lpetrich
Contributor
Your example is for an injured leg. For a healthy leg, it would be much more difficult to justify amputation.It doesn't complicate the issue much. If a patient has a choice between having a leg amputated, or having it treated (with the expectation that, if saved, it may never be useful for walking or balance*), then that choice is for the patient alone to make. They may consult with any number of experts; But the fact that the leg could be 'saved' doesn't make the decision any less the sole preserve of the patient himself.But if it can live on its own, then that complicates the issue, because instead of abortion one could have premature birth.
A fetus is not a part of one's body, at least not in the way that a limb is. We can't regrow lost limbs -- we are not starfish. A fetus is different. It grows from a fertilized egg cell, and it eventually gets expelled or removed. But for much of its residence inside its mother, it cannot survive on its own, and in the last few months, it can survive outside only with difficult. Furthermore, this residence -- pregnancy -- and "normal" expulsion -- birth -- are often very difficult for the mother, and a woman who wants to cut it short should have a right to, especially early in her pregnancy.
Then there is what might be called the Siamese-twin problem. Does one have a right to kill a Siamese twin that one does not wish to be joined to? But an early fetus is not nearly as well-developed as a Siamese twin.