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

221–230 of 387 posts

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

#221

Post by smegma2 »

tsol wrote: post #177
causality0 wrote: post #165

Most people are familiar with the sound of a baby crying, and they think that's the worst sound a baby makes. It isn't. A normal baby's cry sounds absolutely nothing like a baby screaming in agony, which is a fact I discovered the first (and last) time I saw a video of a circumcision. Today we look back and can't imagine how people of centuries ago saw things like slavery and religious oppression as normal. Sometimes…

Quoted post unavailable.

Why did you click on this thread? The climate needs fixing!

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

#222

Post by DavidSJ »

King-Aaron wrote: post #214
mike00632 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid it's the case that most all surgeries on infants (circumcision) are elective and performed for aesthetic reasons. For males it's likely they only time they will go into shock from pain during their lives.

> I'm afraid it's the case that most all surgeries on infants (circumcision) are elective and performed for aesthetic reasons Circumcision is awful, for sure. However am I reading your comment correctly in that you think that "most all surgeries on infants are elective and performed for aesthetic reasons"? Because with my little one, he's had to undergo some pretty invasive procedures in his short life so far that ar…

Circumcisions are "most all" surgeries on infants (in the US), since they are sadly done routinely on something like a quarter of them (half of anatomic boys).

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

#223

Post by jl6 »

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…

> Is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed?

Since you asked the question, I’ll give what I think is the obvious answer: yes, of course it’s far worse than both of those things. By the way, I wouldn’t pierce a baby’s ears either, but at least that heals over and leaves minimal lasting damage. You can’t get foreskin back once it’s gone. This might be no big deal to someone who doesn’t know what they’re missing, but try applying that standard to any other part of the body.

What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want?

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

#224

Post by DavidSJ »

kqr wrote: post #186
mcswell wrote: post #167

While I view the modern approach--give the infant some anesthetic--as best, here is another thought about not being able to remember the pain afterwards (reportedly babies that were operated on without anesthesia have no memory of it, even years later). I have had several colonoscopies, dating back 20 years or more. (Yes, I am that old, and get off my lawn.) For the first couple, I remember it as at best uncomfortabl…

Yeah, this is an interesting aspect of the problem for me. Is it unethical to hurt someone if you're doing it in a way that they definitely won't be able to remember later? Would you like to go through extreme torture (without lasting physical damage) if you could get a guarantee that you wouldn't remember any of it once it's done? Are we who we are now, or are we our memories of our past? This is not just academical…

Is it unethical to hurt someone if you're doing it in a way that they definitely won't be able to remember later?

Assuming humans remain mortal, all pain definitely won't be remembered sufficiently later.

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

#225

Post by lelanthran »

kqr wrote: post #192
mcswell wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would view such pro-choice people as making the same mistake that anesthesiologists once made about infants: if you can't hear the unborn complain, they must not be complaining. Therefore it's a personal decision of the mother, because you can hear her complain. The opposite side of this debate is that maybe the unborn do complain, even if we can't hear them. And it's our moral obligation to stand up for them, beca…

I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we ca…

> I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it.

>

> From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it.

>

> The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved.

>

> What's your take on this?

I'm not the OP, and I can see your argument in the good faith that you intended it, but I gotta question whether the argument "It happens whether you want it to or not" is valid at all.

Murder happens all the time, we still criminalize it.

Rapes happen even more frequently, and have a very low successful prosecution rate, and yet we still criminalize it.

Suicides happen often, harms no one but the subject, is criminalized in many jurisdictions and is also not financed by the insurance industry[1].

There are plenty more less severe actions that are criminalized, like Jaywalking, gambling, solicitation, drunk-driving, etc[2] that, in 999 out of every thousand cases, result in no harm. But, they're still criminal acts.

For any $FOO, do you really want to:

a) Argue that because it will still happen, we may as well make it legal

and

b) Because it is legal, the insurance must cover it. Because even in places where suicides are not necessarily illegal, the insurance still will not cover it!

This has nothing to do with whether abortions @ whatever trimester should be legal or not, it's whether we want to go down the path of legalizing things purely because enforcement is difficult.

I don't find that argument compelling at all, because if that is the reasoning then I feel that a lot of the more serious crimes should just be decriminalized due to difficulty in enforcement.

[1] No death benefits are paid for suicides.

[2] I'm not going anywhere near the subject of drug usage.

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

#226

Post by encryptluks2 »

bergenty wrote: post #216
jnovek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

It’s because people lie for many reasons. To get out of work, get disability, make a claim, to get opioids because they’re addicted to them etc. As a doctor, you’re probably going to become cynical after a while. This is very different from a baby because they have little motivation to lie and you can see them reacting to simple painful situations like bumping their head.

And if doctors are worried, the first step should be doing actual tests to see if people are experiencing pain. Not making some judgement based on their cynical bias whether someone is lying or being truthful.

It is amazing how much of the medical community states they believe in science, yet they seem entirely disconnected from it at times.

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

#227

Post by taurath »

bergenty wrote: post #216
jnovek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

It’s because people lie for many reasons. To get out of work, get disability, make a claim, to get opioids because they’re addicted to them etc. As a doctor, you’re probably going to become cynical after a while. This is very different from a baby because they have little motivation to lie and you can see them reacting to simple painful situations like bumping their head.

Wondering if it might be possible to measure the pain people are feeling somehow. It’d be interesting to compare a person with a traumatic past vs one without

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

#228

Post by vkou »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #226
bergenty wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because people lie for many reasons. To get out of work, get disability, make a claim, to get opioids because they’re addicted to them etc. As a doctor, you’re probably going to become cynical after a while. This is very different from a baby because they have little motivation to lie and you can see them reacting to simple painful situations like bumping their head.

And if doctors are worried, the first step should be doing actual tests to see if people are experiencing pain. Not making some judgement based on their cynical bias whether someone is lying or being truthful. It is amazing how much of the medical community states they believe in science, yet they seem entirely disconnected from it at times.

How can you, with an objective test, determine whether or not I am experiencing chronic pain, or if I'm just pretending to be experiencing chronic pain?

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

#229

Post by saiya-jin »

asdff wrote: post #202
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as someone who deals with chronic pain, doctors don’t seem to be aware that people feel pain _in general_. I don't know your situation, but I wonder if it seems this way because doctors don't have many options for treating chronic pain. There are medications for acute pain, but when you use them chronically over many years—well, that's how we ended up with the Opioid epidemic.

At least its changing these days now that THC is increasingly legal. Boomers have proved you can take it for six decades straight and be fine. Pro sports players are using it after getting beat up in games or practices too.

I am taking it for cca 25 years and I am fine too... sort of.

It can still become addictive, after tremendous amounts consumed over long time that don't make sense unless you just want to fuckup yourself as much as possible. But plenty of folks still end up there.

But its one of the easiest addictions to shed off, compared to say cigarettes, alcohol or well anything else (I would say even sugar is more difficult to wean off since its everywhere, joints not so much for now).

It has positive effects - pain management I guess especially with edibles, but for me its change of perspective/mindset on life matters, much higher creativity, michelin star level of taste experience even from relatively cheap food, and that sweet sweet high that is just so relaxing.

But it will make you overall less patient, which sucks. For parenting, for work, for life in general. Also, morning after is much better than alcohol binge night, but mental gears running on 20% isn't something that helps produce quality in your work. Plus most consumption methods mess up your lungs pretty badly, but quality vaping is I think cca good enough to not shorten your life considerably.

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

#230

Post by lelanthran »

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…

> antiscientific religious pressure

I find it really weird that this phrase is used when talking about things like abortion, but never gets used when talking about infant circumcision.

Isn't the only reason that infants are allowed to be permanently mutilated along with lifelong loss of sensation due to intense lobbying by antiscientific religious pressure?

Post reply on HN