Was just reading on pre 20th century amputations and how they strived to be as fast as possible, cutting through bone and all.
Why didn’t they just amputate at the joint, like a butcher cuts pork or beef? That would have been way faster than sawing off though bone.
In: 8
It increases the loss of function to do it that way.
If you still have a little bit of leg below your knee, then you can fit a prosthetic on there and move around with it fairly well. But if you take the knee then your entire leg loses the ability to flex altogether and it is much harder to do anything with a prosthetic. Especially the very simple kinds they would have had back there.
Also a lot of muscle attachments for the upper arm and upper leg are on the elbow and knee respectively. So cutting there is going to do damage to the functionality of what limb is still left. Obviously this doesn’t matter when butchering an animal but if you want to keep a human alive it does.
Latest Answers