4 ms·

For the first half of the 20th century, scientists didn't believe that human babies felt pain. What's obvious isn't universal. http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/s

For the first half of the 20th century, scientists didn't believe that human babies felt pain. What's obvious isn't universal. http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

berlinstartup 8y ago
They knew. I mean, it's pretty obvious from the screaming. They just had to have an excuse for the lucrative practice of mutilating babies, which American doctors still do today.
perl4ever 8y ago
Setting circumcision aside, AFAIK anesthesia is not possible when doing surgery on infants, so with serious conditions, it's either operate without it or nothing. Therefore, believing they don't feel pain is a matter of expediency allowing doctors to save lives.
- tait 8y ago
  We routinely anesthetize infants with either local or general anesthesia. Here is a 2015 discussion from the American Society for Anesthesiology comparing regional with general: “General anesthesia safe for infants, does not impair neurological development, study finds” - https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2015/10/general-anesthesia-safe-for-infants https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2015/...
  - ars 8y ago
    That's today. Anesthesia was considerably more risky in the past. (For everyone not just babies.)
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I didn't think it was a matter of "impairing neurological development" but of getting the right dosage. Also, if there is a 2015 study saying it's safe, that would seem to imply general anesthesia is not so routine.