Lawton resident can't find a doctor who will amputate festering limb

Foxrac said:
What about go to other countries, such as China to get limb amputated or any developing countries that would perform amputate on limb.
Click to expand...

That might be a solution, too, but Chinese doctors would be less likely to amputate than a Westernized doctor because they are more holistically focused.
 
jillio said:
That might be a solution, too, but Chinese doctors would be less likely to amputate than a Westernized doctor because they are more holistically focused.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm think about Thailand or India because I had noticed that many people has got part amputated due disease but their medical care wouldn't be clean like in US or Europe.
 
Foxrac said:
Ok, I'm think about Thailand or India because I had noticed that many people has got part amputated due disease but their medical care wouldn't be clean like in US or Europe.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

Also, you would want to consider the fact that he has a blood disorder, and anyone operating on him needs to be informed about how that disorder would affect any surgery he had. Best to stick with a doctor that knows his disorder and his medical history.
 
Buffalo said:
The first thing popped in my mind is coat hanger style abortions. I don't want to see that stituation come back.
Click to expand...

Whilst ANY abortion is bad news, you can't prevent murder from happening by simply making it safe and legal.

I just want people to realise that babies come into this world prior to birth so every time an abortion takes place somebody gets killed.
 
Why should people put their health at risk though? Why can't it be done safely. After all it is their body we are talking about. Not somebody else's.

Also would people mind not quoting Jillo as she's on my ignore list.
 
dreama said:
Whilst ANY abortion is bad news, you can't prevent murder from happening by simply making it safe and legal.

I just want people to realise that babies come into this world prior to birth so every time an abortion takes place somebody gets killed.
Click to expand...

Off topic. This is about amputation, not abortion. Just because they both start with an A doesn't mean they are related.
 
dreama said:
Why should people put their health at risk though? Why can't it be done safely. After all it is their body we are talking about. Not somebody else's.

Also would people mind not quoting Jillo as she's on my ignore list.[/
QUOTE]

Then ignore it when someone quotes me.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Off topic. This is about amputation, not abortion. Just because they both start with an A doesn't mean they are related.
Click to expand...

I am sure you can see how similiar those two are. If one takes the limb off and died of infection, etc versus if a woman uses coat hanger to induce abortion and died of infection, etc. That is why a doctor who does those thing could make sure that the person doesn't die of infection, etc.
 
Buffalo said:
I am sure you can see how similiar those two are. If one takes the limb off and died of infection, etc versus if a woman uses coat hanger to induce abortion and died of infection, etc. That is why a doctor who does those thing could make sure that the person doesn't die of infection, etc.
Click to expand...

No, I don't see the connection. Doctors cannot always prevent complications. In this case, the man has a blood disorder that prevents healing. He is already suffering from wounds that will not heal and are infected. Despite the best medical treatment available for those wounds, his blood disorder prevents the treatment from working in him in the same way that it would work in an individual without the disorder. That means that the same risk would be carried with a surgical amputation. The doctors are considering the risk of that complication to his life. A larger wound carries more risk of infection and more risk of septicemia leading to his death. Not only do medical ethics come into play in the decision, legal ramifications do, as well.

A leg is a part of the whole person. One cannot treat the leg as a separate entity. It must be considered how any treatment of any part of the person affects the body system as a whole. Risk and benefit must be considered. In this case, the doctors have evidently decided that the risk of amputation poses a greater risk than does continuing to treat the smaller wounds on the limb. His blood disorder, and the way it influences his individual reactions to any kind of treatment are considered. The very fact that he cannot find a single doctor that will do the amputation sends a clear message. It is not medically advisable to do so.

And this case has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. That is a different topic altogether. To attempt to use this case to promote a personal agenda that is completely unrelated is absurd. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Performing unecessary medical procedures, such as amputation, that create harm for the patient simply because they want it done is not legal, nor is it ethical. There have also been women who wanted their breasts removed just because there was a history of breast cancer in their family. Doctors refuse to do that, too, because mastectomy is not a preventative treatment. We don't do major surgery to prevent disease, we use it to treat disease when there is no other option.
 
an abortion agenda in a thread about amputation...... :roll:
 
jillio said:
Because if he has a blood disorder that prevents wounds from healing, a surgical wound will not heal either.
Click to expand...

is that called hemophilia? or it's something else?
 
Well it's just the hypocracy of it all that staggers me. On one hand you have a man who is pain and will continue to stay in pain for as long as doctors won't remove his limb. To some people that is acceptable.

Yet the same people are ok about a woman who isn't in pain having a baby who isn't part of her body, removed just because she can't be bothered to carry it around for 9 months. Unless she was raped it's very likely that she couldn't be bothered to use contraception in the first place.

Some people just arn't logical in their thinking.
 
dreama said:
Well it's just the hypocracy of it all that staggers me. On one hand you have a man who is pain and will continue to stay in pain for as long as doctors won't remove his limb. To some people that is acceptable.

Yet the same people are ok about a woman who isn't in pain having a baby who isn't part of her body, removed just because she can't be bothered to carry it around for 9 months. Unless she was raped it's very likely that she couldn't be bothered to use contraception in the first place.

Some people just arn't logical in their thinking.
Click to expand...

You are very confused here. What makes you think that the man won't continue to be in pain following amputation? Talk to some amputees. Talk to some physicians. Most amputees continue to suffer from a phenomenon known as "phantom pain" which lasts a lifetime. Additionally, if he is in pain from a small wound, the pain would increase considerably with the bigger wound required for surgical amputation. What if the surgical wound never heals? Can you imagine the excrutiating pain he would be in then? There are other means for relieving pain that cutting a leg off. There are treatments to heal the infection of the smaller wound, and as long as he still has a pulse in the foot, the chances are good that the wounds will eventually heal without the need for amputation.

And what makes you think a woman decided to have an abortion simply because she "can't be bothered to carry a fetus around for 9 months"? Just like in the doctors' decisions not to amputate a leg when it isn't medically necessary, or could pose a greater risk to this man's life than not amputating, there are many, many factors that are involved in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. To simplify it in that way is not only to show your extreme judgemental attitude against those who make decisions that you have never had to make, it also shows that shows that you are failing to look beyond the surface. How insulting to women everywhere that you believe that they are so vain and selfish that they act in such a superficial way when they make such a momentous decision in their lives. One can only be very glad that you have no power to force your viewpoint on anyone other than yourself. What a disservice it would be to others for you to make such life changing decisions for them based on such a superficial way of thinking.

Not to mention which, it became obvious within a few posts that you actually have no concern for the man in the OP's medical dilemma, but are simply using his story in an attempt to promote your own anti-abortion agenda. Shame on you for using his story in such a selfish manner.
 
Buffalo said:
The first thing popped in my mind is coat hanger style abortions. I don't want to see that stituation come back.
Click to expand...

If doctors are required to do these things against their belief. I don't think they should be doctors at all. I think there should be less doctors. These people who thought about being doctors but don't want to do abortion should just forget it and find another job. Such as McDonald. That's where they really belong.
 
And what makes you think a woman decided to have an abortion simply because she "can't be bothered to carry a fetus around for 9 months"? Just like in the doctors' decisions not to amputate a leg when it isn't medically necessary, or could pose a greater risk to this man's life than not amputating, there are many, many factors that are involved in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. To simplify it in that way is not only to show your extreme judgemental attitude against those who make decisions that you have never had to make, it also shows that shows that you are failing to look beyond the surface. How insulting to women everywhere that you believe that they are so vain and selfish that they act in such a superficial way when they make such a momentous decision in their lives. One can only be very glad that you have no power to force your viewpoint on anyone other than yourself. What a disservice it would be to others for you to make such life changing decisions for them based on such a superficial way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know, you don't speak for everyone who had abortion. There are women out there protesting right now because they DID have one... and regret it.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
Just to let you know, you don't speak for everyone who had abortion. There are women out there protesting right now because they DID have one... and regret it.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to speak for everyone. And neither do the women who are protesting because they now regret their decision. There are many more who aren't protesting that have had an abortion, and are extremely grateful that they had the choice. For the ones that are now regretting their decision...perhaps they should have thought it through a little more carefully before they made their decision. Just because they failed to do so does not give them the right to take the choice away from others. They are responsible for their own decisions. To attempt to place responsibility on the law or the doctors who performed the procedure that they requested is simply another example of their irresponsibility.

But again, the OP has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. To attempt to use the situation portrayed in the OP to further an anti-abortion agenda is just another one of those emotional and illogical tactics.
 
Back
Top