[misc.handicap] Arm Prostheses

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