I’m still following the discussion, folks, and am utterly fascinated. Just have nothing else to contribute.
Fetus outside womb equals dead anyway. Throws off the chart, I know.
You sick puppy.
Let’s say you take the skin of the foot off the way I would do it, with a knife. (A scalpel is pretty much a razor blade attached to a knife handle.) You’re not going to be able to separate the layers of the skin the way a burn can take off the epidermis and leave the dermis; you’ll have to take all the skin off, leaving bare subcutaneous tissue, fat, and tendons, and some exposed muscle. So it isn’t like a burn. The skin will not regenerate. The little hairs that dip down into the dermis with skin following them down into the dips are gone. You will not survive this unless you either have your foot amputated, which is eminently survivable, or have your whole foot grafted with skin, which is less survivable due to infections and pain, but which leaves you with a foot. However, it won’t be a functioning foot if you want to run or dance or walk tightropes; you will only be able to hobble on it, because of all the scarring, and you will feel pain every time you take a step. Amputation with a prosthesis might be a better idea.
Yes, it is survivable.
What about that is wussy?
Not exactly. Extremely premature infants are born without skin. You can’t actually see the muscles, there’s a thin membrane covering them, but the nurses told me it wasn’t really skin. They keep them moistened with an ointment called Auqafor until their skin grows in.
Damn, hit submit too soon.
You can’t rub or stroke a micropreemie until their skin grown in - the membrane is very delicate and tears easily, like tissue paper. You have to hold their little hands very carefully without rubbing, like this.
Oh, my. She grew up just fine. She is positively lovely! You must be so proud.
Give her a hug for me. How old is she now? Just look at her stuffing her little face!
Here’s the line from the book: “A simple surgical incision was made below the knee, and its edge taken with 8 clamps. Careful work… permitted the removal of everything between the knee and the toes without further help from the knife.”
I don’t know how the peeling v. scalpel use changes this, if at all. In the book, there are no skin grafts or anything. Don’t know if they amputated the foot/leg or not in the end. It’s not really that important to the plot, though I am kind of curious.
What about what is wussy? I said I was wussy for being so squicked out by even just reading about this subject, which is probably why this scene stayed with me for years after reading the book. It’s not a very long part of the book. It makes me feel sympathetic pain just reading it. ::shiver::
She’s awesome. 15 months on May 9th. That was blueberry pie on Easter. Seemed wisest to take off her dress for dinner! 
You raise a good point. An educated flayer doesn’t need to keep cutting to remove skin. If you cut in the proper places, you can peel a person the same way you would remove a sock or glove. I remember that I first learned this while watching a documentary on a boy from a thirdworld country born with an extremely disfiguring condition. The plastic surgeon made incisions above the hairline, peeled the skin like a bannana, reshaped the boy’s eyesockets, and pulled the skin back into place.
Come to think of it, I’m surprised no hunters have posted to this thread. Some of these people have skinning knives. They’ve got to have knowledge that transfers to humans.
Erythrodermic Psoriasis. I can’t help but think of the words of Doctor Nick Riviera “Calm down sir. You’re going to give yourself skin failure!”
There’s also “the judgement of Cambyse” by David
She is lovely. And I hate to disagree with what they told you. But that “very thin membrane” was skin. I put fetal skin under the microscope all the time. It’s there from NINE WEEKS of gestational age. It’s got epidermis, dermis, nerves, vessels, skin appendages, and corpuscles. It has all the complex makeup of that very complex organ that shines on your face. The reason they told you to think of it as a membrane was how fragile it was. It was horrendously immature skin, and so they were wise to make you treat it unlike skin. They were telling you an emotional truth that would guide you to take proper care of your beautiful and vulnerable micropreemie. But it was skin, and that’s why she wasn’t the same as someone flayed.
Sorry to have to disagree. I’m boarded in peds path and can’t let an error of fact like that go by without saying something. But I do reiterate it was an emotional truth, and wisely said. Just not a fact.
Hey, I have done this, not on a foot (never had to peel a foot) but on a face, dozens of times. And on a scalp, hundreds of times. Careful work, sure. You are still flaying off the entire skin - the dermis and the epidermis, and a little of the subcu. Some areas have more areolar connective tissue than others, which creates a plane where it’s easy to work; if you work in those areas, though, you’re peeling off the whole subcutaneous layer, too, since the plane is deep to the fat. You couldn’t do this on the abdominal skin – it’s hard enough to peel the skin/fat layer off the muscles; there is no areolar layer.
Peeling with a knife is peeling with a scalpel is peeling like a hunter.
I want to give you an illustration of the epidermis versus dermis thing to explain why the whole skin comes off when you flay. The epidermis is the transparent outer layer through which you can see tattoo ink. Tattoo ink rests inside macrophages who stay in place in the dermis. After many years, they migrate just a little, which is why old tattoos blur. The outer and inner layers of the skin that can be separated so easily by a burn cannot be separated by any flayer with a knife. You get the whole skin off with a knife. Nothing to regenerate.
First degree burn is like sunburn. Second is a blister burn - have you ever blistered yourself from grease or something else? I have. The reason the blister fills with fluid is the living blood vessels in the dermis leak fluid into the heat-damaged skin. The leaking fluid is what lifts the epidermis off. It operates on a microscopic level at a thousand microscopic sites at once. The macroscopic knife edge cannot do this.
People who die in fires do not blister. They lose whole chunks of skin, dermis and epidermis. The fat chars. Fourth degree burn, we sometimes call it. There is no lifting off of the epidermis.
People who die in water develop postmortem skin slip that looks like blisters. It’s because putrefying internal fluids leak into the skin, which is softened by water on the outside. The epidermis slips off in multiple areas. If they’re over a tattoo, it looks oddly bright and clear, because the transparent outer layer of the epidermis is gone. But I reiterate, from experience. There is no knife that can do this.
I may not be an imaginary torturer’s guild member, but I’m coming up on about 3,000 autopsies, and I’m pretty skilled with a knife.
I bet you are. And I believe you when say you are not a member of an imaginary torturer’s guild. Really. 
So if a foot was flayed and the person didn’t die right away from the shock of the pain, what would happen to the person? Die of infection? Is that inevitable? If the person avoids infection, what would happen to the foot?
To clarify, I should say, inevitable without modern drugs to prevent infection.
Add me to the chorus of those who are very glad you decided to stick around.
{/end spontaneous testimonial}
:eek:
What the hell has your boyfriend done now?
I think it’s been covered pretty dang well here, but oddly enough, I actually asked this same question awhile back. :eek:
No problem. Sorry to have introduced erroneous “facts” into GQ, and thanks for clearing that up.
(I’m on the waiting list for nursing school, after which I want to become a NICU nurse, so it’s nice to know one thing I won’t mis-speak when the time comes!)
That’s what I thought of when I read this thread too. That was, I believe, a Tanuki, also known as a Raccoon Dog. I believe it was determined from the speaking in the background that the guy who skinned it alive was paid by the people filming to skin the poor thing alive, just so they could film the horrible process and imply that it was normal practice. I’m all for animal welfare, but that’s just disgusting. The sight of that tanuki’s eyes looking at the camera while its facial muscles were exposed and twitching, after having suffered through having its skin peeled from its living body, has freaked me out to this day.
This is the sort of thing, when applied to humans, that Allen Candle (or maybe Alan – I listened to the audiobook from Audible so I don’t know how the name is actually spelled in the book) from Spider Robinson’s newish book Very Bad Deaths would just love to determine experimentally.
Oh, and right before I read this thread, I read another thread, about horror movie survival tactics, which pointed me to the comic strip Chopping Block, about serial killer Butch, where I read this comic just a few minutes before finding this thread. Note the epitaph on the frontmost gravestone.
Here lies HITCHHIKER: Lived for 5 hours with no skin.
How’s that for synchronicity, eh?