Why I hate the index finger (1980)

Whoever wrote this was creating satire and I don’t even know if they realize it.

People still surprise me, but given this part, it's hard for me to imagine that the author was not being satirical on purpose:

> Obviously, I do not like arrogant disabled index digits and believe they should be removed if they cannot be restored to a functional status. There is no in-between with index fingers.

> To me, index fingers portray a hideous personality reflecting conceit and pantywaist attitudes. In essence, they are smart-ass digits we can often do without. If I had to lose a finger and had my choice, I would choose first my nondominant hand index ray and next the other index. I find index digits easy to hate and sometimes hard to love.

Although, maybe the author's point was serious?

If you read through carefully, the author is making a serious point: that in many cases of injury to the index finger, it is better functionally and cosmetically to remove it. He cites examples of patients with chronic pain or burning in the stump, and patients who have the remaining portion of the finger permanently extended, facilitating re-injury.

I'm no fingerologist but I do appreciate anyone who can make serious points in such a funny way.

I definitely noticed that, but if the goal was to convey a serious point, then would that be best served by humorous delivery?

That's the confusion I was trying to express by saying: "Although, maybe the author's point was serious?"

The point the author is making seems to be against the consensus of other hand specialists (this is at least my perception, as someone who has an index finger issue and has asked specialists "can't I just cut it off?").

The author is basically (and provocatively) saying "Are you kidding me? You really think it's useful for people to continue to be burdened with non-functional appendages?" to his colleagues, and I think the humor is likely to get them to engage with his thesis rather than dismiss it off hand.

I have sent this to several doctor friends, and the writing style prompted them to send it to several more, so, I think it's quite likely that tone served the author's point.

I was going to ask you about this on your top-level comment, so thanks for finding my confusion and responding. That is super interesting. Wow.

His target audience is not the patients, its other doctors. Just like any other professions, the best talks / articles are the ones that are a pleasant audience experience. A dead-dry paper just gets skimmed and changes nobody's mind