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

251–260 of 387 posts

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

#251

Post by thaumasiotes »

wruza wrote: post #218
thaumasiotes wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Nobody can complain about their treatment if they can't remember having it Some stories are circulating about people having intense panic attacks, psychoses and sometimes becoming suicidal. Are these just myths and legends?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. The odds are that I don't know the answer.

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

#252

Post by BiteCode_dev »

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 believe it's the same with animal consciousness and intelligence.

It should be self evident.

Not that it mirror ours, but that they have something of a similar nature.

You have to remember that centuries ago, some humans assumed black people where, in fact, not human. Not having a soul. Not feeling pain as we do.

I remember the testimony of a person stating he once saw an African white master asking her black servant to check if electricity was on... by touching the wire. To her, they were not sensible enough to care.

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

#253

Post by Aransentin »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #234
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.

It’s because people lie for many reasons. So? The first response should always be to take folks seriously. Always. Even if they are really searching for opioids. No doctor should assume folks are lying upfront. Even if that means that a couple people are getting off work when they don't need it. And I'd much rather have a disability system that occasionally gives the wrong people benefits than to withhold benefits fr…

Spitballing, but maybe the problem is that no doctors wants to be the guy in town who's the most generous with opioid prescriptions, as then he'll get swamped by people seeking opioids?

People who look at the statistics after that, finding our doctor prescribing a significant amount of all opioids in the community, are liable to think that he's some sort of unscrupulous stooge of a pharmaceutical company.

That'd cause a race to the bottom of pain medication skepticism. To fix that you'd need some sort of liability reform (as just changing guidelines will never work if it's opposed to a self-sustaining incentive gradient), though I'm not sure what that would actually entail.

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

#254

Post by russellendicott »

tomcam wrote: post #190
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…

My stock joke is that if the doctor or nurse says it won’t hurt, it will hurt at least a little. If they say it will hurt a little, it will hurt a lot. If they say it will probably hurt, time for serious anesthesia. Also, there’s pretty much no such thing as minor surgery except maybe skin tag removal.

"A minor surgury is one that's happening to somebody else."

-unknown

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

#255

Post by kqr »

lelanthran wrote: post #225
kqr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're making my argument sound simpler than it is, by presenting it as a false dichotomy. There's a large range of options between "strictly illegal" and "encouraged as a fun Sunday activity for the entire family".

So for example, there are jurisdictions in which there is a way to get murder approved by the authorities – that's what capital punishment is. Instead of illicitly murdering someone, you go through the system to make sure it's an appropriate murder. Similarly, there are jurisdictions where suicide can happen above board, often going by the nicer sounding term assisted euthanasia.

Jaywalking is also not as strictly illegal as one might at first think: in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, taking the proper precautions and following procedure, road workers are allowed to traverse roads in active use. Many forms of gambling are also allowed, often disguised as "providing financial services", with plenty of regulation to make sure it's done somewhat responsibly.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with these legal choices, mind you. All I'm saying it's not as unimaginable as you make it out to be that sometimes things which we think of as criminal offenses at base could be justified in some cases, and that doesn't mean it automatically becomes a free-for-all.

However, I do find it harder to even imagine a situation in which something like rape or drunk driving could be justified and that it should be allowed to happen as long as its done responsibly with relevant professionals involved.

----

So I guess now I'm in a tricky position: as a general rule, I would like to say that "yes, things that are going to happen anyway, we might as well provide a legal route for, with the proper checks and controls, and the professional support necessary to make sure the application is proper".

On the other hand, if you asked me outside of this argument whether I'm a proponent of capital punishment, rape, or drunk driving in any shape, I would give you a firm no.

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

#256

Post by momenti »

lordwarnut wrote: post #246
momenti wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This inflicted pain and damage appears to have no significant impact on adult quality of life though. Circumcision may also even reduce the bacterial load and hence reduce chances of infections and cancer: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/10/acc-is-infant-circumci... It's a non-issue.

It's a form of genital mutilation. It would be wrong to call it a non-issue. It is moral one at the least. I have no issue with consenting adults getting circumcised for what ever reason they want too. A baby, however, cannot possibly consent to such a thing.

What matters the most is the cohesion, functioning and productivity of society, which is unaffected by circumcision.

The notion of consent is arbitrary. You could also regard religious cults as primary, then you would need their consent to imposing your personal aesthetics.

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

#257

Post by orangepurple »

Aransentin wrote: post #253
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because people lie for many reasons. So? The first response should always be to take folks seriously. Always. Even if they are really searching for opioids. No doctor should assume folks are lying upfront. Even if that means that a couple people are getting off work when they don't need it. And I'd much rather have a disability system that occasionally gives the wrong people benefits than to withhold benefits fr…

Spitballing, but maybe the problem is that no doctors wants to be the guy in town who's the most generous with opioid prescriptions, as then he'll get swamped by people seeking opioids? People who look at the statistics after that, finding our doctor prescribing a significant amount of all opioids in the community, are liable to think that he's some sort of unscrupulous stooge of a pharmaceutical company. That'd caus…

It's because of the chilling effect of lawsuits and the risk of losing their DEA license that doctors in the United States are skeptical of issuing pain medication. Americans with genuine pain problems that cannot be effectively treated by local doctors despite persistent good-faith efforts should instead find a doctor in a Mexican border town where pain medication is more readily available.

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

#258

Post by danhau »

lordwarnut wrote: post #246
momenti wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This inflicted pain and damage appears to have no significant impact on adult quality of life though. Circumcision may also even reduce the bacterial load and hence reduce chances of infections and cancer: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/10/acc-is-infant-circumci... It's a non-issue.

It's a form of genital mutilation. It would be wrong to call it a non-issue. It is moral one at the least. I have no issue with consenting adults getting circumcised for what ever reason they want too. A baby, however, cannot possibly consent to such a thing.

> A baby, however, cannot possibly consent to such a thing.

Well, a baby cannot consent to anything. The parent's consent is the baby's consent.

Now I'm genuinely curious - I'm not affected, so I can't relate: Circumcision is genital mutilation, sure, but is it really "that" bad? Does it affect quality of life, from child to adult (excluding botched circumcisions)? Based on my understanding, I would rather focus on female genital mutilation in undeveloped parts of the world. In comparison, male circumcision seems to be ... ok. It's fine. Or is it? Please let me know.

(I'm not talking about the ignorance of infant's sense of pain here, that's clearly immoral).

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

#259

Post by tsimionescu »

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.

Sure, just like instead of prescribing anti-depressants, we should first do a depression test.

Unfortunately, neuroscience is not at a level where we can actually perform these tests. There is no objective measure to see if someone is in pain, or depressed, or suffering many other psychological symptoms.

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

#260

Post by Broken_Hippo »

Aransentin wrote: post #253
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because people lie for many reasons. So? The first response should always be to take folks seriously. Always. Even if they are really searching for opioids. No doctor should assume folks are lying upfront. Even if that means that a couple people are getting off work when they don't need it. And I'd much rather have a disability system that occasionally gives the wrong people benefits than to withhold benefits fr…

Spitballing, but maybe the problem is that no doctors wants to be the guy in town who's the most generous with opioid prescriptions, as then he'll get swamped by people seeking opioids? People who look at the statistics after that, finding our doctor prescribing a significant amount of all opioids in the community, are liable to think that he's some sort of unscrupulous stooge of a pharmaceutical company. That'd caus…

Spitballing, but maybe the problem is that no doctors wants to be the guy in town who's the most generous with opioid prescriptions, as then he'll get swamped by people seeking opioids?

Nope. In a well-designed system, this just be minimal. Design a better system with better access to medical records throughout the system, lesser liability (the US, mostly), and paid medical leave so that people can actually heal. The alternative is simply that we leave folks in different levels of pain. Heck, even just being able to see prescriptions nationally would be a bonus (Right now, in Norway, when I get an electronic prescription, I can go to any pharmacy to fill it and they can see my prescription history) Innocent people shouldn't have to go to the black market for pain relief because they can't get things figured out legally.

Again, I firmly believe that the first response should always be to believe the patient.

Post reply on HN