Reference no: EM133715095

Problem

Therefore, they reasoned that mutilation, any kind of act that injures or impairs bodily integrity, is an immoral act that violates the dominion of God, unless-and this is the principle of totality-the removal of the bodily part leads to the well-being and integrity of the whole. Pope Pius XII taught that three conditions govern the moral licitness of surgical operations: First, that the continued presence or functioning of a particular organ within the whole organism is causing serious damage or constitutes a menace to it; next, this damage must be remediable or at least can be measurably lessened by the mutilation in question, and the operation's efficacy in this regard should be well assured; finally, one must be reasonable certain that the negative effect, that is, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated for by the positive effect: elimination of danger to the whole organism, easing of pain, and so forth.13 To reconcile this reasoning with the moral conviction that no one can unjustifiably mutilate himself or allow the integrity of the donor, and then argue that only the latter is necessary for the bodily integrity that must be maintained and respected by surgeon and patient. Thus, the donation of organs that maintains the functional integrity of the donor, including, for example, the transfusion of blood, the removal of a kidney, or the resection of part of a liver, is morally permissible, because the loss of these organs does not lead to the loss of blood, kidney, or liver function. In contrast, in the donation of any organs that destroys a patient's functional integrity, the donor, then argues that only the latter is necessary for the bodily integrity that must be maintained and respected by the surgeon and patient. Thus, the donation of organs that maintains the functional integrity of the donor, including, for example, the transfusion of blood, the removal of a kidney, or the resection of part of a liver, is morally permissible, because the loss of these organs does not lead to the loss of blood, kidney, or liver function. In contrast, the donation of any organs that destroys a patient's functional integrity, including the donation either of one eye or of an entire lung, is immoral since the donor needs both eyes and both lungs to see and breathe normally. Their theological opinion stemmed from the basic principle that God is the ultimate Lord of human life. Therefore, they reasoned that mutilation, any kind of act that injures or impairs bodily integrity, is an immoral act that violates the dominion of God,

Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio. Biomedicine and Beatitude: An Introduction to Catholic Bioethics (p. 174). Catholic University of America Press. Kindle Edition.

On p. 248, Austriaco says: "...the scientific evidence suggests that gender reassignment surgery cannot be morally justified by the principle of totality..." What, precisely, does that mean, and would the same considerations apply to hormonal gender reassignment?