Body integrity identity disorder using augmented reality: a symptom reduction study

Body integrity identity disorder (BIID) is a rare condition characterised by a discrepancy between specific areas of an individual’s perceived body image and body schema which causes the individual to disassociate those physical areas of their body from their internal representation. There are currently no efficacious, ethically unambiguous means for achieving long-lasting symptom reductions. In the case we present, two patients with BIID underwent an augmented reality (AR)-based simulation that virtually amputated their alienated limbs, allowing them to experience their ideal selves. During the exposure, both patients reported reductions in BIID-related complaints. These preliminary results suggest the existence of a possible therapeutic and diagnostic potential that AR possesses, which warrants further consideration within clinical healthcare settings.

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

Sufferers of body integrity identity disorder (BIID) experience a severe, non-delusional mismatch between their physical body and their internalised bodily image. For some, healthy limb amputation is the only alleviation for their significant suffering. Those who achieved an amputation, either self-inflicted or via surgery, often describe the procedure as resulting in relief. However, in England, surgeons who provide ‘elective amputations’ could face prosecution for causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Whether such a therapeutic intervention should be classified as GBH depends on the presence of harm, as, without harm, it is hard to argue that GBH has occurred. However, there is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes harm. Such a definitional absence then begs the question, what is harm? It is this question which this article addresses, using the provision of healthy limb amputation in cases of BIID as an example. Drawing on metaphysics, this article will seek to clarify three separate contemporary models of harm: the counter-temporal, the counterfactual, and the non-comparative. Each model will be applied to the scenario of a surgeon carrying out a BIID-induced, therapeutic, healthy limb amputation, and in each, how harm may, or may not, be understood to have been caused will be explored. It concludes that an unexamined conception of harm is ill-equipped for employment in suspected cases of GBH when it is unclear whether harm has been caused and that a better-informed understanding of harm is required in cases where there is potential disagreement, be that in instances of BIID or a myriad of other borderline scenarios.

Examining Body Integrity Identity Disorder through Theological Ethics

Body identity integrity disorder (BIID) is experienced by a small percentage of the population, whose idea of how they should look does not match their actual physical form. The most common manifestation of BIID is the desire to have a specific limb amputated. In a small number of cases, the desire is not for the removal of a limb, but to be blind or paralyzed. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the possible physiological, neurological, or psychological etiologies of BIID. This paper examines the ethical implications of the different approaches to help those with BIID. These approaches and the dilemma that doctors face in cases of BIID are the subject of the final section, which offers some tentative ethical conclusions regarding this disturbing disorder.

Elective Impairment Minus Elective Disability: The Social Model of Disability and Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Individuals with body integrity identity disorder (BIID) seek to address a non-delusional incongruity between their body image and their physical embodiment, sometimes via the surgical amputation of healthy body parts. Opponents to the provision of therapeutic healthy-limb amputation in cases of BIID make appeals to the envisioned harms that such an intervention would cause, harms such as the creation of a lifelong physical disability where none existed before. However, this concept of harm is often based on a normative biomedical model of health and disability, a model which conflates amputation with impairment, and impairment with a disability. This article challenges the prima facie harms assumed to be inherent in limb amputation and argues in favour of a potential treatment option for those with BIID. To do this, it employs the social model of disability as a means to separate the concept of impairment and disability and thereby separate the acute and chronic harms of the practice of therapeutic healthy-limb amputation. It will then argue that provided sufficient measures are put in place to ensure that those with atypical bodily constructions are not disadvantaged, the chronic harms of elective amputation would cease to be.