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

91–100 of 387 posts

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

#91

Post by anon291 »

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…

I do think 'looking painless' is about as good as we're going to get when killing someone as you can't exactly ask them afterwards.

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

#92

Post by anon291 »

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)

#93

Post by anon291 »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #71
anon291 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/treatments/surgical-abortion-seco... Five seconds on Google to find the answer to your question. Embryos don't have a human brain when you use an abortion pills as well, and second/third-trimester abortions that are not "the mother's life is in danger" are incredibly rare, even in the United States where people are incredibly uneducated on the subject because of antiscientific religious pre…

Here is planned parenthood's opinion: https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/later-aborti...

First you'll note they dispute the fact fetuses can feel pain at all, because fetuses are not conscious. One questions at what point in the vagina consciousness develops. Inquiring minds want to know.

And my point is that even when the mother's life is in danger is no excuse to not anesthesize the child. Anesthesia for the child has nothing to do with the woman's body. Anesthetic does not cross the placenta from child to mother. The only explanation is we don't want to consider the fact that the child feels pain, whether the mother's life is in danger or not.

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

#94

Post by Spooky23 »

jnovek wrote: post #85
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…

“Babies feeling pain is something that should be self-evident, shouldn't it?” I have yet to understand the historical underpinnings of this phenomenon, but as someone who deals with chronic pain, doctors don’t seem to be aware that people feel pain _in general_. I’m being sort of facetious, but any chronic pain community is full to the brim with stories of various medical professionals being skeptical of patients’ pa…

The likelihood of someone understanding something is inversely proportional to the impact on their ability to pay the mortgage.

Pain is recognized as “bad” innately. So if you can assert that no pain exists, you’re not accountable for causing, preventing or doing anything about it.

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

#95

Post by qnxub »

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.

It's not so simple. Circumcision in neonate males is a medical prophylactic. The evidence for harm is weak as well.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/10/acc-is-infant-circumci...

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

#96

Post by Spooky23 »

asiachick wrote: post #37
treis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ba…

Good point. I used to work on a dairy farm. Poop didn’t register after awhile.

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

#97

Post by Spooky23 »

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/

Humans feel pain, yet we happily recruit and train soldiers to slaughter and be slaughtered.

There’s a moral spectrum where people set various standards based on context.

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

#98

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

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/

> As ‘fetal anesthesia’ does not exist in standard medical practice, the law does not specify how doctors are supposed to administer anesthesia or analgesic in these situations.

Is it at all common in the first place for medical procedures to be codified in law?

I was under the impression that laws tend to speak in very broad and general terms, and how to actually carry them out is left as an exercise for the licensing boards, or for the practitioners themselves to reach some kind of consensus on. Because that takes actual medical expertise, something legislators rarely have. And every time a procedure needs to be updated because of some new research or technological advancement, it would waste a lot of time on legislators debating the changes while the patients risk suffering or dying because they can't have the benefit of the updated procedure. And that's if the amendment is even deemed important enough to debate.

I can't speak for the necessity of fetal anesthesia after week 20 since I don't have any medical knowledge, but those who are supposed to have it asking to be spoon-fed by legislators is not a good look, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the micromanagement of healthcare by politicians.

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

#99

Post by rootusrootus »

anon291 wrote: post #91
rootusrootus wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do think 'looking painless' is about as good as we're going to get when killing someone as you can't exactly ask them afterwards.

Then why do we not incorporate those two drugs in assisted suicide prescriptions? That's my point. We stop the heart because we intend to execute and we need to be sure. We paralyze the muscles because stopping the heart hurts, a lot, and people would squirm. We hope that the anesthetic is dulling the pain of that drug, but just in case it isn't we make sure the condemned can't show how much it hurts.

I think we don't actually care if they hurt, and in fact we sorta do hope it hurts like hell. They're criminals, after all. We strongly deny, even in the face of pretty good evidence, that anyone innocent has ever been executed.

Truth is we could execute people quite reliably with a small dose of fentanyl. Or we could use the accepted protocol for assisted suicide -- after all, we kill a lot more people with assisted suicide than by lethal injection, so we have a good amount of experience getting it right. I wonder about the stats on that -- how many failed suicides (of the assisted variety) compared with botched executions?

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

#100

Post by cachvico »

natroniks wrote: post #90
lotsofpulp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beh…

I'm a circumcised male who has decided to have all 3 male children circumcised. As a Jew, if I may weigh on this, you have my background for an conflicts or biases. Also, maybe content warning is in order for genital mutiliation. 1) It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just…

It's not so fringe, just Google it.
Post reply on HN