It was a choice MOST medical amputees get: Do you want a fucked up limb or want it gone?
No injury heals perfectly even in children, let alone adults. It is a perfectly reasonable question where amputation can lead to LESS pain and suffering in the future.
Fair enough, maybe saying “without any medical necessity” was over the top here.
Still, it very much seems like the decision was motivated by the desire to particapate in the Olympics. The medically sound thing would be to try and fix the finger and amputate it when it doesn’t work out.
But of course information is limited and it’s all speculation. Still, an ethics investigation would seem appropriate in my opinion.
Please read my other comment, as someone with actual first hand experience in hand injuries that result in the choice between restorative surgery or amputation.
You make that choice when deciding which way to go initially. It’s not a painting that you can decide "ya know what, this isn’t working out, let’s go back to the other way we thought ". Once you go down the restorative surgery route, that’s your route. And any pain you experience gets dealt with medically. Believe me, I’ve tried telling every doctor I know that the nerve pain I experience is to much to much to bear and to please go back and amputate instead, but at this point it’s considered an elective amputation.
Just because he’s explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play doesn’t mean it was the complete reason for his choice
Also someone should look into a the doctor that performed the surgery without any medical necessity.
It was a choice MOST medical amputees get: Do you want a fucked up limb or want it gone?
No injury heals perfectly even in children, let alone adults. It is a perfectly reasonable question where amputation can lead to LESS pain and suffering in the future.
Fair enough, maybe saying “without any medical necessity” was over the top here.
Still, it very much seems like the decision was motivated by the desire to particapate in the Olympics. The medically sound thing would be to try and fix the finger and amputate it when it doesn’t work out.
But of course information is limited and it’s all speculation. Still, an ethics investigation would seem appropriate in my opinion.
Please read my other comment, as someone with actual first hand experience in hand injuries that result in the choice between restorative surgery or amputation.
You make that choice when deciding which way to go initially. It’s not a painting that you can decide "ya know what, this isn’t working out, let’s go back to the other way we thought ". Once you go down the restorative surgery route, that’s your route. And any pain you experience gets dealt with medically. Believe me, I’ve tried telling every doctor I know that the nerve pain I experience is to much to much to bear and to please go back and amputate instead, but at this point it’s considered an elective amputation.
Just because he’s explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play doesn’t mean it was the complete reason for his choice