This idea isn’t uncommon.

And I’m all for patient agency playing a higher factor in it. If the patient sees the benefits outweighing the drawbacks, they should have that choice. And there are major drawbacks health wise.

However, the reasoning given in the blurb (I haven’t read the article yet, wanted to frame my thoughts first) is utter crap.

I was a caregiver. Twenty years. Paralyzed patients were often easier to provide care to than non ambulatory amputees. And the amount of weight in the legs was a minor factor in what difficulty was there. Considering how much atrophy occurs, by the time a person has been paralyzed a while, you’re talking chump change poundage in the legs.

Like, for an average person, a leg is maybe 15% (ish) of total body weight. So, not exactly massive even when doubled for two legs, but still appreciable. A 200 pound person, that’s going to be sixty pounds.

However, atrophy is going to drop that to maybe 10% at most. I’ve seen different estimates over the years, but they tend to top out at that range. And I’ve had patients where I know damn good and well it was a lower %. So, assuming the same 200 lbs, you’d be down to forty for both legs, and I gotta tell you that even the smaller caregivers just aren’t going to notice that in the rare instances they have to outright carry a patient, and if the patient is that heavy, the smaller ones won’t be lifting them solo in the first place, they’d call some asshole like me.

Then, you run into the other trouble. Even legs that are atrophied and contractured (where the tissues draw up and get locked in position) can actually help transfers, and they absolutely help in positioning in beds (less so in chairs).

Like, using a transfer board to go from bed to chair (or vice versa), the feet help stabilize position during the slide over. Way more often than not anyway. Some individuals may have a situation that it makes things harder, but that’s why I say it should be an option for patients that want it rather than a recommended thing doctors would bring up.

Anyway, ima go read the article, see if it changes anything for me

Edit: fuck that guy. Doctor or not, he needs to pull his head out of his ass because the drawbacks and dangers of amputation for the kind of patients he’s specifying are way too fucking high. You do not subject a person to major surgery in advanced age, nor without a major reason.

And the idea that it would prevent caregivers from killing their patients/family? Utter bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No way would amputating the patient prevent that. I don’t believe it would even shift numbers enough to merit anything other than outright ridicule at the suggestion. The difficulty of limbs is absolutely not the reason that happens.

Now, the possibility of reducing suffering of patients? That’s valid. And, again, that’s why I would advocate for the patients having the option.

I dunno, maybe the article misrepresented what he actually believes. If that’s the case, whatever. But as presented? Dude does not need to be allowed to treat patients. No fucking way, he’s batshit if what the article presents him is true.