Alue42

Lucky for you that you've never been in that position. You don't get to decide "I'll just remove it later if it doesn't work out". That's considered an elective amputation and a cause to send someone to the psych ward - yes, even if there's pain resulting from a severe injury and subsequent surgery. When given the option of restorative surgery that may repair it or may leave you with no function and lifelong unbearable nerve pain, or the option to amputate which will remove functionality but at least have predictable results, you need to make your decision at that point. Once you have one of them done, you can't go back and say "ya know what, this isn't working, I want you to go the other way instead". I have lived with the unbearable nerve pain and zero functionally after reconstructive hand surgery and have begged for decades to go back and do the amputation instead. Enough nerve pain that I have threatened to self-amputate, that I have attempted to take my life. None of that matters, the pain is dealt with medically, not surgically, no matter how much you tell them the medical options don't help.

When this athlete says he made an informed decision - I know that means he found out what the potential was and that he asked if he would be able to make a new decision if he first tried to repair it.

I've known many people that had similar surgeries that it worked just fine, and many others that live in constant pain. There's no formula to know which way it will go, and we still know so little about how the brain interprets pain, especially nerve pain, that there is so little we can do for it.

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

Completely disagree. I had a hand injury as an infant that resulted in my parents being given the same decision to make - repair the fingers and hope for functionality or amputate. They chose to repair, of course they did. It has lead to 20+ surgeries, unbelievable nerve pain my entire life, and zero functionality. I have consistently asked for the fingers to be amputated, but at this point it's considered elective amputation and worthy of a call to a psych to have me checked out, despite the pain. I would give anything to go back to that time and have my parents choose amputation. But of course, not knowing the pain, I would probably be upset with them for choosing that option as well

It may seem like this player is "choosing" to forego restorative surgery just so he can play in the Olympics, but this article is probably not presenting all of the information that he was given by his doctors, and his choice may have nothing to do with playing right now, but rather the longer outcome of his health. Just because he's explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play right now doesn't mean that is the complete reason he chose it.

Here's a taste of the GOP view:

I used to be a government employee in the state of Florida (when Rick Scott was governor) as an environmental educator. One day, we received a memo that for all government employees the phrases "climate change", "global warming", and "sustainability" were now banned from our official duties. How was I supposed to teach about the environment in Florida without using those? I was still allowed to say "unusual weather event".

I left this role, and Florida, and heard that this policy had been repealed.

Wouldn't you know it, I heard from some of my colleagues still there that DeSantis just went ahead and did the same thing, while also making sure the new law impacts the energy grid.

So not only is their plan to ignore it - but they want to force no one else to talk about it either, or make any improvements on their own of their own volition.

Precisely. When there was a 10mph speed reduction for commercial vessels recommended in order to protect whales from vessels strikes (the actual cause of the deaths) and Congress had to hear arguments from various sides - suddenly all these people cared about was how much this was going to ruin their industry and they didn't care at all that it was to protect whales.