The foot was necrotic (dead) and held to the leg by one tendon and few inches of skin.
Yep, I read that.
What she did was tasteless and beyond her position to make that decision, but the primary physician who allowed the dead lump to remain attached to the poor guy is the one who should have been in court for malpractice and negligence.
That foot staying on him too long is most likely the cause of death, where the body had a circulatory dead end to struggle with while overtaxing the heart.
Given the state of the wound this seems to fall more on the side of debraidment than amputation. She should still have brought him in for a Surgeon to do the procedure, If she had documented what she was doing and treated the foot as medical waste instead of a display trophy there probably would not have been much of an issue.
This forum is swamped with morons who only read headlines and then post kneejerk reactions ...