9 ms·

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 painkill

by sydd 4y ago

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 the world similar to us, and it would be just a minor inconvenience to eat something else.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Having had surgery as an infant in the mid 1970s, I guess I'm glad that I can't remember back that far.
- incanus77 4y ago
  Same.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> Not to mention "simple" stuff like circumcision. You might have stumbled upon the real reason for this seemingly inexplicable delay in accepting that infants can feel pain: The circumcision industry. Presumably some doctors feared that parents would think twice about it if they knew that their son would be in agony (or need expensive painkillers) when undergoing that elective surgery. https://www.endalldisease.com/baby-foreskin-in-cosmetics-the-big-business-of-circumcision/ https://www.endalldisease.com/baby-foreskin-in-cosmetics-the...
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  German law, BGB §1631d (last updated 2012) allows circumcision by qualified non-medical religious practitioners. Non-medical implies that they do not have access to proper painkillers. edit: within first 6 month of birth.
  - usrn 4y ago
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > German law, BGB §1631d (last updated 2012) allows circumcision by qualified non-medical religious practitioners. Non-medical implies that they do not have access to proper painkillers. edit: within first 6 month of birth. Now imagine getting circumcized at 6 or 8, with scissors, without anesthesia by someone that isn't a doctor... this is the fate of many young boys in Africa. It's as bad as FGM.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    This speaks to the power religion (which is after all just a belief system) still has to be exempt from various laws. Religion is grandfathered in so many ways.
- jl6 4y ago
  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.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel Can you imagine a new cult starting today that behaved that way? How fast would everyone jump on them for child abuse?
    - natroniks 4y ago
      I'm a circumcised male who has decided to have all 3 male children circumcised. As a Jew, if I may weigh on this, you have my background for an conflicts or biases. Also, maybe content warning is in order for genital mutiliation. 1) It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just orthodox or ultra orthodox but a very small group, truly some hundreds of people, practice it. I don't have the data, probably no one does, but saying Jewish circumcisions involve this would be like suggesting all baptisms look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope. Comparing a key tenet of Judaism to a cult is both simplistic and demeaning. 2) I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; 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? Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge. My sons all began crying as soon as their diaper came off, and their crying was no more intense once the cutting occurred. By the way, it's not like they make a dotted line with marker and snip around the foreskin; whatI witnessed involved a metal device (a type of clamp I suppose) that is slid between the shaft and foreskin, and like a modified cigar cutter, the mohel cuts away the foreskin in one motion. There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. 3) I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc. It's not an easy topic, but I don't think it should be hard to talk about. Complicated or interesting to describe, maybe hard to judge or rationalize, but let's talk about it openly, let's avoid disparagement, and most of all let's bring some nuance to this conversation.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Currently it's cited far more often in the debate over abortion rights.
- xdennis 4y ago
  > undergoing that elective surgery It's not elective. No infant has ever chosen to remove healthy body parts.
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> imagine a heart surgery without painkillers. I'm not aware of heart surgeries done on infants without painkillers. Do you have any links discussing that?
- its_ethan 4y ago
  The link you're looking for is the main article here, no? It doesn't explicitly say that heart surgeries were done without painkillers, but its literally talking about how surgeries for newborns (heart surgeries are in that set) generally did not involve anesthetics? > Most American hospitals are now believed to give anesthesia for major surgery. Key words being: most, believed, major, and now. But also to answer your question: > In the preface to the book 1000 Doctors Against Vivisection, Hans Ruesch cites the Lancet and Parade Magazine: >> So the Lancet, Britain's most authoritative medical journal, could report with its usual professional aloofness in its January 31, 1987 issue that at Oxford's John Radcliffe Teaching Hospital eight premature babies had been subjected to open-heart surgery without any anesthesia. The controversy that flared briefly in a few press organs concerned mainly the question as to whether the babies had or had not received painkillers during the operation.
refurb 4y ago
Don’t mistake what you read in NYT for actual medical practice. This change didn’t happen in 1987.
- astura 4y ago
  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.
  - refurb 4y ago
    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".
parentheses 4y ago
(NOT advocating for baby pain here..) Anesthesia is dangerous. It's easy to say "solve pain", but there are trade-offs. Mothers giving birth need to be closely monitored when they're given pain meds. It's hard to believe that infants' frail bodies can handle strong pain-killers at the levels used in surgery. There's also a long-term damage to consider. Infants' bodies are growing and changing so rapidly. Similar to smoking or drinking while pregnant, a change to the chemistry of the body is a change that can have long-lasting and hard-to-study negative effects. This type of hyperbolic commentary is not productive discussion.
- sydd 4y ago
  > It's hard to believe that infants' frail bodies can handle strong pain-killers at the levels used in surgery. Not true, we are giving them strong pain-killers now. Just we have not 30 years ago. > There's also a long-term damage to consider. As with every medical procedure there are pros and cons. But there is a reason why one is given painkillers for every surgical procedure. One can opt out in some cases, but its very rare. Just because a baby cant consent its not a reason not to use them. I've yet to hear a story where an adult opted not to take painkillers for an operation, just because it might be better for his health. > This type of hyperbolic commentary is not productive discussion. Its not hyperbolic, we have evidence that babies (even few month old fetuses in their mothers womb) can feel pain. There is nothing ambigious about this now. https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3 https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3 https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

by sydd 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

Having had surgery as an infant in the mid 1970s, I guess I'm glad that I can't remember back that far.

incanus77 4y ago
Same.

dane-pgp 4y ago

> Not to mention "simple" stuff like circumcision. You might have stumbled upon the real reason for this seemingly inexplicable delay in accepting that infants can feel pain: The circumcision industry. Presumably some doctors feared that parents would think twice about it if they knew that their son would be in agony (or need expensive painkillers) when undergoing that elective surgery. https://www.endalldisease.com/baby-foreskin-in-cosmetics-the-big-business-of-circumcision/ https://www.endalldisease.com/baby-foreskin-in-cosmetics-the...

someweirdperson 4y ago
German law, BGB §1631d (last updated 2012) allows circumcision by qualified non-medical religious practitioners. Non-medical implies that they do not have access to proper painkillers. edit: within first 6 month of birth.
- usrn 4y ago
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > German law, BGB §1631d (last updated 2012) allows circumcision by qualified non-medical religious practitioners. Non-medical implies that they do not have access to proper painkillers. edit: within first 6 month of birth. Now imagine getting circumcized at 6 or 8, with scissors, without anesthesia by someone that isn't a doctor... this is the fate of many young boys in Africa. It's as bad as FGM.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  This speaks to the power religion (which is after all just a belief system) still has to be exempt from various laws. Religion is grandfathered in so many ways.
jl6 4y ago
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.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel Can you imagine a new cult starting today that behaved that way? How fast would everyone jump on them for child abuse?
  - natroniks 4y ago
    I'm a circumcised male who has decided to have all 3 male children circumcised. As a Jew, if I may weigh on this, you have my background for an conflicts or biases. Also, maybe content warning is in order for genital mutiliation. 1) It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just orthodox or ultra orthodox but a very small group, truly some hundreds of people, practice it. I don't have the data, probably no one does, but saying Jewish circumcisions involve this would be like suggesting all baptisms look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope. Comparing a key tenet of Judaism to a cult is both simplistic and demeaning. 2) I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; 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? Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge. My sons all began crying as soon as their diaper came off, and their crying was no more intense once the cutting occurred. By the way, it's not like they make a dotted line with marker and snip around the foreskin; whatI witnessed involved a metal device (a type of clamp I suppose) that is slid between the shaft and foreskin, and like a modified cigar cutter, the mohel cuts away the foreskin in one motion. There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. 3) I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc. It's not an easy topic, but I don't think it should be hard to talk about. Complicated or interesting to describe, maybe hard to judge or rationalize, but let's talk about it openly, let's avoid disparagement, and most of all let's bring some nuance to this conversation.
bpodgursky 4y ago
Currently it's cited far more often in the debate over abortion rights.
xdennis 4y ago
> undergoing that elective surgery It's not elective. No infant has ever chosen to remove healthy body parts.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

> imagine a heart surgery without painkillers. I'm not aware of heart surgeries done on infants without painkillers. Do you have any links discussing that?

its_ethan 4y ago
The link you're looking for is the main article here, no? It doesn't explicitly say that heart surgeries were done without painkillers, but its literally talking about how surgeries for newborns (heart surgeries are in that set) generally did not involve anesthetics? > Most American hospitals are now believed to give anesthesia for major surgery. Key words being: most, believed, major, and now. But also to answer your question: > In the preface to the book 1000 Doctors Against Vivisection, Hans Ruesch cites the Lancet and Parade Magazine: >> So the Lancet, Britain's most authoritative medical journal, could report with its usual professional aloofness in its January 31, 1987 issue that at Oxford's John Radcliffe Teaching Hospital eight premature babies had been subjected to open-heart surgery without any anesthesia. The controversy that flared briefly in a few press organs concerned mainly the question as to whether the babies had or had not received painkillers during the operation.

refurb 4y ago

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

astura 4y ago
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.
- refurb 4y ago
  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".

parentheses 4y ago

(NOT advocating for baby pain here..) Anesthesia is dangerous. It's easy to say "solve pain", but there are trade-offs. Mothers giving birth need to be closely monitored when they're given pain meds. It's hard to believe that infants' frail bodies can handle strong pain-killers at the levels used in surgery. There's also a long-term damage to consider. Infants' bodies are growing and changing so rapidly. Similar to smoking or drinking while pregnant, a change to the chemistry of the body is a change that can have long-lasting and hard-to-study negative effects. This type of hyperbolic commentary is not productive discussion.

sydd 4y ago
> It's hard to believe that infants' frail bodies can handle strong pain-killers at the levels used in surgery. Not true, we are giving them strong pain-killers now. Just we have not 30 years ago. > There's also a long-term damage to consider. As with every medical procedure there are pros and cons. But there is a reason why one is given painkillers for every surgical procedure. One can opt out in some cases, but its very rare. Just because a baby cant consent its not a reason not to use them. I've yet to hear a story where an adult opted not to take painkillers for an operation, just because it might be better for his health. > This type of hyperbolic commentary is not productive discussion. Its not hyperbolic, we have evidence that babies (even few month old fetuses in their mothers womb) can feel pain. There is nothing ambigious about this now. https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3 https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3 https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html