Question XV: Whether the mutilation of a limb is ever lawful

That mutilation is illicit per se, all affirm with D. Bonavent. in speculo animae, cap. 1. and D. Thom. quaest. 65. art. 1. and others: Yet it is licit for the public Magistrate to mutilate someone, just as to kill for a just cause. The Saintly Doctor supposes this serm. 6. in Decal. The reason is that the part ought to be given for the good of the whole, as D. Thom. also says, and Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 9. puncto unico.

In the case also in which Surgeons judge mutilation to be necessary: he is not bound to it, if it must be done with great pain. So Sotus Lib. 5. de iust. quaest. 2. art. 1. Lessius Tom. 1. tract. 2. dub. 14. num. 96. Fagundez in 5. praeceptum, lib. 5. cap. 13. num. 6.

But except the case in which he is a Prince, or greatly necessary to the Republic; for then he is bound to endure mutilation even with great pains. So the authorities cited, Petrus Nauar. lib. 2. de restit. cap. 3. num. 102. Sayrus lib. 7. cap. 9. num. 39. Fagundez num. 8.

Nor indeed is anyone bound, or able, to mutilate himself, even if he would be put to death by a Tyrant should he refuse. So D. Thom. art. cit. Sotus lib. 5. de iust. quaest. 2. art. 1. Salon l. 2. quaest. 65. art. 1. The reason is that it is against the law of nature. Yet Bassaeus num. 32. says it is possible even in the case where death would thus be escaped.