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

101–110 of 387 posts

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

#101

Post by rootusrootus »

mc32 wrote: post #70
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…

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?

Almost no fetuses are terminated anywhere near the date of viability, much less afterwards. It is a non-issue. The vast majority of terminations happen before week 12, and no fetus is viable until sometime around week 22 (and only with heroic measures).

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

#102

Post by politician »

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…

Individual doctors are rarely deserving of the implicit trust and praise they receive from proximity to the stereotypical hero doctor on this season's popular medical drama.

I went from a general naive faith in the profession to caveat emptor.

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

#104

Post by natroniks »

cachvico wrote: post #100
natroniks wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have googled it, nothing I've read describes it as common or main stream. Many describe it as being performed only within a very small segment of the ultra orthodox community. I haven't found a place with reliable stats, which is unfortunate, but here is a paragraph with a recent and prety clear comment from a leading Jewish authority https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ritual-circumcision-ban-me...

Most mohels, even among the Orthodox, do use a sterile pipette, avoiding direct oral-genital contact. In 2005, the Rabbinical Council of America, the main union of modern Orthodox rabbis, issued a statement urging the abandonment of direct suction. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a medical ethicist and dean of Yeshiva University’s (Orthodox) rabbinical school, was quoted in The JewishDaily Forward as saying: “There is no requirement to make metzitzah b’peh. The Talmud says plainly it is not part of the ritual but belongs to the medical, post-surgical component. There is no doubt that insistence on metzitzah b’peh is wrong. I firmly believe that making metzitzah b’pehis a criminal act.”

Do you have sources showing this practice is commonly accepted?

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

#105

Post by daniel-cussen »

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 whole medicine industry in America is based on denying, not supplying.

Cornered market.

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

#106

Post by dudul »

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.

Really? I'm not very active in these conversations, but I was always under the impressions that a predominant argument in favor of abortion is that the fetus is just a bunch of cells that has no consciousness and can't feel anything anyway so who cares?

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

#107

Post by natroniks »

natroniks wrote: post #104
cachvico wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so fringe, just Google it.

I have googled it, nothing I've read describes it as common or main stream. Many describe it as being performed only within a very small segment of the ultra orthodox community. I haven't found a place with reliable stats, which is unfortunate, but here is a paragraph with a recent and prety clear comment from a leading Jewish authority https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ritual-circumcision-ban-me... Most mohels, even…

PS this says (estimates) 3600 children a year. That's 3600 too many, but far from "common place" in my understanding of the term. I can't predict how many Jewish males are born each year, but if someone wants to provide that, I'd be curious to know what portion these 3600 represents.

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

#108

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

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…

Even worse for you is how concerns about fentanyl are now a defacto war on pain relief. States have demonized long lists of pain meds, driving people in chronic pain to buy much riskier drugs on the street (something I witness fairly regularly).

States used to blame today's bans on the pill mill problem that was addressed over 20 years ago - but now don't even bother to do that. Now the argument reads like 'because fentanyl exists, you must live the rest of your life in pain'.

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

#109

Post by mc32 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #101
mc32 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Almost no fetuses are terminated anywhere near the date of viability, much less afterwards. It is a non-issue. The vast majority of terminations happen before week 12, and no fetus is viable until sometime around week 22 (and only with heroic measures).

True but what is the pop total of executed on death row vs foetuses terminated in the third trimester?
Post reply on HN