I thought it was quite relevant, in that it relates to (and supports) the referenced post, which quite correctly warned against taking rash and irretrievable action without being sure that a future prospect might arise to remediate and repair the defect. I see no problem with reinforcing an argumentative position with a vivid and conspicuous example from real life that is illustrative of the principle espoused. Doing so is a commonly used argumentative method of giving a specific point its place within a wider general principle that can be more easily grasped.
The topic at hand is not limited to the “person deciding” to keep a limb, but about the cost/benefit and medical value of such an amputation, and another poster had already raised the point of the finality of such a decision, which is what I addressed.
Pardon my ignorance. I’ve read about amputees fully recuperating and becoming, with the help of advanced prosthetics, even more capable than before.
A recent NPR story had a mountain climber whose legs were crushed under a boulder or something. He was back on the mountain within a year, with special leg attachments that made it easier for him to grab smaller holds and cracks. His legs are on jacks, and he mentioned that when he’s feeling less confident, he jacks himself up so he’s tall, but when he’s feeling on top of the world, he jacks himself down shorter to give the other guys a break.
There are Paralymians who can outrun regular Olympians with their carbon fiber spring feet. Is any of this at all possible for for someone who is paralyzed? I’m imagining that these people are using their stumps in a way that a paraplegic isn’t capable of. But I’m not sure.
Is it possible that someone who is paralyzed could get rid of the useless limbs and replace them with a more useful prosthesis? Or does their paralysis prevent them from making the kind of improvement a non-paralyzed amputee can make?
For that matter, are we approaching a time when someone could justifiably choose elective amputation, not because there’s anything wrong with their legs, but because a high tech prosthesis would be an improvement over biological legs?
Some years ago I read a news story of a woman, teen or early 20s, who had a congenitally useless lower leg. She had always walked with crutches and decided to have it amputated and get a prosthesis. At the time, I wondered if a leg brace might not have been just as good, but I never saw a follow-up so I don’t know how successful that was.
An amputee resulting from a spinal cord injury is much different than an amputee resulting from crushed legs or some other lower body injury. Prosthesis would not do a goddamn thing for someone with a spinal cord injury who chose to have limbs amputated, because it’s the spinal cord that’s actually damage, not the limbs themselves.
I have to disagree with your statement from a medical standpoint. I am a 42 yr old female who developed paralysis of my right leg following a spinal cord injury. (I had a spinal cord tumor that intervated my lumbar spine and had to have subsequent surgery which resulted in my condition) I would 100% be able to utilize a prosthetic limb if a surgeon were to amputate, as I do have gluteal and hip flexor movement/strength. In fact, this is a surgery I have requested multiple times and have been told “no” by physicians. I have gotten answers like, “there may be devices in ten years that can reverse what you have” and “it is too dangerous”. I myself am a critical care nurse who understands these physicians, but strongly opposes them as well. Those in the health care field must respect the autonomy of a patient first and foremost. In my case, amputation should be considered a valid option. The loss of a nonfunctioning limb would allow for the use of a prosthetic limb which would in turn greatly affect my lifestyle. While it would take dedicated rehabilitation, I could walk again without dragging a dead limb along. I currently wear a brace from my upper thigh to my toes which keeps my leg from buckling when standing. The brace is heavy, it is hot, and it must be worn on the outside of my clothes. I am able to ambulate with two forearm crutches or I use a manual wheelchair. What if I could ditch all of this? What if I could return to the active lifestyle I had previous to my surgery where I could walk again, ride a bike again and maybe even run?? Why would I choose to stay trapped in an extremely prohibited manner? I have a husband, two boys and a dog…why wouldn’t I want the opportunity to choose amputation when it could significantly change my lifestyle? Why should I have to waste ten years of my life with this limb that serves no purpose while I wait for a possible cure? That’s ten years of lost time! Perhaps in my case, amputation should be recognized as the first step in the rehabilitation of a spinal cord injury instead of a last resort. Yes, I am aware of the risks of the surgical procedure, but my question would be, why is my personal desire for a reasonable request treated secondary to the surgical community? Why isnt the improvement of a lifestyle enough to warrant the risks of the procedure?
Welcome to the Straight Dope! Now although you’ve posted a relevant addition to the thread I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s unclear which statements from three years ago you are disagreeing with. And also that your reply would have benefited from being split into a couple of paragraphs.
You need the marrow in your long bones (femur, tibia, fibula, humerus, radius, ulna, etc.) to produce red blood cells and for other important functions. Significant loss of these bones will shorten life.
I have an analogous issue. I’m totally blind in my left eye. It was a whole mishegoss with a detached retina and an insurance company that wouldn’t let me see a retina guy until I’d passed their gatekeeper and one thing led to another and the retina is fried.
Because several surgeries to attempt repair left me with acute glaucoma I was using three different prescriptions to try to manage intraocular pressure in an eye that was totally useless. I was spending $1000 a year just in prescription co-pays to maintain a useless organ, plus I was having to put eye drops in around six times a day, and don’t even ask me what the office visits were costing.
I hung in for a couple of years hoping for some breakthrough in stem cells or something that would have them growing retinal tissue by the square meter, but eventually after consulting with my retina guy decided to pull the plug on the whole deal and suspended treatment.
The intraocular pressure got up crazy high, and it got pretty painful, and I almost chose to have the thing removed and replaced with a prosthetic. The organic one wasn’t doing me any good, and what with one thing and another the appearance of it wasn’t much to write home about either.
Somewhere along the way the nerves must have started to die off, because while the pressure is still high enough to make my retinal guy wince, now more than ten years later it only hurts a few times a year, so that’s something.
My daughter has always said with a prosthetic I could get seasonal implants, you know, a snow globe for Christmas, a Jack-O’Lantern for Halloween, an Easter egg in the spring, but she’s festive that way. Still, if it hurt me every day of my life, you can bet I’d pluck it out quicker than Ray Milland at the end of that movie.
Pedants about grammar and setting out… play the ball , facts…
Well ok JCapped, you seem to think that just gluteal and hip flexor movement/strength is good enough to utilize a prosthetic limb… but that confuses me.
Why can’t you use your natural femur then? Splint your knee and walk on a stiff leg ??
Why do you think that evidence of guteal and hip flexor nervation is enough to work a prosthetic .
The muscles of the hip are a very very complicated. See Anatomy Articles - dummies
You have nerve trouble at the lumbar spine, this means that numerous nerves and therefore muscle groups are not working.
Given the complexity of the nerve system in the hip and leg, are you sure that amputation would not cause any issue such as “phantom limb”, which is where you feel pain from the missing limb like it still existed. The cut to the nerve causes it to complain for years … or for ever.!. Also, the pain felt can be referred pain, and then you feel your good leg is aching, or that you have appendicitis, or something. And its difficult to treat.
Worse, if they cut your nerves in your leg, they can actually disable nerves further up , and you need all the nerves you have left. Eg the referred pain is killing you, and they can only treat it by cutting nerves up higher.
now you need a catheter to go pee pee, and you are getting UTI four times a year… and a decade later, your urethra is destroyed and you are onto a bag…
Same with the eye… removing the eye is not always a cure for pain, and results in infections and possible complications of the good eye, its easy for an infection to travel to the good eye.
