Replies

Tongue-splitting ban slices its way through Legislature
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | May 1, 2003 | BRYAN SMITH

Posted on 05/01/2003 5:16 AM CDT by sarcasm

Lawmakers have been known to split hairs.

Splitting tongues, they're not so crazy about.

So David Miller, the state representative from Calumet City and a practicing dentist, is serious when he talks about recent legislation he's introduced.

Miller, a Democrat, is sponsoring a bill that would all but ban what has become the latest craze in "body modification"--slicing the tongue in half to create a reptilian appearance.

It's a practice akin to body piercings and tattoos. But detractors like Miller say it carries risks of infection and even death if not performed by licensed medical people and surgeons.

That's why Miller wants to ensure that only physicians perform the procedure, and for sound medical reasons.

If properly done the procedure isn't necessarily harmful, he acknowledges. Still, it's a trend he'd rather not see catch on.

"You know how fads are," he said. "You just never know what's going to happen. We just thought we'd be pro-active."

According to a Web site devoted to the practice, as well as other procedures such as body piercings and tattoos, tongue splitting is the "central bifurcation of the tongue, so as to achieve a 'forked tongue' appearance."

Some people have split their tongue by getting a large number of tongue piercings, stretching them, and then cutting between them, said Shannon Larratt, who runs www.bmezine.com, and had his own tongue split in 1997.

Others have turned to oral surgeons or tattoo parlors. An Albany, N.Y., doctor did his, Larratt said, and he encourages those who want their tongues split to seek a surgeon, too.

But many medical professionals highly discourage the practice.

Among the risks are striking an artery or the tongue becoming so swollen the patient can't breathe. Massive tongue hemorrhage, edema, abscess formation, tetanus and nerve damage are other reported complications, doctors say.

Larratt doesn't deny those risks. In fact, he said, the danger of people seeking poorly done "back alley" jobs are precisely why it should be legal.

"A lot of these laws are worded in ways that make it very difficult for a doctor to do it," he said. "What that means is that the qualified practitioners and doctors don't want to risk losing their licenses. So the only people left doing it are hacks that shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

The bill, also endorsed by state Sen. James T. Meeks and similar to legislation in Michigan, has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits consideration by the full Senate.

"There's really no reason someone should be splitting his or her tongue," Meeks said. "We are simply trying to keep people from hurting themselves."

Larratt sees it differently. "We don't question a person if they want to go in and get just about every other procedure," he said. "Why target this one in such an extreme fashion?"

This is elective surgery and poses risks of infection and heavy bleeding. There is a reason the piecer didn't use anesthetic, he is not licensed to dispense it.

At one point (I do not know about the current situation) it was illegal to tattoo above the collar in Harris Country, Texas. Tattoo artists complained because there were beauticians who were tattooing on permanent makeup (lipstick or eyeliner).

There have even been crackdowns on the non-licensed "dentists" who are fitting teeth for gold caps or other jeweled toothwear. There are health risks (primarily from contamination due to lack of sterilization) as well as a lack of medical training.