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

161–170 of 387 posts

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

#161

Post by erichocean »

anon291 wrote: post #11
rootusrootus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the consensus is that a fetus likely starts to experience pain in the second trimester. Over 90% of all abortions happen in the first trimester.

Do they anesthesize the child in the other 10%? EDIT: Answered my own question: apparently only in Utah as of 2016: http://www.healthlawpolicy.org/fetal-anesthesia/ `

> Do they anesthesize the child in the other 10%?

Other first world countries—the ones with universal healthcare—solve this conundrum by not performing abortions on the 10% that do feel pain.

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

#162

Post by mcswell »

The article mentions that premature babies feel pain (not clear how premature, back in 1987 that might have been six or seven months' gestation. My late wife was a neonatal intensive care nurse, and like most such nurses had a great deal of empathy for their tiny patients.

And of course this has implications for the abortion debate, as noted by many commenters further down this page.

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

#163

Post by swat535 »

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.

> around whether the fetus takes priority over the woman it is in.

My understanding is that the question that is posed is: "When does a fetus becomes a living child?"

Since at _some point_, there is clearly a living human shaped and abortion can no longer be performed AFAIK. For example in Canada it's ~23 weeks, other countries have different limits.

Just wanted to clarify, though this is not the right place to discuss it..

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

#164

Post by mcswell »

rootusrootus wrote: post #133
dudul wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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, because they can't stand up for themselves.

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

#165

Post by causality0 »

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 I wonder if we are equally blind to our own failings, and whether to the people of two or three hundred years hence we won't be known as the people who wrestled with racism or late-stage capitalism, but only "that civilization who mutilated a third of their infants".

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

#166

Post by astura »

refurb wrote: post #118
sydd wrote: post #6

It's fucking scary, that this was recognized in 1987. In the 80s and even in the 90s most places did complex operations on newborns without any kind of painkillers -- imagine a heart surgery without painkillers. Not to mention "simple" stuff like circumcision. Also by this time they knew this about animals too. I think people will look at us as barbarians that we ate them when we knew that they feel pain, can sense t…

Don’t mistake what you read in NYT for actual medical practice. This change didn’t happen in 1987.

N = 1 here but I have an (uncircumcised) friend who was born around 1987. He told me that his parents were planning on getting him circumcised but changed their mind when they were told that the procedure would be performed without any kind of anesthetic.

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

#167

Post by mcswell »

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 uncomfortable, and at times painful. But ten or so years ago, they started giving some kind of anesthesia. I've heard that you're not really unconscious from this, and from what I've been able to squeeze out of the doctors and anesthesiologists, it sounds like you still feel some pain. But I (and apparently other patients) have absolutely no memory of that; I can recall getting the IV and being told to lay on my side, and that's all until I woke up in recovery. And the odd thing about that is, I'm perfectly ok with it. I don't go into colonoscopies now dreading the discomfort, and I don't worry afterwards that I might have been in pain. I don't understand it, but There It Is.

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

#168

Post by refurb »

astura wrote: post #166
refurb wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t mistake what you read in NYT for actual medical practice. This change didn’t happen in 1987.

N = 1 here but I have an (uncircumcised) friend who was born around 1987. He told me that his parents were planning on getting him circumcised but changed their mind when they were told that the procedure would be performed without any kind of anesthetic.

I mean, painful procedures are still done on newborns today - if it can't be avoided. You can even bring your newborn into a store and have their ears pierced.

My point is that by the 80's no physician would say "newborns don't feel pain".

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

#169

Post by rootusrootus »

mcswell wrote: post #164
rootusrootus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Alternatively, it is possible to find something morally objectionable while still concluding that it is not the job of the government to enforce morality.

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

#170

Post by MisterMower »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #66
jl6 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some days I think humans are pretty gosh darned sophisticated. Then I remember that it’s still controversial as to whether we should slice off healthy parts from children who cannot possibly consent.

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…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN