3 ms·

I discovered last year that people are actually promoting this. I've been attacked by people because I do not agree with late-term (for no medical reason) and a

I discovered last year that people are actually promoting this. I've been attacked by people because I do not agree with late-term (for no medical reason) and after-birth abortion: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur... It is almost in the same line of thinking that infants are not capable of feeling pain and why some operations on them were done without anesthesia: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surgery-without-anesthesia-went-unchallenged-832387.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surge... I believe some operations on infants are still being done without it: http://gizmodo.com/why-are-so-many-newborns-still-being-denied-pain-relief-1755495866 http://gizmodo.com/why-are-so-many-newborns-still-being-deni... "to this day, many procedures are performed on newborns without the benefit of analgesics. That’s largely because of an enduring misconception in the medical community that newborns don’t feel pain like adults."

gh02t 9y ago
Yep, there's also Antinatalism, which is the belief that having children is immoral. There are a few different strains, but greatly oversimplifying my favorite is that suffering in life outweighs pleasure, so bringing a new life into existence increases the net amount of suffering and is thus immoral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
keldaris 9y ago
> It is almost in the same line of thinking that infants are not capable of feeling pain and why some operations on them were done without anesthesia While that sentiment is certainly a part of medical history, there's a good reason why many procedures on infants are still carried out without anesthesia today. Infants are fragile and most forms of pain relief we use on adults are simply too dangerous for infants. Any anesthesiologist will weigh the benefits vs. the risks for each particular procedure and for infants that ratio is considerably different compared to adults.
- deorder 9y ago
  Is it really that dangerous? "Key medical objections to infant anesthesia - that it was (a) unnecessary and (b) dangerous - were resolved by the brilliant research of Kanwal Anand and colleagues at Oxford from 1985 to 1987. Making precise measurements of infant reactions to surgery, they proved that the babies experienced pain, needed and tolerated anesthesia well, and had probably been dying of metabolic and endocrine shock following unanesthetized operations." Source: http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html
  - keldaris 9y ago
    I'm not a medical doctor and not necessarily current on the latest research. However, there is quite a lot of evidence that general anesthesia is fairly likely to cause actual brain damage in infants and young children [1,2] with significant consequences in later life and there are (less significant, but still non-trivial) issues with various methods of local anesthesia. As far as I know, there's a lot of unsolved issues in the field of infant anesthesiology and the general trend is to err on the side of caution. [1] http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia-may-harm-childrens-brains#1 http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia... [2] https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364078.htm https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364078.h...
    - deorder 9y ago
      If there is a need for "repeated or lengthy use of general anesthetic" on infants there is usually already something wrong which could attribute to the said symptoms as well. It would be crazy to not use anesthesia on young children based on this warning, as shock (Which usually happens when operated on without anesthetics and the reason the child is silent during and a while after the operation) may cause worse damage.
      - keldaris 9y ago
        The first reference I linked specifically controlled not just for disorders that could lead to similar symptoms, but even things like the mother's socioeconomic status, etc. The effect was still huge. I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting simply forgoing anesthesia in life threatening cases, but people might want to rethink a routine tonsillectomy or some dental work.

gh02t 9y ago

Yep, there's also Antinatalism, which is the belief that having children is immoral. There are a few different strains, but greatly oversimplifying my favorite is that suffering in life outweighs pleasure, so bringing a new life into existence increases the net amount of suffering and is thus immoral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

keldaris 9y ago

> It is almost in the same line of thinking that infants are not capable of feeling pain and why some operations on them were done without anesthesia While that sentiment is certainly a part of medical history, there's a good reason why many procedures on infants are still carried out without anesthesia today. Infants are fragile and most forms of pain relief we use on adults are simply too dangerous for infants. Any anesthesiologist will weigh the benefits vs. the risks for each particular procedure and for infants that ratio is considerably different compared to adults.

deorder 9y ago
Is it really that dangerous? "Key medical objections to infant anesthesia - that it was (a) unnecessary and (b) dangerous - were resolved by the brilliant research of Kanwal Anand and colleagues at Oxford from 1985 to 1987. Making precise measurements of infant reactions to surgery, they proved that the babies experienced pain, needed and tolerated anesthesia well, and had probably been dying of metabolic and endocrine shock following unanesthetized operations." Source: http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html
- keldaris 9y ago
  I'm not a medical doctor and not necessarily current on the latest research. However, there is quite a lot of evidence that general anesthesia is fairly likely to cause actual brain damage in infants and young children [1,2] with significant consequences in later life and there are (less significant, but still non-trivial) issues with various methods of local anesthesia. As far as I know, there's a lot of unsolved issues in the field of infant anesthesiology and the general trend is to err on the side of caution. [1] http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia-may-harm-childrens-brains#1 http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia... [2] https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364078.htm https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364078.h...
  - deorder 9y ago
    If there is a need for "repeated or lengthy use of general anesthetic" on infants there is usually already something wrong which could attribute to the said symptoms as well. It would be crazy to not use anesthesia on young children based on this warning, as shock (Which usually happens when operated on without anesthetics and the reason the child is silent during and a while after the operation) may cause worse damage.
    - keldaris 9y ago
      The first reference I linked specifically controlled not just for disorders that could lead to similar symptoms, but even things like the mother's socioeconomic status, etc. The effect was still huge. I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting simply forgoing anesthesia in life threatening cases, but people might want to rethink a routine tonsillectomy or some dental work.