Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 387 posts

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#21

Post by jjulius »

anon291 wrote: post #17
jjulius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do they anesthesize the child in the other 10%? That answer is heavily nuanced and is likely difficult to answer. First, there's the likelihood that some of that 10% occurred very early in the second trimester but prior to the development of the ability to feel pain. One should also consider the circumstances of each specific abortion relative to whether or not they would feel pain. >EDIT: Answered my own question:…

> Lack of legal requirement does not mean a lack of anesthesia whatsoever in other states. I guess I was asking if anyone knew, because that article is the only thing I could find on it.

This doesn't answer your question, but I thought it was worth sharing in the broader context and actually changes the figures we're looking at just a bit.

>The problem? Thorough reviews of medical evidence reject the idea that fetuses can actually feel pain at 20 weeks. They don't fully develop the proper neurological structures to feel pain until later, around 29 to 30 weeks in the third trimester.[1]

>The bigger problem? There's really no such thing as "fetal anesthesia" in standard medical practice. And the law doesn't specify how doctors are supposed to make it happen.[1]

So now, goalposts have shifted to pain not being present until 29+ weeks, which is the third trimester.

>Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US.[2]

Which means that the question you're asking pertains to likely less than 1% of abortions in the US, rather than 10%.

[1]https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11331414/utah-abortion-anesthe...

[2]https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortion...

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#22

Post by kybernetyk »

hirundo wrote: post #3

> Newborns do feel pain. Presumably it doesn't switch on from nothing at birth, and pre-borns feel pain too. I'm pro-choice on abortion, but perhaps we should at least anaesthetise the fetus before late term abortions. Is that done? Or is their pain denied? Or is compassion toward that pain too difficult in the circumstances?

No post body was provided.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#23

Post by RobertRoberts »

anonu wrote: post #5
BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

This is, I believe, one of the downsides of empiricism and the fixation on citation rather than observation and reason. The idea that a whole profession came to reject the idea that infants are able to feel pain is astonishing, especially considering anyone who has ever taken care of infants knows that these little human beings react to things which are known to be painful. Babies feeling pain is something that shoul…

True. Lobotomies used to be common practice as well. Even a surgery performed recently, UPPP, for treating sleep apnea is "no longer recommended"... It was only five or ten years ago where they would perform this incredibly invasive surgery, but enough research shows they're not that effective.

You are proving the OP's point. Cutting off your uvula? It sounds insane to me, and I wouldn't have the procedure even if a doctor recommended it to me.

There are so many totally insane medical practices that it's shocking we don't question the medical industry as a rule of thumb.

Another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_infection_theory

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#24

Post by rootusrootus »

anon291 wrote: post #13
rootusrootus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't answer that. I know the basic statistics, as it was not long ago a question my wife and I sought out the answers to, but I don't know anything deeper about medical policies. I suspect that answer is probably some version of no. Aren't most abortions just induced miscarriages anyway?

I was asking about the minority that aren't. Typically, exceptions to the rule are the most interesting.

Sure, but when it comes to macro policy they should be weighted appropriately.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#25

Post by RobertRoberts »

anon291 wrote: post #11
rootusrootus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the consensus is that a fetus likely starts to experience pain in the second trimester. Over 90% of all abortions happen in the first trimester.

Do they anesthesize the child in the other 10%? EDIT: Answered my own question: apparently only in Utah as of 2016: http://www.healthlawpolicy.org/fetal-anesthesia/ `

Maybe they can't mandate it? There could be legal precedence that anything that can feel pain must be a living being and therefore to end it's life could be considered a criminal act.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#26

Post by PretzelPirate »

anon291 wrote: post #10

Given that we are actively attempting to deny the fact that fetuses feel pain, are we really that much more civilized? Citation on my claim that there are those who deny that fetuses feel pain: http://www.healthlawpolicy.org/fetal-anesthesia/

> Given that we are actively attempting to deny the fact that fetuses feel pain, are we really that much more civilized?

I don’t believe the discussion has been around whether a fetus feels pain or not, but around whether the fetus takes priority over the woman it is in.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#27

Post by someweirdperson »

dane-pgp wrote: post #19
sydd wrote: post #6

It's fucking scary, that this was recognized in 1987. In the 80s and even in the 90s most places did complex operations on newborns without any kind of painkillers -- imagine a heart surgery without painkillers. Not to mention "simple" stuff like circumcision. Also by this time they knew this about animals too. I think people will look at us as barbarians that we ate them when we knew that they feel pain, can sense t…

> Not to mention "simple" stuff like circumcision. You might have stumbled upon the real reason for this seemingly inexplicable delay in accepting that infants can feel pain: The circumcision industry. Presumably some doctors feared that parents would think twice about it if they knew that their son would be in agony (or need expensive painkillers) when undergoing that elective surgery. https://www.endalldisease.com/…

German law, BGB §1631d (last updated 2012) allows circumcision by qualified non-medical religious practitioners. Non-medical implies that they do not have access to proper painkillers. edit: within first 6 month of birth.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#28

Post by [deleted] »

happytoexplain wrote: post #14
BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

This is, I believe, one of the downsides of empiricism and the fixation on citation rather than observation and reason. The idea that a whole profession came to reject the idea that infants are able to feel pain is astonishing, especially considering anyone who has ever taken care of infants knows that these little human beings react to things which are known to be painful. Babies feeling pain is something that shoul…

I feel like it's the opposite - that, historically, many people (regardless of profession) always generally assumed that certain living things did not feel pain or otherwise suffer for some definition of suffering. This status quo naturally persisted into the era of science until science demonstrated it to be wrong in this case . Should they have known better, sooner? Obviously - I don't fully comprehend what could l…

[deleted]

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#29

Post by Enginerrrd »

happytoexplain wrote: post #14
BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

This is, I believe, one of the downsides of empiricism and the fixation on citation rather than observation and reason. The idea that a whole profession came to reject the idea that infants are able to feel pain is astonishing, especially considering anyone who has ever taken care of infants knows that these little human beings react to things which are known to be painful. Babies feeling pain is something that shoul…

I feel like it's the opposite - that, historically, many people (regardless of profession) always generally assumed that certain living things did not feel pain or otherwise suffer for some definition of suffering. This status quo naturally persisted into the era of science until science demonstrated it to be wrong in this case . Should they have known better, sooner? Obviously - I don't fully comprehend what could l…

You can see this all the time right now. People always talk about dogs as though they are philosophical zombies that merely learned to imitate the emotional displays we see from them. I see people talking about animals frequently caveat their intuition by saying things like "I'm sure he's just learned that if he does that he'll get food" or the like.

But the notion that fellow mammals which evolved to live in social groups don't experience any of the same emotions we do despite using the same brain structures in the same contexts is absolutely insane to me. They clearly experience even fairly complex emotions like jealousy of their peers. I can give my child a snack that my dog likes and it's no big deal. But if I were to give the cat that same treat and not my dog, she will flip her shit. Another dog would be similarly. In fact, my dog will jealously guard a treat she doesn't even like from the cat or another dog. Like she won't even eat it in a neutral context. But in the jealousy eliciting context, she will take it and bring it somewhere and guard it.

Like it's insane to me that people think the entire range of our emotions and thoughts evolved solely in humans. There are other social mammals and have been for a long time.

Re: Infants' sense of pain is recognized, finally (1987)

#30

Post by treis »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

This is, I believe, one of the downsides of empiricism and the fixation on citation rather than observation and reason. The idea that a whole profession came to reject the idea that infants are able to feel pain is astonishing, especially considering anyone who has ever taken care of infants knows that these little human beings react to things which are known to be painful. Babies feeling pain is something that shoul…

>little human beings react to things which are known to be painful. Babies feeling pain is something that should be self-evident, shouldn't it

Perhaps this is just semantics, but I think "feeling pain" implies a higher level of cognition than simply reacting to things which are known to be painful. Like the classic toddler move of painting with their feces. They're obviously physically capable of smell but it just doesn't seem to register the same way.

Post reply on HN