Matt Dawson badly broke a digit on his right hand during team training in Perth two weeks ago, and recovery from surgery to repair it would have taken months. So, the 30-year-old decided to have the finger removed from the knuckle up in order to take part in his third Games, shocking his team-mates and coach.
Honestly not a terrible decision. It sounds like even if he went ahead and did the surgery to try to salvage the finger it might not have given him full function of that digit. Why keep the finger if it’s not even going to be usable?
Lacking full function doesn’t mean it’s not usable. Just not as usable.
Also, “might not”, so that prognosis was also “it might” (probably less than likely.)
I’m a doctor and I can assure you that “from the knuckle up” means all that’s left of him is the tip of a finger, which will be shit at hockey
He urgently consulted a plastic surgeon who said that even with surgery to repair the finger - and the long recovery time - it may not regain full function.
Honestly, it seems like a pretty logical decision. Lots of people would opt for amputation in that situation, I think, even without factoring in giving up a lifelong dream.
I think I’d try to recover first. If it turns out it doesn’t function anymore I can still decide to remove it.
Lucky for you that you’ve never been in that position. You don’t get to decide “I’ll just remove it later if it doesn’t work out”. That’s considered an elective amputation and a cause to send someone to the psych ward - yes, even if there’s pain resulting from a severe injury and subsequent surgery. When given the option of restorative surgery that may repair it or may leave you with no function and lifelong unbearable nerve pain, or the option to amputate which will remove functionality but at least have predictable results, you need to make your decision at that point. Once you have one of them done, you can’t go back and say “ya know what, this isn’t working, I want you to go the other way instead”. I have lived with the unbearable nerve pain and zero functionally after reconstructive hand surgery and have begged for decades to go back and do the amputation instead. Enough nerve pain that I have threatened to self-amputate, that I have attempted to take my life. None of that matters, the pain is dealt with medically, not surgically, no matter how much you tell them the medical options don’t help.
When this athlete says he made an informed decision - I know that means he found out what the potential was and that he asked if he would be able to make a new decision if he first tried to repair it.
I’ve known many people that had similar surgeries that it worked just fine, and many others that live in constant pain. There’s no formula to know which way it will go, and we still know so little about how the brain interprets pain, especially nerve pain, that there is so little we can do for it.
I wonder if the olympic comittee should ban him from playing in order to discourage this kind of thing in the future.
Completely disagree. I had a hand injury as an infant that resulted in my parents being given the same decision to make - repair the fingers and hope for functionality or amputate. They chose to repair, of course they did. It has lead to 20+ surgeries, unbelievable nerve pain my entire life, and zero functionality. I have consistently asked for the fingers to be amputated, but at this point it’s considered elective amputation and worthy of a call to a psych to have me checked out, despite the pain. I would give anything to go back to that time and have my parents choose amputation. But of course, not knowing the pain, I would probably be upset with them for choosing that option as well
It may seem like this player is “choosing” to forego restorative surgery just so he can play in the Olympics, but this article is probably not presenting all of the information that he was given by his doctors, and his choice may have nothing to do with playing right now, but rather the longer outcome of his health. Just because he’s explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play right now doesn’t mean that is the complete reason he chose it.
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
