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

61–70 of 387 posts

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

#61

Post by incanus77 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #8
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…

Having had surgery as an infant in the mid 1970s, I guess I'm glad that I can't remember back that far.

Same.

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

#63

Post by bad416f1f5a2 »

Spoom wrote: post #51
anonu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get the impression that a lot of gynecological care is in the same realm, but I don't have the equipment to have first hand anecdotal evidence. Heard many a horror story about IUD placement / removal, where folks were told that a Tylenol would be enough.

Medical racism and sexism are very real.

One in four residents believe blacks have thicker skin than whites: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1516047113

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

#64

Post by rodgerd »

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 shouldn't feel bad about eating an octopus alive or boiling a lobster alive. It's tastier and they don't feel pain anyway."

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

#65

Post by bobthechef »

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…

> 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.

I'm not sure that's the case. Most people believe dogs feel pain by observing them, for example. Indeed, it is the most immediate common sense conclusion one can make based on observation. It wasn't until modern philosophy, specifically Descartes, characterized animals as zombie meat machines (pure res extensa). Aristotle, by contrast, did not deny non-human animals sensation or pain, as is evident in De Anima in which he reasons that sensation is in fact necessary for animals (this occurs in the context of determining the necessary faculties entailed by the nutritive soul, the sensitive soul, and the intellectual soul).

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

#66

Post by lotsofpulp »

jl6 wrote: post #33
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/…

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.

And with all the regulation around healthcare in the US, male genital mutilation is not only perfectly legal, but also legal to be done by some with no medical certifications, outside of a medical setting, and it is legal for them to suck the blood from the mutilated area with their mouth, increasing risk of disease for the infant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel

Can you imagine a new cult starting today that behaved that way? How fast would everyone jump on them for child abuse?

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

#67

Post by prometheus76 »

lisper wrote: post #57
BitwiseFool wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"People tend to instinctively anthropomorphize, and this instinct is particularly strong when it comes to our offspring." I don't want to come across as snide when I ask this, but why would it be wrong to anthropomorphize a fellow human being?

That's a fair question. And I'm not saying it is wrong, only that it might be. Let me give a slightly less fraught example: we have an instinct to "honor our dead" and not to "desecrate their bodies." Does that make sense? The dead person doesn't care. Does it even make sense to talk about a dead "person"? One might argue that no dead thing can be a person, it's just a (dead) thing that was once a person and still ha…

The identity of someone is not just their body, and, while they may not be aware of how their body is being treated, an assault on their body can still be quite traumatic for those who do remember the person and in whom their identity still lives.

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

#68

Post by bobthechef »

lisper wrote: post #57
BitwiseFool wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"People tend to instinctively anthropomorphize, and this instinct is particularly strong when it comes to our offspring." I don't want to come across as snide when I ask this, but why would it be wrong to anthropomorphize a fellow human being?

That's a fair question. And I'm not saying it is wrong, only that it might be. Let me give a slightly less fraught example: we have an instinct to "honor our dead" and not to "desecrate their bodies." Does that make sense? The dead person doesn't care. Does it even make sense to talk about a dead "person"? One might argue that no dead thing can be a person, it's just a (dead) thing that was once a person and still ha…

This borders on solipsism. The same argument can be made about any human being. At the very least, we presume there is pain by observing the behavior of animals in response to stimuli and interpreting what we see analogically. An in light of certain reasonable assumptions (like "natura nihil frustra facit"), we can quickly rule out a host of preposterous interpretations to conclude that the sensation felt is painful. That

We don't need to factor into the moral calculus the possibility that no pain is felt since the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that infants do feel pain. What reason could there possibly be to believe that they don't that isn't some stretched exersize in special pleading and evasion? The baby is human!

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

#69

Post by seibelj »

oblio wrote: post #58
anon291 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is this a real cause for concern? I don't really know how abortions are performed, but doesn't the fetus die quickly? I imagine that once it's "unplugged", depending on its age, it's seconds to a minute from death.

No post body was provided.

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

#70

Post by mc32 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #54
anon291 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I typically agree, but not when it comes to this. Very few percentage of Americans are executed, but we all agree that the way in which they are ought to be humane, for some definition of humane. Most people today seem to agree that 'painless' is a desirable property. So if it's true fetuses feel pain past some time in pregnancy, then I think it's imperative than anesthesia is used, and that medicine create such a th…

At the risk of running way off into a tangent... > we all agree that the way in which they are ought to be humane Do we? As far as I can tell, the currently accepted execution protocol (for lethal injection) is more about ensuring that the execution looks painless, and only secondarily about whether or not it is in fact painless. We don't use drugs to paralyze muscles and stop the heart when we humanely euthanize som…

That’s a good question. Why couldn’t they use the cocktail given to assisted suicide subjects in Switzerland? Or any variety of cocktails (OD) known to be lethal to people?

This still leaves an open question though. Why are people more concerned about the mode of execution of an adult vs the mode of termination of a foetus that could survive ex-utero in and neo-natal ICU?

Post reply on HN