This isn’t an BIID case, but it is disturbing nonetheless. A disabled girl wants her leg amputated so she can better engage in sports. From the story:
A brave schoolgirl has decided to have her leg amputated–because she wants to become a world-class athlete. Danielle Bradshaw, 11, does not need to have her useless right leg removed but has chosen to go under the knife in a bid for sporting glory as a Paralympian. Danielle, from Newton in Hyde, has a healthy left leg but says she does not want to spend the rest of her life ‘dragging the other one’ behind her. Surgeons told her they could perform a number of operations and skin grafts on the limb, which has been damaged since birth.
They said the work would enable Danielle, a pupil at Flowery Field Primary in Hyde, to keep it but admitted that she would not be able to use it. Tired of repeated trips to hospital and having to watch her friends play out without her, and inspired by gold medals, Danielle stunned her parents by declaring she wants to have it amputated. They agreed and she will have the operation in Sheffield in August.
Amputation is very serious surgery. It probably won’t–but could–kill her. Is participating in sports really worth that risk? And if there are serious medical complications, will the parents blame themselves for going along or the doctors for agreeing?
That point aside, there is a lot to be said about this story–including the media’s boosting. But here’s the bottom line: What does “harm,” as in “do no,” constitute today in the practice of medicine? Increasingly, answers are not based on medical analysis but emotional narratives. And that is reducing medicine from a profession into a technical trade.
Don’t get me wrong: I have great sympathy for this girl’s desire to be able to play and participate in sports. Still, it seems to me that doctors should refuse to perform a medically unnecessary amputation. That doctors have agreed, even though it isn’t being done to improve her health, is another small crack in the foundation of medical professionalization.
Update: The more I think about this, and from the reactions to the post so far, the more I see it as a crucial issue to ponder. When do we need professional standards most? In the tough cases. And this is a very tough case. A little girl wants to be able to play and compete. But she is too young to really make an informed decision and cannot weigh and measure in the way that consenting to surgery requires. Her parents, deeply yearn for that too, and quite understandably are very emotionally involved here. But the remedy is a very serious surgery that could kill her, cause blood clots, permanent unconsciousness from an anesthesia side effect, etc. That’s when doctors need to be professionals and provide a fail safe, rather than being an order taker. So what is harm in this case? A girl living with a disability or the potential terrible consequences if something goes wrong? It is worth thinking very deeply about, I think.
July 26th, 2010 | 2:24 pm
Doctors already perform “medically unnecessary” surgeries–they are called “abortions.”
July 26th, 2010 | 2:54 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Doctors Agree to Perform Medically Unncessary Amputation on Girl » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mMRJU [...]
July 26th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
Wesley,
Once again you’ve accepted the “sensational” narrative which the press has forced on the story. The article mentions several reasons for the girl’s decision (1) she’s tired of repeated trips to the hospital (2) she wants to be able to play with her friends (3) she’s seen other people running and just wants to know how it feels. (4) her sources of inspiration are not only paralympians but soldiers and celebrities living fuller lives with prosthetic limbs.
In short, all this little girl wants is a leg that works. The whole paralympics thing was probably something she threw out there (“and who knows I might even go on to be a gold medallist!”) as a virtually unattainable goal.
July 26th, 2010 | 4:29 pm
As you state, amputations are not risk free (though when carried out on young healthy people with no co-morbid conditions the risks are small) but the bottom-line is the operation would take away a non-functional appendage and allow her to be fitted with a functional prosthetic. She avoids the reconstructive surgery she would have probably had without her amputation and she is left free to pursue her dream. Ad astra per aspera.
July 26th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
This is a pretty disgusting and foul entry, hopefully Danielle will never stumble across it.
A vasectomy can kill you as well, maybe we should prohibit urologists from doing that. Braces aren’t necessary, either, we should ban them. Don’t even get me started on tubal ligations, some C-sections, lasic, and male circumcision.
Think of all the medically unnecessary procedures performed on people in “persistent vegetative states” – like non-diagnostic brain scans. And how do they know if they have bed sores or not?
Who are we to help people with modern medicine or science – it’s like we are exceptional or something.
I once watched a soldier, who got his leg mangled, receive an amputation and prosthetic. What a selfish jerk; his life wasn’t in danger once he got out of the field hospital – so what if he was lugging around 40 extra pounds of useless tissue? Then he had the audacity to occupy a physical therapist’s time to help him recover and walk normally again. Unbelievable.
How dare patients seek procedures for ailments and doctors be willing to provide them.
Next thing you know, we will be treating cleft palat and hemifacial microsomia cause it’s difficult for these lazy and wimpy kids to eat.
I’m guessing everyone objecting to this will be consistent in old age and refuse medical care designed to produce comfort, opting instead for that old-time religion and faith healing to prolong their life instead of this modern transhuman garbage. Morphine drips aren’t medically necessary – they only alleviate suffering. Hmm, or medical marijuana for that matter.
It’s not like this little girl suffers from being crippled. I’m sure her wheelchair is very comfortable – look, she’s smiling in the picture – and I’m sure she could get a cool Dolce and Gabbana knee brace to compliment the specialty shoes.
Yes, let Smith decide what is medically necessary.
BTW:
1. there is no direct mention on the girl’s part in this article that she wants to be athlete (no emotional narrative going on in the blog entry).
2. in Europe, some people refer to physical exercise and activity as “training”. In the states, we sometimes call it “sports”. At recess, all over the world, school children often play “sports”.
3. journalists often hype stories for ratings – like saying how a kid wants to be an olympian or an astronaut. Imagine, a crippled kid says to journalist, “I saw Olympians running and I want to do that” (referring to running). Journalist asks kid, “would you like to be in the Olympics some day?” Shy kid nods head, hoping journalist will leave. Journalist scratches out old headline: “Kid to get prosthetic leg” and writes new headline “Kid dreams of becoming Olympian with new prosthetic leg”.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Hardly foul and I certainly didn’t criticize the girl, as much as you want to twist it. I am concerned at what is happening to medicine. I am concerned that we are transforming it into lifestyle enhancements rather than healing and palliating. I am concerned that it is becoming an on demand techno craft.
This is a 12 year old girl who wants to play like other kids. The problem is that the remedy is an amputation that could kill her. She could have terrible side effects, infections, blood clots, etc. Not the same at all as a soldier being wounded and receiving a prosthetic. It is not a medically necessary procedure, and one that is dangerous to boot. Disagree with me. I understand that. I don’t think the doctors should do it.
July 26th, 2010 | 6:21 pm
Medically unnecessary to you. Why would you say that her surgery would have no health benefits? Exercise is good for the body as well as the spirit. The only disturbing part of this story is your opposition to this young woman’s quest for a fuller life.
According to the story, God neglected to equip this courageous young woman with two functioning legs. Modern medicine can fix what God can’t. Why would anyone want to ration her ability to finally walk, perhaps to run?
Do you also oppose prescription drugs, all of which have side-effects? Do you oppose all elective surgeries, since they have risks? How about implanting a pacemaker? How about anti-depressants? Cochlear implants? Breast reduction surgery?
July 26th, 2010 | 7:10 pm
Much as we agree on principles, Wesley, we disagree on their application here. From the published article, we are given to believe that this girl is unable to ambulate because of a diseased leg. Replacing the diseased leg with a prosthesis would allow her to ambulate, enhancing her quality of life. This case does not differ in principle from that of implanting a hip prosthesis to allow a wheelchair-limited patient with disabling hip arthritis to walk again. In the hip operation, the “natural” diseased organ is removed and replaced by a metal prosthesis. (And the risk of hip surgery in the elderly vastly outweighs that of an amputation in a healthy girl.) The same is true in this girl’s case: a diseased and non-functional organ is replaced by a functional prosthesis. If the purpose of the operation were merely to allow athletic competition, I would be skeptical too, since a girl born with bilateral hip dislocation is unlikely to be much of an athlete even after the amputation. If athletics were the girl’s ONLY purpose in having the surgery, I would counsel against it. What the operation will likely allow, however, is ambulation and all the social and health benefit that accrue to that. That’s no small thing.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Now, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Morally serious and deeply pondered. From what I read, the leg would not be diseased, but disabled. I think that’s a distinction with a difference.
July 26th, 2010 | 7:16 pm
I don’t feel like this is quite the same thing as an amputation performed on a healthy limb. The limb they want to remove is unhealthy and is holding her back. It’s not as if it’s a healthy limb and she has some bizarre fixation on being a para-olympian. So, I don’t think it fits the general, real problem that the article was chosen to reflect.
July 26th, 2010 | 7:24 pm
Per your update, it seems to me that she is handicapped regardless of what she chooses to do. The leg she has is injured and she is unable to use it, so it really isn’t helpful to contrast life with a disability vs. the risks of surgery. I just don’t see the correlation between this particular surgery and the problem you have been writing about, Wesley. It seems to me that the removal of the leg is reasonable under the circumstances. It’s too bad that the media felt the need to sensationalize it the way they did-they made it sound as if the desire to loose the leg was completely dependent on her desire to be a “world class athlete.” That is clearly different from, “I want to be able to play with my friends.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Safepres: The leg will be healthy, in that it won’t cause her a health problem. I once represented a girl her age who went in for scoliosis surgery. The anesthesia went wrong and she wound up in a profoundly cognitively impaired situation. So, the choice is disabled with a healthy leg, or disabled with a prosthesis, but at the risk of terrible side effects. I think the latter is harm.
July 26th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
I’m inclined to think that the amputation could be justified in this case. I’m _totally_ opposed to BIID removals. That’s just crazy. Those limbs are healthy in every sense of the word–functional and everything. But in this case I’m not sure that the risks of the surgery outweigh the very real and lifelong health benefits of her being ambulatory.
I know a boy with a disease in which non-cancerous but very painful tumors grow on his nerves (I can’t recall the name of it). He had a very painful tumor on one leg, and eventually the doctors recommended amputation of the leg. The mother was reluctant, the father was in favor, and the boy was in favor–hoping that he would have significantly less pain, which was what the doctors hoped for as well. He went through the surgery and all are glad that he did. He’s even grown significantly since the amputation which is being attributed to his being pain-free after the amputation.
This girl’s situation seems to me more like his (and he was able to walk even before the surgery) than like the removal of a fully functional and fully healthy limb.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Like I said, I’ve seen first hand the tragic flip side of that coin. I’m sorry, I see this completely differently. I hope it all works out, but if it doesn’t, there will be hell to pay in destroyed lives. In the case I mentioned, the family was destroyed, a divorce, the mother stopped her life to care for her daughter, the father was so distraught he’d never visit her or mention her name. The brother got into drugs. Etc.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Lydia: You’re a long time SHSer. Recall when we had the huge discussion about BIID with some suffers telling us how agonizing it is for them? As with many mental illnesses, the suffering is far more acute than physical illnesses or disabilities. It seems to me that a BIID sufferer could say, if you okay it for her, why not for me? Recall the developmentally disabled girl we talked about from Washington where the doctors performed a medical unnecessary hysterectomy and mastectomy to aid ability to care for her. These seem to be similar cases perhaps, albeit on different places on the trajectory line?
July 26th, 2010 | 8:35 pm
This is probably one of the most difficult cases, that you’ve brought before us, and I commend you for presenting it, as it is, a morally serious issue, with no easy answers.
Certainly, life is not black and white. Really, anything we do, obviously, carries with it some risk, driving down the highway, for example. And any medical procedure, certainly has risks. Be we usually make sure the risks are properly weighed against the benefits. Does this case meet the standard?
I think you make a good point, Wesley, regarding the potential, although perhaps, statistically unlikely medical complications, that could coincide with this medical procedure.
At the risk of sounding way out there (I’ve never done that before), perhaps the parents could agree to have an objective person, or group, that has no emotional, or financial (as the doctors may have), bias, look at this, and then decide if the girl should have it done, taking into account, not only this particular case, but the social, moral, legal implications, that could be derived from it?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Bret: Yes, I think there should be an administrative, perhaps even judicial, review of this. That isn’t a slap on the parents. But I think one of society’s purposes is protecting children. This definitely could use more review. After all, what’s the rush?
July 26th, 2010 | 9:00 pm
Absolutely, Wesley. This girl is only eleven years old. She should also be given a pychiatric evaluation.
July 26th, 2010 | 10:34 pm
What I am also curious to know is why her leg impedes her from playing with her friends?
July 26th, 2010 | 11:05 pm
Wow, I just looked up BIID…I had never heard of it before. This case is nothing like it. In my view, the girl has a deformity and would like it corrected, as much it can be, as is possible these days. Would we deny someone with a cleft palate corrective surgery? Why not? I think all medical intervention may be considered ‘lifestyle enhancing’, if you really think about it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 26th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Gert: No of course not. But that isn’t major surgery like amputation is. My point is that people with BIID suffer terribly, and we don’t–and shouldn’t–permit those amputations. I really question whether doctors should agree to do this one. Thanks for commenting.
July 27th, 2010 | 12:19 am
I’d be curious to know what my oldest brother thinks of such a case. He lost part of a leg in the army years ago, and tried unsuccessfully to have a prosthesis. He had several additional surgeries because of the damage prostheses did to his leg, and eventually he determined that he must keep his knee (ability to kneel, etc.) and thus he chose not to wear prostheses. He has spent the last thirty years on crutches.
Prostheses are better today, I understand. But this case seems to be built around the assumption that the girl can use one–well enough to run and play with her friends. That’s definitely a best-case scenario. If she were in my family, I’d certainly want to know how great her chance of that actually is.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 2:51 am
Cheryl. I would like to know that too. Also interested in the perspectives of physicians (eariler commenter Eric Chevlen is a doctor and my co-author of Power over Pain) and those of people with disabilities.
July 27th, 2010 | 12:38 am
“Surgeons told her they could perform a number of operations and skin grafts on the limb, which has been damaged since birth.
They said the work would enable Danielle, a pupil at Flowery Field Primary in Hyde, to keep it but admitted that she would not be able to use it.”
Going just by the article, it sounds from the sentences above that she need extreme intervention just to keep the broken leg. This would mean amputation is a medical option, just an unusual one.
“Debbie said Danielle, who has to wear a special shoe…”
This fact makes me think she can walk and function with the leg, just not very fast, but they put a photo of her in a wheelchair in the article instead. Will a prothestic really make her all that much faster? Maybe the young girl has unrealistic expectations.
Overall, I find the article a little confusing about her medical state. It’s hard to make a decision.
July 27th, 2010 | 8:36 am
Perhaps your death panels could double up and also regulate each and every surgery.
Your headline is inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.
For this exercise, let’s assume that her leg is essentially non-functional. She can either not walk or can barely walk, and is unlikely to gain that function without intervention. Further, assume with amputation + prosthesis she will likely gain function to what you see with high-functioning leg amputees. The acute risk of surgery is minimal. Her chance of an anesthesia complication of any type is less than 1 in 1000 (based on US statistics). It is much more likely she would have complications related to the amputation including infection, stump pain, phantom limb pain and a lengthy rehab period. The article stated she had previously suffered many surgeries on her leg and would suffer many more. And the leg would still not function.
Your assumption that the patient, parents and doctors (and I suspect the hospital), are incapable of considering the issues and ultimately the best interests of the child is arrogant. Based on what you know of the case, if you as a bioethicist were chosen as the arbiter, you would rule against the wishes of the patient, parents and their physicians.
An aside. Bret suggests that the doctors may have a financial interest in this case. In the US, perhaps, but unlikely in the UK. But why would the surgeon’s financial interest be a bad thing? In our free market system, including our free market healthcare system, wouldn’t the invisible hand of the market make wise decisions without administrative or judicial panels. Have you changed course and now advocate government oversight of healthcare? Are you admitting that healthcare is somehow different from other market activities?
This ability to hold dear two antithetical positions on the same issue is a consistent inconsistency I’ve noticed with the modern radical conservative.
Finally, how do you interpret (or even identify) the principle involved here? Is it elective surgery on minors? Removing what you feel (incorrectly) is healthy tissue? Or is it (more likely) that this particular case makes you feel ‘icky’? How would you construct a guideline for practice that would address this case and others?
July 27th, 2010 | 8:42 am
Another grand achievement from the “no suffering at all costs” generation.
Suffering will NEVER be eliminated. All attempts to do so have only led to MORE suffering.
Man knows nothing.
July 27th, 2010 | 10:39 am
She’s eleven years old. Puberty is right around the corner for her and she’ll have changed from a girl who wants to play with friends into a young woman thinking about how she looks to boys and perhaps wondering about how she would look if she had her leg. Maybe she’ll continue to want to play with her friends when those changes happen. I don’t know. But I think 11 is way too young for her to decide something like this and it’s impossible to know how it will impact her in a couple years. I think they should make her wait and not give in to the autonomy of an eleven year old. I don’t know if there’s a parallel here, but I think there’s a desire to give way too much consent to kids her age. SHS has reported on Euro legislators who have wanted to lower the age of sexual consent with adults, allow PAS for teens. Then there’s been discussion that teens should be able to make sex change decisions. I think she’s way too young to decide. The changes that are going to happen to her in a year or two may change her perspective radically and make her wish she had this leg again even if it doesn’t work. It’s obvious that once she hits 12 and 13, substantial changes will have occured. I think it’s too risky that she’ll regret it.
July 27th, 2010 | 10:59 am
I agree that the article isn’t as clear as it should be. It doesn’t even say exactly how and why the leg “doesn’t work.” It would be good to have more information. But Wesley, would it make a difference to you if you were convinced that, for objective physical reasons, the leg is definitely non-functional and that she cannot walk with it but will, if all goes well, be able to walk after the amputation?
It seems to me that objective non-functionality of the limb has got to carry ethical weight. This isn’t then a matter of psychological distress alone but of actual physical function of her body as a whole (the ability to walk), which it seems to me is the proper sphere of medical doctors to restore. Even from the perspective of physical life expectancy, I would think that an ambulatory person would have an increased life expectancy because of issues like muscle tone throughout the body, heart and lung health, etc., over the span of a lifetime. That has to be weighed against the surgery risks. And it seems to be saying that she would be having surgery, hence general anesthetic, in any event, if the risks of general anesthetic are being weighed in here.
July 27th, 2010 | 12:46 pm
I also don’t think the general anesthetic argument is a strong one. About four years ago I had my wisdom teeth extracted and was under a general anesthetic-nothing happened. The possibility of complication from anesthesia is very rare, esp. in someone who is young and healthy. So, I would leave that argument out altogether.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
First, your anesthesia was not the same as the kind used in surgery with full intubation, etc. Moreover, I had a case in which I represented a girl who, at this age, had cardiac arrest during scoliosis surgery from the anesthesia and suffered catastrophic brain injury. Devastation for her and her family. Almost surely won’t happen, but it does–and it could. It is a legitimate concern.
July 27th, 2010 | 2:34 pm
[I apologize if this is a duplicate. The site froze on me.]
Shouldn’t we try (though I know it is tricky) to make as sharp a line as we can between a cost-benefit analysis for the girl’s best interests (which includes risks from anesthesia) on the one hand and the definite conclusion that the amputation is *medically unnecessary* on the other? I realize that these are perhaps not in airtight boxes, but it would seem to me that judging something to be medically unnecessary is a bit different from judging it not to be worth the risks, etc. Judging it to be medically unnecessary is judging that it has no objective, real, medical justification in terms of the patient’s own condition.
So, for example, when we say that the hysterectomy and mastectomy for the other girl were medically unnecessary, we say that because those surgeries were done for a reason that did not involve improving her objective physical condition from what it previously was by way of the surgery. It did not even involve preventing medical, physical harm later.
But in this case the idea is that by making the girl able to walk the doctors will be making her better physically than she was before, restoring something more like normal physical function (walking), by means of the surgery, in a definite and quantifiable way.
It would seem to me that this makes the judgment that it is strictly speaking medically unnecessary a questionable one.
The further issue of whether it is worth it in terms of the risks associated with the surgery is, at least to some extent, separable from the question of whether there is a genuine medical justification for the surgery–in this case, a medical justification in terms of removing a non-functional limb so a prosthesis can be fitted and thereby improving overall physical function.
July 27th, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Might we make an analogy to the placement of a cochlear implant, for example? It isn’t medically _urgent_. There is no danger to a child’s life or limb if it isn’t done. But it is done to help mitigate/correct/ameliorate a genuine physical disability and partially restore normal function–that is, hearing. Therefore, it’s considered medically justified rather than “medically unnecessary.”
If cochlear implant surgery requires full general anesthesia with intubation (I don’t know whether it does) there will be the risks associated with that. And of course it is much less radical surgery than an amputation; hence, much less risky in other respects.
But the medical justifications would seem to be similar in some important respects.
July 27th, 2010 | 3:43 pm
About anaesthesia risks: The Royal College of Anaesthetists informs us that “throughout the whole of life, an individual is at least 100 times more likely to suffer serious injury or death in a road traffic accident than as a result of anaesthesia”.
My guess is that the lifetime risks of keeping the limb (e.g DVTs and other complications of poor mobility) far outweigh the risks of going ahead with the surgery. It’s likely this has been the best medical option all along (as the parents themselves eventually acknowledged) – but her doctors probably thought she would have been unable to cope psychologically with the trauma of losing her leg and (rightly) sought to explore all other avenues first.
The narrative suggested by the article’s headline is indeed enough to give one pause – and if it had been an accurate reflection of Miss Bradshaw’s story there would probably have been a chorus of voices echoing your concerns. As it is, all we have here is a young lady who has made a very brave choice and who ought to be given all the support and goodwill she deserves.
July 30th, 2010 | 2:44 am
Wesley,
It is hard to know from the newspaper article whether this is a case of medicine on demand. While it certainly gives the impression that the girl thought of amputation on her own, it could be that it was presented as a possible option at some point in her family’s consultations with the physicians. These passages from the article suggest that without the skin grafts and other surgical procedures they might have had to remove the leg eventually anyway:
“Surgeons told her they could perform a number of operations and skin grafts on the limb, which has been damaged since birth.
They said the work would enable Danielle, a pupil at Flowery Field Primary in Hyde, to keep it but admitted that she would not be able to use it.”
The fact is, we don’t know, since the article is, for the most part, a feel-good fluff piece from a regional newspaper in England. It is not a serious piece of journalism. The article does not give us anywhere near the type or amount of information that would be necessary to understand the possible risks or benefits of any of the surgical options that might be reasonably considered in this particular case.
So I would say that your headline for this piece is hyperbolic and misleading simply because the newspaper article does not give you enough information to make a judgment about whether amputation would be “medically unnecessary” in this particular case.
In particular, if, as the article hints, the leg might have had to be amputated eventually anyway, then amputating it now might not be such a drastic move. In that case, the procedure might be “unnecessary” at the present time, but it could in fact become necessary at some point in the future even with the skin grafts and other procedures. But, again, we don’t know.
That said, I think some of your critics have focused too much on the concerns you raise about the risks of anesthesia as opposed to the other very real risks of amputation that you describe. I know about those risks because I saw a recent episode of “House” in which House argued with Cuddy about whether or not to amputate a woman’s leg. ;)
I too wonder if the girl’s parents and her doctors are allowing her to make this decision at too young an age.
I think the real culprit here is the newspaper article itself. If there were an organization called “Better Living Through Amputation” then this article could certainly serve as a nice PR piece for it. Something I really dislike about the article is the impression it gives that the girl is now an inert, wheelchair bound couch potato who will be transformed to a swift flying bionic para athlete in no time. She has three good limbs, so I assume she is quite capable of getting exercise and playing with her friends.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:52 pm
I may have scrolled down a bit too fast in order to post this, but from the replies I’ve seen, I noticed some commented on other “unnecessary” operations that can be dangerous, but did not see any comments about the “options” that are presented to the girl. Grafts and reconstructions most likely present the same dangers as amputations, and maybe even more. While an amputation requires the removal of a limb, grafts and reconstructions would require the addition of foreign matter to the body. And if sepsis sets in due to a botched procedure, the girl could end up losing parts of the other limbs. Plus, although an amputee can be cursed by phantom pain and what not, reconstruction and grafting would cause pain and discomfort everytime she needs the procedure done, and I don’t think the doctors are 100% sure that only one such procedure would be needed.
My opinion is that removal of the leg is an apt choice and the child is being wise beyond her years. She’ll be able to take on rehab much sooner and return to a regular life. Plus, she should be able to compete in sports, something she wants to do.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact