I think that it is important to try to weed out foolishness whenever it is recongizable - especially on the net where many present Foolishness as fact with the expectation that they will be believed.

First anyone can impersonate any level of accredidation anonymously on the net and we have no verification availablie other than checking their statements with others whose accredidation we can verify and seeing if they are likely to be what they claim to be. In the case of Truxbx it is fairly evident to most - if not all - of the usual participants on this forum that TruxBx is in fact highly trained and qualified medical opinion. Whether he is really a well read nerd or a practicing doctor is something that you will have to verify in 3d space for yourself. (TruxBx, no offense meant - I believe and rely upon your opinion, accredidation and experience - just making a point).

Second, If the wound you treated didn't evoke a medical response from the doctor on the scene then it was probably not a survival situation. If the individual injured had sufficient use of the hand to go on to complete a technical climb of any level of challenge then it wasn't a survival situation. If it didn't sever any tendons or sufficient muscle to impair the individuals ability to climb then it wasn't likely to require suturing anyway. If anyone had bother to suture that wound it would have been for cosmetic reasons.

Third, Climbers are an unusual breed? Climbers who climb more than once are not stupid so I would expect that you are either not stupid or not likely to climb for long. If the injured individual was able to climb and the climbers in the party concluded that the injured individual was not going to be a liability to their ascent - as seems to be the case in this scenario - then there was no urgency to close the wound. If the would need that level of care then I would expect that the party would have returned home to attempt on another day without the liability of the wound. A climbers hands have not only their own life but the lives of the entire party. An injured hand is a very dangerous thing. Seems that not only did the injured party not consider it a liability to climbing but the entire party also didn't consider it such. This doesn't sound like a survival situation. Had this happened after 100' vertical climbing with no alternative of climbing either up or down then stabilizing the hand (potentially including closing) might have been needed to make the hand more usable during the subsequent climbing required to get out. This happened (by your description) within a few yards of the car walking out being much easier.

It maybe that you haven't properly explained the scenario. It may be that you defend your judgements simply because they were your own. It maybe that you are convinced of the correctness of your decision because providence prevented the potential negatives from occuring. I would suggest that you might want to reconsider your position on this. Simply because I have ridden and even been thrown off a motorcycle at speed greater than 40 MPH without wearing a helmet doesn't make it a reasonble or safe thing to do. I have been lucky not to have killed myself and I enjoy riding "free" but I wouldn't attempt to promote the idea of riding "free" as a safe or reasonable activity. You may feel right in closing a wound in the field and you may have (or believe that you have) the skill necessary to properly clean the wound and close it and predicably escape the negative potentials just as I believe that I have the skill to not be killed riding "free". But don't presume that the casual reader of this forum has that skill when all statistical evidence is to the contrary.