Canada
— In the news this
week was the story of the
man who had the
world's first successful penis transplant, only to ask
that it be removed two weeks later.
His shocking decision
raises some ethical questions about the body and our
relationship to it.
The 44-year-old man, who
was unable to urinate or have sex normally after he lost
his penis in an undisclosed accident, had the transplant
at Guangzhou General Hospital in China, according
to The Associated Press.
In this instance, the
parents of a brain-dead 22-year-old donated their son's
organ.
Although surgeons
reported that 10 days after the operation the
transplanted penis was rich in blood supply and the
recipient was
urinating normally,
doctors removed the surrogate organ because the man and
his wife had a "severe psychological problem" with
it.
When we lose a part of
ourselves due to some unfortunate accident, it's
completely understandable to mourn that loss, and even,
in some instances, undergo medical procedures to have a
body part replaced.
Women who have one or
both breasts removed due to cancer are fortunate enough
to have the option to reclaim their curves by undergoing
reconstructive surgery.
Amputees can remain
able-bodied thanks to the miracle of artificial
limbs.
Having a lifesaving heart
or kidney transplant can reverse bodily damage and even
give a person a new lease on life.
But having a dead
person's genitalia fused to your body to correct a
non-life-threatening injury is a sexual identity crisis
waiting to happen.
Imagine every time that
guy relieves himself he will reluctantly be reminded that
his manhood was severed and replaced by
another's.
Each time he makes love
to his wife the two of them will face the mental hurdle
of their implied threesome with a cadaver.
That the recipient's
better half rejected the new penis after just two weeks
because of its "swollen shape" seems absurd and improper,
when the real issue was the presence of the Frankenstein
limb in the first place.
Even though the operation
was "discussed again and again" by the couple and
approved by the hospital's ethics committee, nothing
could prepare them for this adjustment.
In this world of cosmetic
surgery our obsession with beautification guarantees that
what can be done medically will be done.
There will inevitably be
a cocksure embrace of this ethically questionable
procedure by private industry.
Clinics will open, and a
new generation of surgeons who specialize in penile
replacement will make millions due to affluent clients'
insecurities.
The impetus to accept our
bodies as they are, or at least work with what we've got,
will further wane and begin to seem as nonsensical as
choosing the short end of the stick - on
purpose.
This bigger-is-better
mentality will no doubt sway some selfish,
unaccommodating women to pressure their mates to
supersize their members.
And do you really think
Dr. Johnson will adequately inform his clients about the
psychological risks of this enhancement
procedure?
What are the implications
for those who die and pass on their parts?
Will organ donor cards
give men the option to specify if their genitals go to a
gentleman patient or a sex-change recipient?
Imagine a world where a
man's private parts are as interchangeable as his
underwear. Society has a well-earned reputation for
embracing the outrageous, and there's no overriding power
to stop this progression once it starts.
We need to put this
procedure under the same microscope as human cloning,
abortion, and euthanasia.
Pushing the boundaries of
medicine is, once again, pushing the boundaries of
ethics. Where do we want it to stop?
