Bill.Baughn@f10.n130.z1.fidonet.org (Bill Baughn) (07/11/90)
Index Number: 9089 >> I also don't recall any child reaching maturity and rejecting << >> his device. Why would they not use a artificial leg or arm << >> they had used all their lives? << Joe, The quote above was in a message to you from Reed Hopkins. If it wasn't from you please excuse me for addressing this to you but I must reply. First it is important to understand that the difference between leg prostheses and arm prostheses is like the difference between boiling water and ice. It's all water but that is where the similarity ends. The leg stump either functions with a prosthesis or dangles in mid air. The leg amputee must have an aid of some kind to ambulate for any distance -- crutches, wheelchair or prosthesis. Conversely, the arm stump is a sensate member which is capable of a remarkable degree of manipulative function. Without sensation there can be little dexterity. With sensation there is a great deal of dexterity possible. Fifty percent of all arm amputees abandon prostheses. Ninety percent of congenital or child arm amputees abandon their prostheses. The marginal functionality of these devices is always offset by the loss of the use of the member they are fitted to. A below elbow amputee has a grip -- with sensation -- in the crotch of their elbow. If the true state of upper extremity prosthetics were publicly understood the things that these children are subjected to would be seen as nothing less than child abuse. A child born completely without arms will have over one million dollars expended on prostheses before he is old enough to refuse to wear them, which he invariably will. This while children are dying for lack of funds for organ transplants which would save their lives. One of our armless members was twenty years old before she could dress herself because the child amputee program she went to offered her no information on the proven methods of independent function. Instead they concentrated on prostheses which have proven to be useless. The few children who do continue to wear upper extremity prostheses do so because they have been taught that they are unacceptable without them. They are so ashamed of their bodies that they accept the weight, expense, discomfort and LOSS OF FUNCTION. Upper extremity prosthetics are functional failures that are marketed by lies and the intentional destruction of the amputees self image. After fourty years of formal child amputee programs in this country, none has ever followed their patients to maturity to collect any evidence that shows that the one out of ten who continue to wear prostheses enjoy any benefits social, financial or functional over those who were never fitted or abandoned the devices. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!130!10!Bill.Baughn Internet: Bill.Baughn@f10.n130.z1.fidonet.org