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

331–340 of 387 posts

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

#331

Post by anon291 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #101
mc32 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good question. Why couldn’t they use the cocktail given to assisted suicide subjects in Switzerland? Or any variety of cocktails (OD) known to be lethal to people? This still leaves an open question though. Why are people more concerned about the mode of execution of an adult vs the mode of termination of a foetus that could survive ex-utero in and neo-natal ICU?

Almost no fetuses are terminated anywhere near the date of viability, much less afterwards. It is a non-issue. The vast majority of terminations happen before week 12, and no fetus is viable until sometime around week 22 (and only with heroic measures).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm

CDC says about 5000. Is 5000 almost none?

So that means almost no people died on 9/11 (3000 deaths)?

Also, no children were murdered in schools (About 200 since 1999 altogether).

Imagine being so callous.

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

#332

Post by anon291 »

swat535 wrote: post #163
PretzelPirate wrote: post #26

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.

> 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 discu…

In the United States, unless Roe is stricken down, then there is no point at which a fetus becomes a living child. States can regulate, but cannot restrict abortion up until birth.

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

#333

Post by anon291 »

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…

From what I understand, gang murders happen. Period. People just naturally form tribal alliances, that can escalate into murderous feuds. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen (history provides countless examples) -- 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 our streets, with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the instigator.

My take on that is that we thus need 'gang feud centers' where gang members can play games of rock, paper, scissors and the loser is sent to the gas chamber. That's so much better than having people become disabled due to shootings and thus become drains on the systems, or have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

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

#334

Post by anon291 »

epgui wrote: post #155
troupe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that any different than the argument that was being made about infants? Would you test for it in the same way?

It may or may not be different, because there are many places you could arbitrarily draw a line along the development continuum, but drawing the line after the "infant" stage was rather ridiculous. Just to be clear, the fetal stage is defined arbitrarily as being between week 9 and week 40. The ability to feel pain, along with minimal consciousness, starts around week 30. There is very literally a continuum from "two…

> these are exceptional cases

The question wasn't about whether they're exceptional or not. It was... do we anesthesize these exceptional fetuses before killing them?

The CDC says there are about 5000 exceptional fetuses every year. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm

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

#335

Post by anon291 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #97
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/

Humans feel pain, yet we happily recruit and train soldiers to slaughter and be slaughtered. There’s a moral spectrum where people set various standards based on context.

[flagged]

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

#336

Post by frumper »

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.

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.

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

#337

Post by tomcam »

Kaze404 wrote: post #288
thisNeeds2BeSad wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky you, if you dont have genetics were anesthesia do not work properly. Then find a doctor, who accepts that problem and gets it over with painful but fast. The hardest part is if you have a dentists that insist on anesthesia must work, but it wont, so you must act your ass off to prentend to not be in pain, so he wont push syringe after syringe, doing nothing and waiting for 15 minutes in between while your tooth…

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.

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

#338

Post by jl6 »

natroniks wrote: post #296
jl6 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ba…

There are medical procedures parents must decide to pursue or not, many are voluntary. Should I get my toddler's fremulum snipped even if there's no guarantee it helps their speech? Should teeth be extracted to help straighten out other teeth even if it results in weeks of pain? Are you saying that straight teeth are of more value than religious identity? There are many hard choices a parent must make; I think circum…

> So let's get down to the core of this discussion: ritual circumcision bears religious and cultural value and that's pretty much it.

Indeed, and there is a long list of harms that humans have perpetrated on each other in the name of religious and cultural value. Ditching these superstitions and taking a human-centric evidence-based perspective is how we have progressed from valuable cultural practices such as foot binding, witch burning, pederasty… honestly, every evil deed in history’s entire rogues gallery has at some point been justified by the religious and cultural benefits that we would miss out on. I mean, a good witch burning surely did wonders for bringing the community together.

> I'm not sure I understand the physical or psychical harm done

That is apparent, and I wonder if it is truly possible for someone to understand the harm of losing something if they have no experience of what was lost.

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

#339

Post by vkou »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #303
vkou wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?

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

#340

Post by lotsofpulp »

natroniks wrote: post #321
lotsofpulp wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value. If you are assigning religious or cultural value to an act that needlessly mutilates your child’s body, you are missing the principle of freedom and letting people have ownership of their bodies. There are cultures that “value” binding feet, stretch out lips and earlobes, poke holes in various places, and fa…

Do you believe a child should have the power to decide what happens to their body even at a young age? What if a 6 year old wants to get a permanent tattoo? Or a middle schooler wants a subcutaneous horn implanted on the forehead to look cool? Or a toddler refuses medical treatment? I doubt that's what you mean. Maybe you mean a parent and child should decide together? I don't think a child has the capacity to make,…

That is a different discussion about what age a person gains autonomy for altering their body, and it gets into nuances such as what kind alterations at what age.

But that is neither here nor there about this discussion, which is someone making an alteration to someone else’s body with zero medical benefit to the someone else.

Post reply on HN