When you are looking at Anorexia, Dr Sir William Gull in the 19th century was tbe man who coined the term and also worked out a way to treat patients with it. I have copies of his notes.
In terms of body free choice..,or the concept that a person can do whatever they like to their own body due to personal body autonomy, I would say there are limits.
When body modification goes over the line into self harm, wherher direct by the individual or via aiding, abetting, actively involved by a third party, civilised society should be saying no. That No should be interventions to protect the at risk person from themselves, putting limits on the type of modifications available, sectioning if need be.
Those who suffer from anorexia are not encouraged to lose weiggt....because it is self harm.
Young people cannot have tattoos until 18.
Most piercings are nit permitted before 16 or 18 except ear lobe.
Most cosmetic surgeries purely for vanity reasons, are not permitted before 18.
Maybe some *cosmetic* surgeries such as genital surgeries of *any kind* but particularly those specifically for "trans" such as mastectomies, penile inversion, fake penis etc should be utterly banhed as there is no clinical need for such surgeries and a whole lot of harm.
There are limits on bodily autonomy....self harm is that line.
Absolutely this Milli. When I was working on an advanced degree, I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting FGM and breast augmentation, which I consider to be harms that women willingly perpetrate on themselves at the behest of the male gaze. Even just the one in their head as Margaret Atwood memorably wrote about.
Informed consent (which is more lip service than reality in many health care settings) requires giving information to people that they may not want to hear. I had a father to be confront me in antenatal classes because in his mind I "was biased against epidurals in labour". Well, actually I am against their routine use because of the potential harms they can precipitate. If you are going to choose to have an epidural, the time to do your thinking about this is before you are screaming in the midst of a contraction; this is not an informed choice situation, although everyone in the room will pretend otherwise. All I do is give women the facts to think about, and then support them in whatever choice they make.
My take on ‘choice’ as an independent midwife was first and foremost introducing the idea to women of initially who they choose for information. So if wanting a home birth ask the ‘expert’ an experienced homebirth midwife not an obstetrician... which brought me to the concept of choice meaning just that - fact is not always relevant. Eg - (actual case) a single mother with 2 small children who lived in a block of flats (not ground floor) the lift often broken was advised on good medical grounds to have a caesarean section. She declined and obstetrician thought she was taking too high a risk. On medical grounds I agreed. But she was thinking of her recovery alone and having to negotiate her environment after major surgery. This took me to the concept of ‘advice’ - we all knew doctors who were happy to say ‘well... I wouldn’t let my wife have a homebirth...’ you could write a whole book on that. But I believe that when it comes to choosing around birth it is actually irrelevant (to a certain degree) what research and facts tell us. Women taught me that - I can’t tell you how many of my clients defied the odds to give birth without intervention at home having been advised to have sections or hospital deliveries... in the end it is all about trust - trusting self, body, and who is supporting. I think it is valid to ask advice of a trusted health professional - I do not believe it is appropriate for women to trawl data for such decisions themselves. After all midwives and doctors have babies but make differing choices - therefore with all their knowledge they choose differently. Trust and ideology as well as belief is key - knowledge is only a tiny bit of the scenario for me. Anyway - this article is interesting and I will be following up by reading the paper it refers to. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/advising-others-on-crucial-life-choices-immoral-says-cambridge-philosopher. Really interesting reading your thoughts behind your writing Milli. We should all write a biography of writing’.
Bias is bad because it judges based on improper criteria, usually self-interest (bribe $) or favoritism (hence a judge cannot sit in judgment of their own sibling or spouse; they must recuse).
One often sees a similar confusion with prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it's a form of bias, pre-judging something based on improper criteria - based on race or sex most insidiously.
A determination based on sufficient data or facts and done by applying proper criteria or standards to them is sound judgment - literally what we pay experts and professionals for, and a value you are providing to your readers.
I'm sorry a confused or malicious critic is confusing and confounding these points to malign your work.
How sad you keep referring to the person in the Burberry add as 'she". Obviously, if they identify as trans, the pronoun will definitely not be "she". If you don't know how they identify, use proper English and use 'they'.
I am so sad that someone who wrote such empowering books, is not capable of using the proper pronouns, the ones they could give consent to, to people who were born in a female body but do not identify as female or vv.
When you are looking at Anorexia, Dr Sir William Gull in the 19th century was tbe man who coined the term and also worked out a way to treat patients with it. I have copies of his notes.
In terms of body free choice..,or the concept that a person can do whatever they like to their own body due to personal body autonomy, I would say there are limits.
When body modification goes over the line into self harm, wherher direct by the individual or via aiding, abetting, actively involved by a third party, civilised society should be saying no. That No should be interventions to protect the at risk person from themselves, putting limits on the type of modifications available, sectioning if need be.
Those who suffer from anorexia are not encouraged to lose weiggt....because it is self harm.
Young people cannot have tattoos until 18.
Most piercings are nit permitted before 16 or 18 except ear lobe.
Most cosmetic surgeries purely for vanity reasons, are not permitted before 18.
Maybe some *cosmetic* surgeries such as genital surgeries of *any kind* but particularly those specifically for "trans" such as mastectomies, penile inversion, fake penis etc should be utterly banhed as there is no clinical need for such surgeries and a whole lot of harm.
There are limits on bodily autonomy....self harm is that line.
Absolutely this Milli. When I was working on an advanced degree, I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting FGM and breast augmentation, which I consider to be harms that women willingly perpetrate on themselves at the behest of the male gaze. Even just the one in their head as Margaret Atwood memorably wrote about.
Informed consent (which is more lip service than reality in many health care settings) requires giving information to people that they may not want to hear. I had a father to be confront me in antenatal classes because in his mind I "was biased against epidurals in labour". Well, actually I am against their routine use because of the potential harms they can precipitate. If you are going to choose to have an epidural, the time to do your thinking about this is before you are screaming in the midst of a contraction; this is not an informed choice situation, although everyone in the room will pretend otherwise. All I do is give women the facts to think about, and then support them in whatever choice they make.
My take on ‘choice’ as an independent midwife was first and foremost introducing the idea to women of initially who they choose for information. So if wanting a home birth ask the ‘expert’ an experienced homebirth midwife not an obstetrician... which brought me to the concept of choice meaning just that - fact is not always relevant. Eg - (actual case) a single mother with 2 small children who lived in a block of flats (not ground floor) the lift often broken was advised on good medical grounds to have a caesarean section. She declined and obstetrician thought she was taking too high a risk. On medical grounds I agreed. But she was thinking of her recovery alone and having to negotiate her environment after major surgery. This took me to the concept of ‘advice’ - we all knew doctors who were happy to say ‘well... I wouldn’t let my wife have a homebirth...’ you could write a whole book on that. But I believe that when it comes to choosing around birth it is actually irrelevant (to a certain degree) what research and facts tell us. Women taught me that - I can’t tell you how many of my clients defied the odds to give birth without intervention at home having been advised to have sections or hospital deliveries... in the end it is all about trust - trusting self, body, and who is supporting. I think it is valid to ask advice of a trusted health professional - I do not believe it is appropriate for women to trawl data for such decisions themselves. After all midwives and doctors have babies but make differing choices - therefore with all their knowledge they choose differently. Trust and ideology as well as belief is key - knowledge is only a tiny bit of the scenario for me. Anyway - this article is interesting and I will be following up by reading the paper it refers to. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/advising-others-on-crucial-life-choices-immoral-says-cambridge-philosopher. Really interesting reading your thoughts behind your writing Milli. We should all write a biography of writing’.
Yep, it's not bias it's sound judgment.
Bias is bad because it judges based on improper criteria, usually self-interest (bribe $) or favoritism (hence a judge cannot sit in judgment of their own sibling or spouse; they must recuse).
One often sees a similar confusion with prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it's a form of bias, pre-judging something based on improper criteria - based on race or sex most insidiously.
A determination based on sufficient data or facts and done by applying proper criteria or standards to them is sound judgment - literally what we pay experts and professionals for, and a value you are providing to your readers.
I'm sorry a confused or malicious critic is confusing and confounding these points to malign your work.
How sad you keep referring to the person in the Burberry add as 'she". Obviously, if they identify as trans, the pronoun will definitely not be "she". If you don't know how they identify, use proper English and use 'they'.
I am so sad that someone who wrote such empowering books, is not capable of using the proper pronouns, the ones they could give consent to, to people who were born in a female body but do not identify as female or vv.