I first heard of this issue - I doubt the law has changed, but I'll be corrected if you know different.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Wilson (1997) suggests that you can use a consent defence for actual bodily harm, but that is quite a bit less serious than GBH.

It's a different situation to be unable to consent to bodily harm (having an amateur cut your nuts off) than willingly consenting to a medical procedure with the same outcome.

Yes.

And - Healthy breasts? Yes.
Two situations where removing healthy breasts is foreseeable:

1) Gender reassignment
2) Double mastectomy coming from a family with high rates of very aggressive breast cancer.

How are either of these reasons something that would make the person 'unfit' to make the decision to go through with it?

Two situations where removing healthy breasts is foreseeable:

1) Gender reassignment
2) Double mastectomy coming from a family with high rates of very aggressive breast cancer.

How are either of these reasons something that would make the person 'unfit' to make the decision to go through with it?

Now its clear you used the castration story to lead into this.

Yes-if you grew breasts, you're supposed to have them.

Yes. Finding an excuse to maim yourself screams mental problems to me.


You managed to shift too rapidly though, from a dungeon master cutting off a slave's balls in his garage to individuals justifying doctors to remove breasts.

It's a different situation to be unable to consent to bodily harm (having an amateur cut your nuts off) than willingly consenting to a medical procedure with the same outcome.

Do you mean 'different' as a point of law, or 'different' in the sense of everyday morality and common sense?

As much as the very thought makes me want to gag, I don't necessarily think it should be illegal. There should be a mental competency test. But, as long as the person is a mentally competent adult and can find a licensed medical professional willing to carry out a given procedure, I'd say they should be allowed to do so. Of course, as others have pointed out, it will be rather difficult to find a doctor willing to perform such a procedure.

As for the references to FGM, yes, if the woman is a mentally competent adult and wants it done, she should be allowed to get it done. Of course she will have been influenced by her culture, as are we all, but we generally don't decide that a person is unable to make her own decisions based on being from a different culture.

Now its clear you used the castration story to lead into this.

Yes-if you grew breasts, you're supposed to have them.

Yes. Finding an excuse to maim yourself screams mental problems to me.


You managed to shift too rapidly though, from a dungeon master cutting off a slave's balls in his garage to individuals justifying doctors to remove breasts.

If you'll note, in the OP, I mentioned the story as the thing that sparked the topic itself. Clearly I would not support someone getting a castration or any other serious physical modification in some guy's basement.

Whether it be healthy testicles, breasts, or other body parts (consider some of that extreme plastic surgery), I honestly don't see how or why a fully informed adult could be prevented from given consent to, and undergoing said medical procedure.

Where do you draw the line and say, 'you don't get to consent to this'?

Liposuction?

Botox?

Hey, you were meant to produce viable sperm too...is wanting a vasectomy indicative of mental issues? How about a hysterectomy?

Do you mean 'different' as a point of law, or 'different' in the sense of everyday morality and common sense?
Different as a point of law.

You can not, for example, consent to being bludgeoned nearly to death. Egging your attacker on, for example, and telling him to go ahead and beat you, while it may look like consent, does not constitute a defence for your attacker. You don't get to consent to that sort of thing.

Consenting to a medical procedure that is lawful, is an entirely different story.

So having some guy amputate your leg on his kitchen table? No.
Having a surgeon do it? Yes.

If you'll note, in the OP, I mentioned the story as the thing that sparked the topic itself. Clearly I would not support someone getting a castration or any other serious physical modification in some guy's basement.

Whether it be healthy testicles, breasts, or other body parts (consider some of that extreme plastic surgery), I honestly don't see how or why a fully informed adult could be prevented from given consent to, and undergoing said medical procedure.

Where do you draw the line and say, 'you don't get to consent to this'?

Liposuction?

Botox?

Hey, you were meant to produce viable sperm too...is wanting a vasectomy indicative of mental issues? How about a hysterectomy?

Then-you dont draw the line anywhere? Consider everyone an "informed adult"?

How about a robot with a human brain?

The "how abouts?" and "what ifs?" will never end. Next-we'll have people that want these removed parts added to them. Who can stop that?

My friend wants my balls too-sew them on right behind the set he was born with. He wont be able to walk so well with them so you better throw in a free handicapped placard so he can park in handicap parking.

I want my girlfriend to have 4 tits-two in the front and two in the back for when we dance. And her sister wants hers removed because she is worried she'll get cancer or she doesnt like the monkey tattoo she has on one.


It will never end,Neesika.

Then-you dont draw the line anywhere? Consider everyone an "informed adult"?

How about a robot with a human brain?

The "how abouts?" and "what ifs?" will never end. Next-we'll have people that want these removed parts added to them. Who can stop that?

My friend wants my balls too-sew them on right behind the set he was born with. He wont be able to walk so well with them so you better throw in a free handicapped placard so he can park in handicap parking.

I want my girlfriend to have 4 tits-two in the front and two in the back for when we dance. And her sister wants hers removed because she is worried she'll get cancer or she doesn't like the monkey tattoo she has on one.


It will never end,Neesika.
Slipperly slope argument and I don't buy it, frankly.

I draw the line here:
1) lack of consent
2) being uninformed of the risks and consequences

And that's it. If someone wants to go ahead and tattoo their entire body...then get the entire tattoo removed with laser treatment, that's their choice.

Fake boobs, fake asses, fake lips...already common.

Extra sets of tits, sure, why not?

If people want to do bizarre, permanent (or semi-permanent) things to themselves after being made aware of all the risks associated with the procedure, who on earth are we to prevent them from doing so?

Basing your opposition on 'it'll never end' is hardly rational.

Different as a point of law.

You can not, for example, consent to being bludgeoned nearly to death. Egging your attacker on, for example, and telling him to go ahead and beat you, while it may look like consent, does not constitute a defence for your attacker. You don't get to consent to that sort of thing.

Consenting to a medical procedure that is lawful, is an entirely different story.

So having some guy amputate your leg on his kitchen table? No.
Having a surgeon do it? Yes.

I'm not sure about that. A doctor can't, for instance, legally carry out euthanasia on you just because he has your consent.
Also, surely there's a professional code of conduct for surgeons which (at least implicitly) forbids them to carry out needless amputations?

I'm not sure about that. A doctor can't, for instance, legally carry out euthanasia on you just because he has your consent.
Also, surely there's a professional code of conduct for surgeons which (at least implicitly) forbids them to carry out needless amputations?

Sorry, I am of course assuming a legal medical procedure.

So your leg needs amputating.

Some guy still doesn't get to hack it off on his kitchen table. Barring extraordinary circumstances, consent or not.

Slipperly slope argument and I don't buy it, frankly.

I draw the line here:
1) lack of consent
2) being uninformed of the risks and consequences

And that's it. If someone wants to go ahead and tattoo their entire body...then get the entire tattoo removed with laser treatment, that's their choice.

Fake boobs, fake asses, fake lips...already common.

Extra sets of tits, sure, why not?

If people want to do bizarre, permanent (or semi-permanent) things to themselves after being made aware of all the risks associated with the procedure, who on earth are we to prevent them from doing so?

Basing your opposition on 'it'll never end' is hardly rational.


Its no argument-its fact. We'll have the legions of mutants on Dr.Phil- "Insurance wont pay to have this extra foot removed from my ass"


Next,we'll be re- conjoining twins again, and beloved pets to their masters.

Rational is whatever I deem it to be.

Its no argument-its fact. We'll have the legions of mutants on Dr.Phil- "Insurance wont pay to have this extra foot removed from my ass"


Next,we'll be re- conjoining twins again, and beloved pets to their masters.

Rational is whatever I deem it to be.

Well I think we'll end on that note then:p

Should I present at this point? :D

Sorry, I am of course assuming a legal medical procedure.

So your leg needs amputating.

Some guy still doesn't get to hack it off on his kitchen table. Barring extraordinary circumstances, consent or not.

OK, I see. Still, it looks like a kind of Catch-22 to me:
- You can't get unnecessary surgery done unless it's legal.
- It won't be legal unless it's necessary.

In the case of plastic surgery, necessary=acceptable.

Or is my increasingly tired brain missing something?

OK, I see. Still, it looks like a kind of Catch-22 to me:
- You can't get unnecessary surgery done unless it's legal.
- It won't be legal unless it's necessary.

In the case of plastic surgery, necessary=acceptable.

Or is my increasingly tired brain missing something?

Elective surgeries are by definition unecessary, and quite legal.

My point is, I see no reason to prevent castration from being an elective surgery. And as far as I know, it is in fact legal in many places. However, some people argue that it is too onerous to require a psych exam before undergoing the treatment.

So no, not all surgery has to be necessary in order to be legal.

Elective surgeries are by definition unecessary, and quite legal.

My point is, I see no reason to prevent castration from being an elective surgery. And as far as I know, it is in fact legal in many places. However, some people argue that it is too onerous to require a psych exam before undergoing the treatment.

So no, not all surgery has to be necessary in order to be legal.

Ah, that's why I asked that question about law as opposed to everyday morality.
I don't think there's any way under current UK law that you could castrate someone just because they wanted you to.

I'm going to have to shove off now, leaving an interesting discussion half finished.
If you like, take a look at this, especially pages 3 and 4:
http://www.cieh.org/library/Knowledge/Health_and_safety/JEHR/JEHR%20vol4%20iss1%20-%20Assault%20consent%20and%20body%20art.pdf

And good luck dealing with Corneliu, if he reappears on that other thread.

It seems like everybody agrees that the idea of performing these procedures without a medical license ought to be illegal.

What I find ironic is that particular charge was dropped. They pleaded guilty to maiming.

...which was a consentual act and IMHO, shouldn't have been prosecuted.

It seems like everybody agrees that the idea of performing these procedures without a medical license ought to be illegal.

What I find ironic is that particular charge was dropped. They pleaded guilty to maiming.

...which was a consentual act and IMHO, shouldn't have been prosecuted.

The thinking of most of the above is that since the castrators were not trained professionals with a medical license then they could't be aware all the risks and therefore their "victims" could not give their informed consent.

It seems like everybody agrees that the idea of performing these procedures without a medical license ought to be illegal.

What I find ironic is that particular charge was dropped. They pleaded guilty to maiming.

...which was a consentual act and IMHO, shouldn't have been prosecuted.

*shrug* Plea bargains quite often don't reflect the actual crime very well. Most likely, even though it sounds awful, felony castration and maiming was actually the charge with the lesser penalty.

Most useless debate evar.

Most useless debate evar.

Yeah...welcome to NSG...

It's probably a crime cause those men could have died from amateur surgery.

I saw a crazy TV news special about people who really want to be amputees, like they feel as though they are in the wrong body. Some people have stuck their legs in buckets of dry ice for over a day and then gone to the hospital so their legs would have to be amputated. One guy tied his leg up and just hopped around with a crutch.

They were trying to say that they were perfectly normal people, and other people were saying they were crazy. This one guy that froze his legs off like that, his fixation refocused on his hand, he had his legs off but now he wanted his hand off. He got put on some medication and his obsession went away, and now he says it probably could have saved his legs too if he'd gotten correct treatment in time. He's a double amputee and goes around in a wheelchair.