Hockey star Matt Dawson amputates finger to play at Olympics

Matt Dawson badly broke a digit on his right hand during team training in Perth two weeks ago, and recovery from surgery to repair it would have taken months. So, the 30-year-old decided to have the finger removed from the knuckle up in order to take part in his third Games, shocking his team-mates and coach.

Honestly not a terrible decision. It sounds like even if he went ahead and did the surgery to try to salvage the finger it might not have given him full function of that digit. Why keep the finger if it's not even going to be usable?
- Lacking full function doesn’t mean it’s not usable. Just not as usable.
  Also, “might not”, so that prognosis was also “it might” (probably less than likely.)
- "If taking the top of my finger was the price I had to pay, that's what I would do."
  That decision also depends on which knuckle it needed to be amputated past. This quote makes me think it's just amputating from the top knuckle up, which is really just your fingernail. You still keep a lot of use out of the finger in that case.
  Edit: Even if it's the second knuckle and up, you'd still have a solid amount of grasping utility with that finger.
- Avoid looking like an AI character
Not quite as metal as Ronnie Lott back in the day. But close.

After telling his wife, she asks “the whole finger?” “No, the one next to it”

I wonder if the olympic comittee should ban him from playing in order to discourage this kind of thing in the future.

Completely disagree. I had a hand injury as an infant that resulted in my parents being given the same decision to make - repair the fingers and hope for functionality or amputate. They chose to repair, of course they did. It has lead to 20+ surgeries, unbelievable nerve pain my entire life, and zero functionality. I have consistently asked for the fingers to be amputated, but at this point it's considered elective amputation and worthy of a call to a psych to have me checked out, despite the pain. I would give anything to go back to that time and have my parents choose amputation. But of course, not knowing the pain, I would probably be upset with them for choosing that option as well
It may seem like this player is "choosing" to forego restorative surgery just so he can play in the Olympics, but this article is probably not presenting all of the information that he was given by his doctors, and his choice may have nothing to do with playing right now, but rather the longer outcome of his health. Just because he's explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play right now doesn't mean that is the complete reason he chose it.
Also someone should look into a the doctor that performed the surgery without any medical necessity.
- It was a choice MOST medical amputees get: Do you want a fucked up limb or want it gone?
  No injury heals perfectly even in children, let alone adults. It is a perfectly reasonable question where amputation can lead to LESS pain and suffering in the future.
Why? Personal choice. No one forced him.
- Yes, no one person forced him. But career pressure and fomo did. And I don't think that sets exactly a good precedent.
- The same applies for doping.
  Professional sports aren't healthy for the gladia... athletes, but maybe there are some lines which shouldn't be crossed to prevent the worst?

He urgently consulted a plastic surgeon who said that even with surgery to repair the finger - and the long recovery time - it may not regain full function.

Honestly, it seems like a pretty logical decision. Lots of people would opt for amputation in that situation, I think, even without factoring in giving up a lifelong dream.

I think I'd try to recover first. If it turns out it doesn't function anymore I can still decide to remove it.
- True! I think I'd go that direction, too. But I can imagine someone else being like "nerve pain sucks and it's just a finger" about it.
  I just think the option was between two different surgeries, neither with an ideal outcome, not between just waiting for it to heal and amputation, so it's not as silly a decision as it first seems.
- Lucky for you that you've never been in that position. You don't get to decide "I'll just remove it later if it doesn't work out". That's considered an elective amputation and a cause to send someone to the psych ward - yes, even if there's pain resulting from a severe injury and subsequent surgery. When given the option of restorative surgery that may repair it or may leave you with no function and lifelong unbearable nerve pain, or the option to amputate which will remove functionality but at least have predictable results, you need to make your decision at that point. Once you have one of them done, you can't go back and say "ya know what, this isn't working, I want you to go the other way instead". I have lived with the unbearable nerve pain and zero functionally after reconstructive have surgery and have begged for decades to go back and do the amputation instead. Enough nerve pain that I have threatened to self-amputate, that I have attempted to take my life. None of that matters, the pain is dealt with medically, not surgically, no matter how much you tell them the medical options don't help.
  When this athlete says he made an informed decision - I know that means he found out what the potential was and that he asked if he would be able to make a new decision if he first tried to repair it.
  I've known many people that had similar surgeries that it worked just fine, and many others that live in constant pain. There's no formula to know which way it will go, and we still know so little about how the brain interprets pain, especially nerve pain, that there is so little we can do for it.
- That’s why you’re not an Olympian!

He can now try out for the para-olympics.

damn, tipping is out of control.

Henrik Sedin did the same thing back in the day

"Deleted by creator"
Good tldr

Metal af