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

341–350 of 387 posts

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

#341

Post by lotsofpulp »

natroniks wrote: post #322
lotsofpulp wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way. How could one have raised 3 kids and write there is nothing intrinsically good about clippin…

I'm not trolling. I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration." Is circumcising a newborn much different from having orthodontics placed in an 12 year old's mouth? That is, dental work that is done for purely aesthetic purposes. Or what about a frenectomy on a baby, or a toddler? While…

The distinction is about the purpose of altering someone else’s body. Is there a medical benefit or not? If not, then the answer is leave the other person’s body alone.

I do not know enough about tongue ties or frenectomy’s to comment. I have heard it is over diagnosed and might be done just so parents can feel something was done, but again, I have not delved into it much.

I have delved into cutting off foreskins, and that one, as you even claimed, is all about tribal affiliation. In other words, the procedure is not being done for the medical benefit of the person. At minimum, you would be causing unnecessary pain and risk of infection, but while I am not a urologist, I do know that foreskins have a role in providing lubrication.

Maybe it is mostly inconsequential. But that is irrelevant to the principle that people should be in control of their own body as much as possible. Obviously there is a ton that will not be, but cutting off the foreskin on penis to signify which tribe the male belongs to is a pretty easy one to conclude that violates that principle.

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

#342

Post by jl6 »

natroniks wrote: post #322
lotsofpulp wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way. How could one have raised 3 kids and write there is nothing intrinsically good about clippin…

I'm not trolling. I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration." Is circumcising a newborn much different from having orthodontics placed in an 12 year old's mouth? That is, dental work that is done for purely aesthetic purposes. Or what about a frenectomy on a baby, or a toddler? While…

> Unless foreskin does provide a benefit that I'm unaware of.

The lack of willingness of uncircumcised adult men to be circumcised should be a huge clue that there is in fact a benefit to bodily integrity.

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

#343

Post by jl6 »

natroniks wrote: post #306
LocalH wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>medical prophylactic The whole point of circumcision is to control the actions of the person later in life. This is extremely harmful, as you are removing another individual's agency for your own religious beliefs (or even worse, the mere notion "I was circumcized and I don't want my son to look different", which is pure vanity). Genital mutilation is abhorrent. It should be illegal to perform on any infant or child…

> The whole point of circumcision is to control the actions of the person later in life. How so? According to Judaism, the whole point of circumcision is to bear the mark of the promise between God and Abraham. But if you ask me, a modern non-orthodox Jew, circumcision is a rite of passage just like Communion, or Bar Mitzvahs, or any other non-natural step in growing up. It's different for everyone and no one has ask…

> > The whole point of circumcision is to control the actions of the person later in life.

> How so? … Circumcision in Judaism is a physical and indelible representation of our belonging to a community

You ask how circumcision controls a person, and you have provided the answer. The indelibility robs the person of the agency to choose not to belong to that community.

Could they leave anyway? Sure, the same way a person with gang tattoos can leave the gang.

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

#344

Post by RobertRoberts »

saurik wrote: post #59
RobertRoberts wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are proving the OP's point. Cutting off your uvula? It sounds insane to me, and I wouldn't have the procedure even if a doctor recommended it to me. There are so many totally insane medical practices that it's shocking we don't question the medical industry as a rule of thumb. Another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_infection_theory

> You are proving the OP's point. That would seem to be why they left the comment, so: mission successful.

No, the post was attempting to demonstrate how the medical system is effective and works as intended by correcting the use of UPPP, when any sane rational person would never have suggested in the first place.

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

#345

Post by Kaze404 »

momenti wrote: post #319
Kaze404 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment presumes that only a persons quality of life as an adult is important, which is a take I don’t think is defensible.

Even a few days or weeks after the mutilation the consequences are extremely minor. It is a very low-priority issue.

So the idea is that not consented mutilation is defensible as long as the consequences after a few days or weeks are extremely minor? Just repeating this back to you so we're on the same page.

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

#346

Post by Kaze404 »

tomcam wrote: post #337
Kaze404 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with very low tolerance for pain, this seems like my worst nightmare. I’m curious though, did your tolerance for pain increase over the years as you had to endure it?

Decreased, if any. I think it’s probably because I know nothing has ever worked. FWIW I am old and get a major operation every two or three years: hernia, cancer, hydrocele, etc. I have no problem dealing with that kind of pain, even when it is considerable, which is often true post-op.

Interesting. Thank you for sharing. Wishing you the best.

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

#347

Post by encryptluks2 »

frumper wrote: post #336
encryptluks2 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there are tests now for depression. And yes, you can do objective tests like brain imaging to see people's responses to stimuli among other things. What should not happen is for doctors to meet someone for 20 minutes, do nothing but talk to the person and say.. oh, I don't trust them they must be lying. Except, that is what doctors do all the time and there is no scientific basis for their decisions.

Sounds expensive, wouldn't it just be easier to trust them? I think the bigger problem is if a doctor doesn't know what's wrong or how to fix it, then they disengage.

Yes it is easier to trust the patient, but unfortunately many medical professionals have implicit bias and don't.

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

#348

Post by encryptluks2 »

vkou wrote: post #339
encryptluks2 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brain imaging would be a good example, but there is cortisol screenings among several other tests that can help determine that someone is actually in pain.

I could be wrong, but don't people with long-term chronic pain have normal cortisol levels?

I'm sure they can, but it can be a very indicator as well:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263906/ https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/pain/cortisol-screen...

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

#349

Post by everforward »

wruza wrote: post #277
thaumasiotes wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are numerous stories (maybe urban legends) about people suffering from aforementioned psychiatric issues after waking up amidst surgery but being not able to remember it afterwards. Curious if it is true or not, cause that casts a shadow on “no memories no problem” idea.

I couldn't find any stories about people that couldn't remember waking up, but still had psychological issues. How would they even know they had woken up?

The cases I could find were either people under general anesthesia (unconscious) that woke up and can remember at least parts of the procedure, or people under conscious sedation who probably didn't get a high enough dose of memory blockers.

I don't know enough about memory to say for sure, but I suppose it seems plausible to internalize a fear at an unconscious level even if the conscious memories are blocked. Similar to how some people have arachnophobia without ever having a bad experience with spiders.

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

#350

Post by tsimionescu »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #301
tsimionescu wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, there are tests now for depression. And yes, you can do objective tests like brain imaging to see people's responses to stimuli among other things. What should not happen is for doctors to meet someone for 20 minutes, do nothing but talk to the person and say.. oh, I don't trust them they must be lying. Except, that is what doctors do all the time and there is no scientific basis for their decisions.

Can you point to some tests for depression? A quick Google only turned out some studies, nothing approved and usable in clinical settings (and one of the studies had a test that couldnt differentiate between depression and bipolar disorder).

Similarly, brain imaging for pain is at the research level, and may come with several other risks. I doubt there are such tests that could be used to conclusively prove that someone is or is not in pain.

Post reply on HN