I have a problem with "... they are owed care.". I guess I am even more libertarian on this one than you are. I think that no one is owed care, much less an unlimited amount of care. We just do not have enough resources for that. A care for such baby would most likely be futile and will deny care to several other babies who are likely to survive and benefit from that care. The same goes for non-baby cases. Of course, if the parents are very rich and can pay for such care themselves, they should be given an oportunity (despite of ethical arguments against it motivated by the baby's "sufferings," since I do not beleive that babies can "suffer" -- they experience pain but not psychological "suffering").
I object to the way you use quotes here. The question here is not "phychological suffering" vs "some other kind of suffering".
The issue is "pain without suffering", where "suffering" is a "psychological" phenomena, whereas "pain" is just a physiological response.
A physiological response that we call "pain" is a stimulation of neurons in a sensory cortex. A psychological phenomena that we call "suffering" is stimulation of neurons in higher-order cortex, especially of the kind that causes lasting changes in that cortex.
It's been proven that even full term infants do not have the wiring from the sensory cortex to the higher-order cortex in place for several months. Hence, any "pain" that experience (for example, circumsision) does not cause "suffering" and has no impact on the future psychological being that develops out of that infant.
It depends on what you mean by "uncomfortable". The hormonal and other system responses are similar to that of an adult experiencing pain. However, there are no psycological after-effects once the pain stops and hormonal levels return to normal.
First of all, the definition of "suffering" that you use is different from the way the word is used in common language. Webster dictionary even puts "pain" as one of definitions of "suffering". Of course, adults are able to suffer from, say, shame, and children aren't. But there is no compelling reason to believe that children suffer from pain any less than adults do
( ... )
Common definitions of words are based on adult experiences, and, therefore, should not be blindly applied to those whose nervous system is much different.
You can feel free to ignore all research in neuro-development and claim that "there is no compelling reason to believe that [newborns] suffer from pain any less than adults do." Note that a common "aneastetic" deemed suffecient for circumsision is a simple lolipop, so doctors must be saddists.
As for ethics, actions are unethical because they cause inconvenience to people and/or are considered to be amoral in themselves regardless of inconveniences to other people (think sex with a corpse). Bublik's example was about medical care -- a virtuous act by itself.
Unless there is evidence to believe otherwise, common definitions of words should be applied. Assuming that someone's experience of pain is less is very dangerous
( ... )
Any group of researches are a bunch of guys with their agenda - so are the authors of your book. (I've been a part of some such group for most of the past 10 years.) AAP is easy to attack. You'd quote them on breastfeeding, won't you? And someone will bash AAP exactly the same way you did to support formula-feeding. You wouldn't find that convincing. AAP changes its opinions a lot, possibly more or less than an average doctor, and there is some politics and some hard evidence that goes into those changes. You like a particular book and you like a particular doctor's views. It's a matter of what each of us finds convincing. It's no way to convince someone else.
I think you missed which of your points I was disputing with the quotes. You said "if doctors give lollipops for circumcision pain, are they sadists?" I quoted you passages that show the current accepted practice is more serious analgesia.
Sure. ANy one set fo researchers can be a subject to suspect.
As for your analgesia argument, I think that Mt Auburn doctors did just that -- lillipop. And they are not a bunch of rural witch doctors. So I highly doubt that doing otherwise is a current well-accepted practice. It's more like many doctor's share my pediatrician's suspect of AAP's proclamations de jure.
On a purely idiosyncratic note, I wish you didn't adopt the disgusting language of Republican campaign against Kerry. You know what gem and a bit of propaganda that "flip-flopping" little phrase was back then, and unfortunately it stuck. Reasonable people and political, professional, scientific bodies change or nuance their opinions, often for good reasons. After all, what would be the point of arguing if this weren't the case?
Infants are given anesthesia when necessary - is there a valid basis for that, or just misconception?
Наоборот. Misconception это то что было раньше - cardiac surgeries on babies with no anesthesia. It's the result of a long fought battle and much research showing that THERE ARE profound long-term psychological effects caused by being subjected to painful procedures as an infant. Circumscision is, by the way, one of the frequently studied.
Finally, I don't think that after-effects are of much importance in the case we are discussing. After all, our society typically considers it unethical to subject anyone to pain even if it is temporary and isn't expected to have lasting effects.I don't think that's true. Our society does actively consider the after-effects when deciding whether a particular pain should be inflicted or not. after all, any surgery will cause some pain, but we decide that it's fine, because the total "good" of the after-effects is better than the total "bad" of the pain
( ... )
Reply
Reply
The issue is "pain without suffering", where "suffering" is a "psychological" phenomena, whereas "pain" is just a physiological response.
A physiological response that we call "pain" is a stimulation of neurons in a sensory cortex. A psychological phenomena that we call "suffering" is stimulation of neurons in higher-order cortex, especially of the kind that causes lasting changes in that cortex.
It's been proven that even full term infants do not have the wiring from the sensory cortex to the higher-order cortex in place for several months. Hence, any "pain" that experience (for example, circumsision) does not cause "suffering" and has no impact on the future psychological being that develops out of that infant.
Reply
I haven't seen any such research and won't take your word for it, especially the interpretation.
Reply
It's in What's Going on in There? : How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life -- a book by a neurology researcher.
Reply
Reply
You can feel free to ignore all research in neuro-development and claim that "there is no compelling reason to believe that [newborns] suffer from pain any less than adults do." Note that a common "aneastetic" deemed suffecient for circumsision is a simple lolipop, so doctors must be saddists.
As for ethics, actions are unethical because they cause inconvenience to people and/or are considered to be amoral in themselves regardless of inconveniences to other people (think sex with a corpse). Bublik's example was about medical care -- a virtuous act by itself.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think you missed which of your points I was disputing with the quotes. You said "if doctors give lollipops for circumcision pain, are they sadists?" I quoted you passages that show the current accepted practice is more serious analgesia.
Reply
As for your analgesia argument, I think that Mt Auburn doctors did just that -- lillipop. And they are not a bunch of rural witch doctors. So I highly doubt that doing otherwise is a current well-accepted practice. It's more like many doctor's share my pediatrician's suspect of AAP's proclamations de jure.
Reply
Reply
Pick a different expression. :)
AAP has changed many of its recommendations 180 degress several times in the last 15 years.
Reply
Наоборот. Misconception это то что было раньше - cardiac surgeries on babies with no anesthesia. It's the result of a long fought battle and much research showing that THERE ARE profound long-term psychological effects caused by being subjected to painful procedures as an infant. Circumscision is, by the way, one of the frequently studied.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment