Pros And Cons Of Amputations During The Civil War

Words: 422
Pages: 2

Amputations was the most common procedure done during the Civil War; around 60,000 surgeries were done. When a soldier was injured by a minie ball it broke and shattered bones, so doctors were forced to cut off the limb. The limbs that were usually amputated were, the elbow joint, shoulder joint, wrists, ankles,and hip joints. Doctors would use a tourniquet to cut off the blood flow; then make a circular incision around the bone, and then saw the bone off. After the limb was removed the doctor would sew up the arteries and pull the remaining skin over the bone. With experienced doctors these operations would take around 10 minutes. Despite many rumors, doctors almost always sedated solers before these operations with chloroform or alcohol. …show more content…
With many soldiers sole income coming from farming and manual labor, living without a limb was extremely difficult. "It is not two years since the sight of a person who had lost one of his lower limbs was an infrequent occurrence. Now, alas! there are few of us who have not a cripple among our friends, if not in our own families."-Physician Oliver Wendell Holmes. The government offered to pay up 75 dollars for a new leg and up 50 dollars for a arm or hand. This included a fitting and the limb itself. Few amputees did not take the government up on their offer because they felt that there should get used to not having a limb instead of getting an uncomfortable replacement. Few amputees could not get prosthetics because there stump was uneven. This caused the prosthetics to not stay on the limb. The government also had a program for amputees who still wanted to contribute to the war called Invalid Crops. This aloud soldiers, who wanted to, go back to war. Some soldiers who were only missing a foot or a few fingers, were allowed to go back to the front lines. Other soldiers who had lost legs or arms worked as nurses or