Robert Smith Amputes By Choice

The object of this essay is to determine whether Mill’s conception of liberty is more or less plausible given the article “Amputees by Choice”. Mill’s conception of liberty is centered on non-conformity and a vague description of liberty as a result; he fails to provide a more plausible argument. The article “Amputees by Choice," surrounds the unusual cases of healthy people choosing to have limbs amputated to satisfy a fixation on being handicapped. Robert Smith, a surgeon at Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary in Scotland, had already performed two voluntary amputations when the trust of the hospital decided to intervene. Smith stated that the procedure was one of his most satisfying cases and overall he was confident that he had done right by the patients. Smith admitted that initially he was hesitant and thought it was “absolutely, utterly weird” (Smith 626).Eventually, Smith agreed to perform the procedures because he knew that if he refused the patients could potentially “harm or kill themselves trying to amputate their own limbs” (Elliot 626). Apotemnophilia is defined as “the desire for amputation” (Everaerd 285). People with this inclination often feel trapped or “incomplete with their normal complement four limbs” (Elliot 626). Many have possessed the
People with apotemnophilia, no different than a drug addict trying to satisfy an insatiable desire, are putting their lives at risk to have a procedure done that will indefinitely limit their lives. Mill provides no process conception of the good human life. His argument reflects that a good human life consists of “pursuing our own good in our own way” (Mill 623). Mill doesn’t define or elaborate on human good. Mill attests that each person should be a “guardian of his own health” (Mill 623). Human good can be described as something that betters an individual and does not limit their potential for a fully functioning