What Are the Ethical Issues in Treating a Patient With Bilateral Leg Gangrene Incapable of Consenting to Amputation Secondary to Psychiatric Illness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral and simultaneous lower extremity amputations unrelated to diabetes and peripheral vascular disease are uncommon, although they may be necessary in patients with severe blast injuries. Such amputations, however, usually are performed in patients who are able to understand and consent to the treatment. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present the case of a 29-year-old woman who experienced drug-induced psychosis and underwent substantial hypothermic injuries; most notably, irreversible frostbite injuries to both lower extremities, leading to dry and mummified gangrene. As a result of her psychiatric illness, fluctuating catatonic state, and lack of insight into her clinical condition, she was deemed incapable of making decisions regarding her medical care and her mother was made substitute decision maker. The orthopaedic service was consulted regarding possible surgical treatment of her gangrenous feet that were stable and aseptic after limb preservation efforts (including hyperbaric oxygen) had been tried without success. They recommended close clinical monitoring and continued psychiatric treatment. The family, including the substitute decision maker, citing the patient's best interest, rejected the recommendations of the surgical team and demanded immediate surgical transtibial amputation of both lower legs. LITERATURE REVIEW: To our knowledge, such a unique case has not been reported. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We examined the decision-making process, the difficulties of caring for such a patient, and the ethical issues that arose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".