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

31–40 of 387 posts

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

#31

Post by [deleted] »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #26
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.

[deleted]

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

#32

Post by loeg »

rootusrootus wrote: post #12
anon291 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/ `

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?

Yeah, and miscarriage itself is just the lay terminology for a spontaneous abortion.

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

#33

Post by jl6 »

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/…

Some days I think humans are pretty gosh darned sophisticated. Then I remember that it’s still controversial as to whether we should slice off healthy parts from children who cannot possibly consent.

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

#34

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

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…

We should find sympathy for the doctors here. Administering general anesthesia to a newborn was a terrifying and deadly prospect at the time, so it was much easier to find a way to pretend it was unnecessary - certainly many of these surgeries had to happen one way or another for the baby to survive.

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

#35

Post by usrn »

someweirdperson wrote: post #27
dane-pgp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No post body was provided.

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

#36

Post by throw_m239339 »

someweirdperson wrote: post #27
dane-pgp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Now imagine getting circumcized at 6 or 8, with scissors, without anesthesia by someone that isn't a doctor... this is the fate of many young boys in Africa.

It's as bad as FGM.

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

#37

Post by asiachick »

treis wrote: post #30
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 do…

smell being good/bad seems to me to be learned? Go to Taiwan and smell stinky tofu 臭豆腐. To most non-Taiwanese it smells like cat poop or sewer water. Eating it as a non-fan feels like I'm eating in a dirty public restroom where the food itself doesn't taste bad but the smell from the over full toilet next to me is off putting. Similarly shrimp paste. Many cheeses also smell pretty bad.

All of them stop smelling so bad once you train yourself to enjoy them. Is the smell of poop any different?

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

#38

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

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…

> imagine a heart surgery without painkillers.

I'm not aware of heart surgeries done on infants without painkillers. Do you have any links discussing that?

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

#39

Post by mbg721 »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #26
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.

No post body was provided.

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

#40

Post by diob »

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.

Grateful I turned that shit down in 2012. Even then the evidence against it was overwhelming (basically, it makes sleep apnea worse because scar tissue comes back fierce).
Post reply on HN