Mackenzie, Robin and Cox, Stephen (2006) Transableism, Disability and Paternalism in Public Health Ethics: Taxonomies, identity Disorders and Persistent Unexplained Physical Symptoms. International Journal of Law in Context, 2 (4). pp. 363-375. ISSN 1744-5523. (Full text available)
Transableism is a term which refers to moving between states of being able and disabled by choice rather than by happenstance. Insofar as this may imply a choice to become dependent, claims upon the healthcare system are likely to result. In this piece we aim to explore some ethical and legal implications of such claims. In order to do so, we draw upon current debates over the place of autonomy, beneficence and paternalism in public health ethics, the taxonomy of disability and the status of persistent unexplained physical symptoms (henceforth, PUPS). We suggest that transableism represents a useful construct which may contribute towards resolution of ongoing difficulties within public health ethics and theories of disability. In addition, we believe that it holds promise for the understanding of a significant proportion of patients presenting PUPS. We focus upon identity disorders, particularly in relation to what is currently termed Body Integrity Identity Disorder (henceforth, BIID), where sufferers report a subjective conviction that one or more of their limbs are superfluous, requesting medical assistance to remove the offending limb[s], repair the results of attempts at their self-removal or to provide prostheses and other assistance after removal. We have considered BIID elsewhere in relation to consent, capacity and the doctor/patient relationship (Mackenzie and Cox, 2005). One of us has also explored how the definition of addiction as a chronic relapsing disease within public health governance enables cycles of transitions between the rigours of rational liberal citizenship and the shriven status of the sick (Mackenzie, 2006). Since a central aim in this piece is evaluate the place of transableism within public health ethics, we will begin by considering the latter as a discursive context for the arguments which follow.
|Divisions:||Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Law School|
|Depositing User:||C.A.R. Kennedy|
|Date Deposited:||19 Dec 2007 18:19|
|Last Modified:||09 Jan 2012 12:50|
|Resource URI:||http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/541 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|