So I had this discussion with a friend at school today, where if we were forced to make a decision to losing either an arm or a leg which would we choose? Of course, with a discussion like this, it lead to us talking about prosthetics and which would be the better choice.
I said that losing a leg would be a better choice, because there's so many things arms can do that would be very hard to replicate. I'm not saying it would be impossible for those actions to be replicated. For example; nerves would be very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Now sure, both arms and legs have nerves, but more things are done with arms than legs(at least that's the case for me). For example, when I'm reaching for a french fry from McDonald's, and the cashier doesn't frickin' tell me that they're fresh out of the oven, the nerves in my hand will react to the hot fries as a way of telling me, "Hey, don't put that in your mouth! It could probably burn your tongue off!" I mean the same could be done with feet, but I don't want to eat feet fries. Now I'm not saying feet aren't as important, but the majority of things feet can do seem a bit easier to replicate; like walking, standing, kicking, etc.
Back to the original story, my friend disagreed and she said that losing the arm that you don't use as much(For example, if you're right-handed that would be your left hand and vice-versa) would be the better decision. Honestly I kind of forgot her reasoning and what she did give was mostly the fact that feet also have nerves and stuff like that.
Anyway, I want to know your guys' thoughts. If you were forced to lose either a leg or an arm, which would you chose?
I'm quite curious about your friend's side of the argument. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that with a prosthetic leg you won't be able to go outside for a month or more?
For me, my life requires the use of both my limbs a lot. If given a choice, I would even say neither . However, for the sake of this argument, I would go with the leg. Though it's a real tough choice for me..
The majority of people would rather lose a leg since the hand has a lot more joints than a leg, and because of that the hand has a lot more complex movements which can be harder to replicate with a prosthetic. Not to mention that the hand has a lot more uses than a leg, which can be more devastating for someone when they lose it.
A possible argument in 'favour' of a prosthetic arm is that your mobility (i.e. walking, running, trekking etc.) is not impaired. I feel like being reduced to a careful walk can be more frustrating than one may think.
Hmm, that depends, people who've had both legs replaced with prosthetics have often ended up running in races I suppose there are more factors than one may realize in how and where exactly the prosthetic fits in both cases
A prosthetic palm for example might be more preferrable than having your entire leg replaced. However I would still choose arm if I had to. Maybe there are consequences I can't see, but, with the data that comes to mind, that would be my choice xD
Doom, you are referring to those 'blade' prostheses used in sports competitions, right? I thought about those, but didn't mention them as I assumed they were only used in races between people having had both feet amputated below the knee. What I didn't know until now is that there is a category for people with only one such prosthesis, too
It's true that those prostheses allow for a much greater mobility than standard prostheses, granted your knee is intact. What I am wondering now is how well it does on terrain that is not flat like a running track or a city walkway. Yes, still thinking about outdoors sports like hiking and such.
Personally I would also choose the leg, by the way. I enjoy video games too much, and maybe I'd want to pick up the guitar again at some point in time. Just trying to explore a different approach.
@R2D21999 Have you and your friend ever specified exactly how much of the arm/leg would be amputated? Like, below or above the elbow/knee?
