Student’s First Name 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Ethics: A Case of Plastic Surgery

The paper uses the case of Sarah to discuss the ethical issue of plastic surgery. For 20

years, Sarah has been embarrassed by the reflection she sees in the mirror. She recalls standing in

front of the mirror when in middle school and wishing she could change her imperfect face. Her

insecurities were confirmed in high school when a girl announced to all her classmates that she

should join the rugby team. Since then, Sara has attempted to achieve the body that she wanted.

She tried a healthy lifestyle, counting calories and weighing herself. About a week ago, Sarah

came across an ad on social media about facial rejuvenation how plastic surgery could restore

her body image. The procedure achieves aesthetic outcomes and significant rejuvenation while

being less traumatic and generating limited morbidity. The procedure corrects the face by

correcting volume depletion, reversing photoaging, and soft tissue suspension. Sarah is in a

dilemma whether to proceed with the procedure or seek other means to improve her body image.

Norman Daniels’ normal function model encouraged Sarah to choose plastic surgery as it is

conscious means to correct her stigma. However, Kant opposes this idea based on the notion that

tampering with her body is wrong because specific changes are inherently wrong. The paper

applies the position to determine the different stances in solving Sarah’s dilemma about plastic

surgery.

Daniels believes that a theory of health care needs should serve two purposes: (1) it

should explain why we see health care as an exceptional social good, and (2) it should tell us
 Student’s First Name 2

which health care services are more memorable than others. These priorities set him apart from

many other health care theorists who often bypass questions of distributive justice and begin with

a direct appeal to health-care rights-a strategy Daniels (23) rejects because it fails to explain the

derivation of these rights. To account for (1) the specialness of health care needs, Daniels

appeals to the notion of normal species functioning, those physical and mental functions required

to pursue our goals as social animals (Daniel 32). The basis for (2), distinctions among more and

less special needs, he provides by linking normal species functioning to the second part of

Rawls’ second principle, fair equality of opportunity (though he believes that his equality of

opportunity principle is also compatible with utilitarian theories of justice). The moral

significance of normal species functioning derives from its relation to the normal range of

opportunities open to individuals given their specific talents and skills (Daniel 32). Limitations in

species functioning deprive individuals of their fair share of the possible life plans from which

they might otherwise reasonably choose. Rawls’ idealized scheme makes no provision for health

care. It assumes that all individuals are functionally normal (Daniel 35). Daniels’ strategy in

applying Rawls’ framework to health care is not merely to add health care to Rawls’ list of

primary goods (which would create new problems, e.g., how to weigh items on the index) but,

instead, to include health care institutions and practices among the -primary institutions

providing the framework of liberties and opportunities within which individuals pursue their

conceptions of the good.

If Sarah was acting on Norman Daniels’ normal function view, she would welcome the

idea of plastic surgery as a normal function. Daniels (2000) defines Norman as the natural

functional system of typical member species where people are unequal by nature. The inequality

is understood in the context of individual characteristics such as appearance, personality, and IQ.
 Student’s First Name 3

People without disability or sickness have equal opportunities to pursue their life plans. Rachels

(63) terms those who do not attract unwelcome attention on their body image as normal.

According to Rachels (63), normal cannot comprehend it feels exposed to derisive attitude and

hostile attention from strangers. Members of the stigmatized class are objects of disdain. From

this viewpoint, Sarah can either come to terms with her stigma and normificate it by behaving

normally or normalize it by seeking conscious means to correct it. As such, plastic surgery would

enhance a normal condition that is not medically indicated. This perspective considers facial

restoration within the context of medicine because it part of the reconstruction process of a

pathological deforming that begun in childhood to rejuvenate Sarah’s equal opportunity in life.

It is not clear at what point Sarah should consider her normal function restored.

Specifically, Daniel does not explain whether this relies on the quality of life that Sarah will

achieve or whether her pathological condition determines her dysfunction for the rest of her life.

If this is the case, Sarah emerges as a person operated on successfully but stigmatized as falling

outside the realm of normal function. Sarah suffering from her body image should not be the

reason for plastic surgery as she appears to function under normal parameters. However, Daniels

does not ignore people’s suffering from the opportunity to be normal. According to Daniel (35),

the deficiency of the normal species operations has a unique effect that can limit the person’s

satisfaction or happiness, relying on the individual’s perception of good. People deciding on the

services to use from society are demanded to provide when the society is. In such a context,

people’s decision about happiness is defined by what is done. Daniels believes that the appeal to

personal happiness will not solve the main challenge that society is obliged to provide (35).

If Sarah was acting on the Kantian view, she would be concern about tampering with her

body as specific changes are inherently wrong. The Kantian approach calls for humanity’s
 Student’s First Name 4

treatment, not only as a means but only as an end. The concept of bodily integrity calls for

people to respect their bodies in body inclination and personal inclination (Kant, Gregor and

Timmermann, 32). Person inclination considers the body as the individual's property, and only

the individual who owns the body has control over what they do with the body. Quinn (337)

agree that every individual has a property in their person. Body inclination charges people with

the responsibility to maintain their body as a whole. The Kantian aspect of bodily integrity

demonstrates that the human body's intrinsic values limit the dimension of morally permissible

activities that can be done to the body. Sarah has the same duty towards their body (Quinn 335).

In this context, undergoing a mid-facelift will be against the bodily integrity perspective due to

its irreversibility. The challenge lies with Sarah in experimenting with identity. While

experimenting appears is part of growth, clothes can be changed, which is opposite to surgical

intervention. The irreversibility of the mid-facelift will make Sarah should make Sarah more

cautious.

In my opinion, achieving a socially acceptable appearance is the basic function that Sarah

should restore. Sarah needs to determine the degree of social function and deformity to

understand if she will need to restore normal function. Therefore, Sarah should not focus on the

origin or nature of the deformity but the consequences in her decision to do plastic surgery.

Sarah should understand her psychosocial functions to understand the consequences. From this

position, I agree with the Kantian view that obsession with body image and suffering from

appearance is not normal for Sarah and calls for a closer assessment of the alternatives.
 Student’s First Name 5

Works Cited

Daniels, Norman. “Justice, Health, and Health Care.” In Medicine and Social Justice, 2nd ed.,

eds. R. Rhodes, M. Battin, and A. Silvers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kant, Immanuel, Mary J. Gregor, and Jens Timmermann. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012.

Quinn, Warren S. "Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect."

Philosophy and Public Affairs vol. 18, no.4, 1989, pp. 334-51.

Rachels, James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” in The Elements of Moral Philosophy.

Random House, New York, 1999.

Student’s First Name 6