this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.8% liked)
Not The Onion
12368 readers
366 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
I get your point and you also pointed out in your other reply that we don't know all the information here.
I had "stenosing tenosynovitis" as a child. And while it can resolve itself, my parents opted for the surgery. And it worked out fine. Yes, it's not quite the same, but people have different expirences.
That's exactly why I think there needs to be some kind of investigation.
Completely disagree. If this had happened at any other time other than two weeks before the games and he made the same decision, would you also be saying there needs to be an investigation?
This was such a severe injury that looking at it caused him to pass out. It's not like it was a simple fracture and the time to heal would have caused him to miss the game so he strong armed someone into amputation. This was such a severe injury that amputation was a viable option, and that's what he chose.