Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

131–140 of 387 posts

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

#131
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And? Is it true?

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

#132
post #92
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

You're really letting your partisanship shine through. Late term abortions are so exceedingly rare that they don't warrant serious discussion. They are exclusively happening when the risk to the mother is extreme, or the fetus is already dead (or has something like Trisomy 18, which is painful and 100% fatal within moments after birth, should the fetus survive long enough to see the outside of the womb).

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

#133
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I've met damn few people on the pro-choice side who were pro-abortion, no matter how you'd like to frame it. We just don't trust the government to be involved in this very personal decision.

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

#134
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Many women in the US are about to lose their rights to end a pregnancy EVEN WHEN THE FETUS IS DEAD. No they are not. This is simply misinformation. Before Roe v Wade, women regularly had D&Cs for stillbirths or late miscarriages. No one is trying to stop that. This idea only prevails because a large portion of the populace cannot differentiate between a living fetus and a dead one, and assigns the same moral weight…

> No one is trying to stop that.

It does not take much searching to find that some states are in fact attempting to do exactly that.

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

#135
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You appear to be confusing abortions and inductions. Both procedures end a pregnancy, but the former by definition involves the intent to kill the unborn child. In the case of a dead child, the procedure is an induction that results in a stillbirth. Or, if necessary, a caesarean section. Regardless an abortion is impossible on account of there no longer being an unborn baby in that case.

"Abortion" refers to the pregnancy, not the fetus. So yes, in fact, you can abort a pregnancy when the fetus is already dead.

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

#136
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?

[deleted]

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

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is truly insane the things that doctors routinely recommend without doing any sort of real review. Get any of the asleep-at-the-wheel health organizations to support your finding and plenty of doctors will recommend even the laziest of new ideas with passion. General downward trend in SIDS over a decade? It's probably because babies that wear footie pajamas are less likely to get bad humors. You're a bad parent if…

I don’t think the AAP recommends footie pajamas to prevent SIDS. What you say may or may not happen, but your point would be a lot more poignant if you used a real example rather than contrived nonsense. If the issue you're talking about is widespread, then it should surely be easy to use a real example.

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

#138

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…

> anyone who has ever taken care of infants knows that these little human beings react to things which are known to be painful.

> It may not be empirically evident

These two sentences contradict each other.

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I also suspect that the actual strand of opinion is being fairly uncharitably represented in that article, and the original perception was more along the lines of "they won't feel and process pain quite like adults , and they won't remember it, and they won't develop any pathological fears as a result of it, so anaesthetic is less important as well as riskier", not an assumption babies didn't have senses. Let's not f…

> they won't feel and process pain quite like adults, and they won't remember it

Mostly it's that second point. Nobody can complain about their treatment if they can't remember having it. That's how childbirth was done in the mid-20th century - you just give the woman memory blockers and don't worry about whether she's comfortable.

That's also how procedures are still done now, even though consensus has moved to the view that the mid-century treatment of women giving birth was an atrocity. When I was getting a stomach biopsy (involving a large tube being shoved down your throat), they told me to take a sedative. I asked if the sedative would help with undergoing the procedure. And they told me no, people are just as unhappy either way, but if I took the sedative I wouldn't remember the procedure afterwards.

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

#140
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…

> smell being good/bad seems to me to be learned? Go to Taiwan and smell stinky tofu 臭豆腐.

I don't understand your example. The name of the item explicitly identifies it as smelling bad.

Post reply on HN