> Apart from potential side effects of anesthesia,
Bingo. If they were going to study the effects of some drug on amputees, it would be better if they didn't amputate limbs to test it. People don't have a good understanding of the damage from general anesthesia, so it's probably easier to get them to agree to do this study (and therefore perhaps easier/cheaper than selecting people already undergoing general anesthesia, and coordinating with the anesthesiologist and controlling for confounding factors like why they're being anesthetised in the first place)
But ethically, it would be much better if they didn't put people under to perform a stupid study on them, since it is damaging to the people getting anesthetized.
Is it still a widespread theory that depression is a purely physical condition that can be treated with just a chemical intervention? I thought the medical community moved past this notion.
Bingo. If they were going to study the effects of some drug on amputees, it would be better if they didn't amputate limbs to test it. People don't have a good understanding of the damage from general anesthesia, so it's probably easier to get them to agree to do this study (and therefore perhaps easier/cheaper than selecting people already undergoing general anesthesia, and coordinating with the anesthesiologist and controlling for confounding factors like why they're being anesthetised in the first place)
But ethically, it would be much better if they didn't put people under to perform a stupid study on them, since it is damaging to the people getting anesthetized.