Cutting off your finger

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
So, the son of a friend of mine intentionally cut off one of his fingers with a steak knife (he's not well, mentally speaking). She packed the finger in a baggie, and packed that in ice, and went to the hospital.

Tip 1 - this is the correct way to preserve a severed digit, rather than placing it in direct contact with the ice

When they got to the hospital, the staff started to arrange to have him transferred to a larger hospital for the reattachment. As it turns out, though, the larger hospital declined to reattach. Apparently, if you cut off your own finger intentionally, they WON'T reattach it. (At least if you do so as a result of mental illness...not sure about "I lost a bet").

Tip2 - In cases of digit amputation, don't say you (or your children) did it intentionally.

Question for the ethicists...Can't they just attach the finger and put a cast on or something (like those cones they put on dogs after surgery). How is attachment a worse expenditure of funds than, say, This

[/ QUOTE ]

What do they do with failed suicides?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, the son of a friend of mine intentionally cut off one of his fingers with a steak knife (he's not well, mentally speaking). She packed the finger in a baggie, and packed that in ice, and went to the hospital.

Tip 1 - this is the correct way to preserve a severed digit, rather than placing it in direct contact with the ice

When they got to the hospital, the staff started to arrange to have him transferred to a larger hospital for the reattachment. As it turns out, though, the larger hospital declined to reattach. Apparently, if you cut off your own finger intentionally, they WON'T reattach it. (At least if you do so as a result of mental illness...not sure about "I lost a bet").

Tip2 - In cases of digit amputation, don't say you (or your children) did it intentionally.

Question for the ethicists...Can't they just attach the finger and put a cast on or something (like those cones they put on dogs after surgery). How is attachment a worse expenditure of funds than, say, This

[/ QUOTE ]

What do they do with failed suicides?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Good question. DNR isn't implied on that?

[guysmilie]

You said the person was unwell mentally. If that is the case I say the digit should be reattached and the person in question put in a facility where he can get some mental help as well as be protected from himself. Assuming he is not released until he is well, and denied access to sharp things like steak knives, this should strongly counter the argument that we shouldn't do it because he will just cut it off again.

I would say that anyone who would do this to themselves probably has a serious mental disorder. In such a case shouldn't we treat him like any other sick person and try and get him the help he needs?

I think the suicide argument is a valid one. Someone slits their wrists, but is found before they die and taken to hospital. Do they say "Just let them bleed out cuz they could do it again in the future"? No, they stich them up and strap them down so they can't do it again. In most all cases they would be held and restrained until it could be determined if they were still a threat to themselves.

I also find it hard to believe that any hospital would refuse to help someone based on the fact that the injury was self inflicted. They would be leaving themselves open to a monster lawsuit. However there is a strong possibility that your insurance company would not want to cover the costs.

Guy.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You said the person was unwell mentally. If that is the case I say the digit should be reattached and the person in question put in a facility where he can get some mental help as well as be protected from himself. Assuming he is not released until he is well, and denied access to sharp things like steak knives, this should strongly counter the argument that we shouldn't do it because he will just cut it off again.

I would say that anyone who would do this to themselves probably has a serious mental disorder. In such a case shouldn't we treat him like any other sick person and try and get him the help he needs?

I think the suicide argument is a valid one. Someone slits their wrists, but is found before they die and taken to hospital. Do they say "Just let them bleed out cuz they could do it again in the future"? No, they stich them up and strap them down so they can't do it again. In most all cases they would be held and restrained until it could be determined if they were still a threat to themselves.

I also find it hard to believe that any hospital would refuse to help someone based on the fact that the injury was self inflicted. They would be leaving themselves open to a monster lawsuit. However there is a strong possibility that your insurance company would not want to cover the costs.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was working off the assumption that the hospital did, in fact, do this exact thing, i.e. deny him treatment because the injury was self-inflicted. Similarly, I assumed as you did that doing so would leave themselves open to a monster lawsuit, so I used my past experience and knowledge of hospital policy to deduce that they must have an iron-clad, well-researched defense of this policy, in order to ever inact it in the first place. Admittedly, this is probably a lot of lazy thinking on my part, but trusting in hospitals to find the best ways to legally save money (whether that be denying treatments or, WAY more importantly, avoiding lawsuits) seemed a safe bet.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You said the person was unwell mentally. If that is the case I say the digit should be reattached and the person in question put in a facility where he can get some mental help as well as be protected from himself. Assuming he is not released until he is well, and denied access to sharp things like steak knives, this should strongly counter the argument that we shouldn't do it because he will just cut it off again.

I would say that anyone who would do this to themselves probably has a serious mental disorder. In such a case shouldn't we treat him like any other sick person and try and get him the help he needs?

I think the suicide argument is a valid one. Someone slits their wrists, but is found before they die and taken to hospital. Do they say "Just let them bleed out cuz they could do it again in the future"? No, they stich them up and strap them down so they can't do it again. In most all cases they would be held and restrained until it could be determined if they were still a threat to themselves.

I also find it hard to believe that any hospital would refuse to help someone based on the fact that the injury was self inflicted. They would be leaving themselves open to a monster lawsuit. However there is a strong possibility that your insurance company would not want to cover the costs.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was working off the assumption that the hospital did, in fact, do this exact thing, i.e. deny him treatment because the injury was self-inflicted. Similarly, I assumed as you did that doing so would leave themselves open to a monster lawsuit, so I used my past experience and knowledge of hospital policy to deduce that they must have an iron-clad, well-researched defense of this policy, in order to ever inact it in the first place. Admittedly, this is probably a lot of lazy thinking on my part, but trusting in hospitals to find the best ways to legally save money (whether that be denying treatments or, WAY more importantly, avoiding lawsuits) seemed a safe bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time this gets bumped, I try and google the issue of failure rates for self-inflicted injuries and policies towards reattachment. Unfortunately, all the results are for penises, which are apparently much more popular targets of self-amputation.