Tongue splitting is a form of body modification thatinvolves cutting the tongue, generally down the middle, separating the tongueinto left and right halves, and preventing the halves from growing backtogether. The tongue may be split witha cauterizing laser, a scalpel, or even fishing wire tied tightly through atongue piercing. Depending on how far back the incision is made, a split tonguemay looked "forked," with two tines protruding from the base, or it may evenlook like two tongues lying side by side. The result is often compared to a serpent's tongue. Virtues of a splittongue include its increased surface area, which increases the number of tastebuds, and the ability to move the separate halves of the tongue independently,which enhances the tongue's dexterity and thus enables a person to perform avariety of tasks with his or her tongue. People may have the procedure performed by a physician, assuming theycan find a doctor willing to perform the procedure, while others consultprofessional body piercers or others who have experience in body modificationprocedures. Others choose to splittheir own tongues because they wish to save money or because they see theprocedure as an act of self-creation and wish to be personally involved withthe procedure to the fullest extent possible.
Ten years ago, no one would have even thought toprohibit tongue splitting any more than they would think to ban eye splittingor toe splitting today. Yet it seemsthat tongue splitting has become something of a fad among certain circles inCalifornia, and although it is unlikely to become as widespread a phenomenon ascigarettes, tattoos, or ear or even nose rings, it has allegedly piqued someinterest here in Michigan. Legislationhas been introduced to prohibit from one person from splitting another person'stongue.
THECONTENT OF THE BILL:
House Bill 4688would amend the Public Health Code (MCL 333.13101 and 333.13102) to prohibit anindividual from performing tongue splitting on another individual. "Tongue splitting" would be defined as "the cutting of a human tongue or any partof a human tongue into 2 or more parts for nonmedical purposes". The bill would also exclude tonguesplitting from the code's definition of "body piercing."
Part 131 of the Public Health Code, which deals withtattoo parlors, defines "body-piercing" as the perforation of a human tissueother than an ear for a nonmedical purpose. The code prohibits a person from body-piercing a minor unless theminor's parent or legal guardian has given prior written consent in the presenceof an employee or agent of the person doing the piercing.
FISCALIMPLICATIONS:
According to the House Fiscal Agency, the bill wouldhave no fiscal impact. (5-14-02)
ARGUMENTS:
For:
The procedure known as tongue splitting involvescutting the tongue, usually down the center, into two or more parts. Splitting the tongue may lead immediately tovarious complications, including excessive blood loss and swelling of thetongue, which can in turn cause difficulty with breathing and, at leasttheoretically, suffocation. Moreover,anyone who has performed any sort of oral surgery or has had any oral surgeryperformed on them knows that maintaining oral hygiene while the mouth heals isa constant, uphill battle, lasting long after the surgery. Simply put, tongue splitting is mutilationof the human body, and because it can be a very painful and dangerous procedureand provides no medical benefit, a person should not be allowed to splitanother person's tongue.
Against:
Whether or not beauty is in the eye of the beholder,the legislature should be wary about codifying what are really aestheticjudgments. To define tongue splittingas mutilation is to distinguish it from "cosmetic" surgeries such as faceliftsand tummy tucks. The bill's message is ultimately that "cosmetic" surgerieslike facelifts and tummy tucks are legitimate endeavors because, whether or notmost people would have them, most people understand or at least think theyunderstand why people do have them, namely to look "better". Perhaps people who want to have forkedtongues believe that this will make them look "better", according to their ownpreferred understanding of the term. Actually, anecdotal reports suggest that some people who engage in bodymodification, including tongue splitting, do it precisely to distinguish peoplewho rush to conclusions about others based solely on their appearance fromthose who are willing to look beyond appearances and evaluate people based ontheir inner thoughts and feelings as well as their actions.
Ultimately, all such procedures are modifications of ahuman being's outward appearance. Oneperson thinks that wrinkles in his face make him look old and decides to have afacelift. Another person thinks thather tongue is plain and fails to embody its full potential and decides to have hertongue split. Neither procedure is"medically necessary", and if performed improperly, a facelift or tonguesplitting procedure can have devastating effects. More to the point, the Public Health Code allows a person topierce the tongue, cheek, and lip of another person, which is not medicallynecessary and raises the same oral health considerations that tongue splittingdoes.
All of these procedures can be performed safely, andpeople who are attentive to hygiene after the procedures can prevent complicationsfrom developing. If the legislature isconcerned with public health, safety, and welfare, it should require that anyindividual who chooses to have his or her body modified have the procedureperformed by a medical or other licensed, trained professional. This wouldprobably effectively reduce the number of people who are legally able andwilling to perform the procedure to a very small number anyway. Anyone who performed the procedure could berequired to advise the patient of the risks and obtain parental consent in thecase of a minor, and the patient could be held responsible for maintaining oralhygiene after the procedure was performed to prevent infections.
Response:
Although in most cases neither facelifts nor tonguesplitting procedures are medically necessary, facelifts are not typicallydangerous, whereas an incision halfway down the tongue can be very painful andcan lead to infection and even death. The bill does not make any aesthetic judgments but rather makes ajudgment about what is in the interest of the public's health, safety, andwelfare. As for oral piercings, if itis admitted that oral piercings raise the same health concerns that tonguesplitting does, then it is arguable that they should be banned as well.
Reply:
Facelifts are not typically dangerous because they aretypically performed by physicians who know what they are doing. A "kitchen" facelift would create a healthrisk no less than a "backyard" tongue splitting does. Whether or not oral piercings and tongue splitting may becomeinfected due to the negligence of a person who has such procedures performed onhim or her is beside the point. Peopleshould generally be free to have their bodies modified as long as they acceptresponsibility for the potential risks.
POSITIONS:
The Michigan Dental Association supports thebill. (5-14-02)
______________________________________________________
This analysis was prepared bynonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, anddoes not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
