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.
You didn't cite all research in neuro-development, just one author. Even before doubting this author, I doubt your interpretation. It used to be widely believe in medical circles that infants' experience of pain is insignificant. Some doctors may still believe that, but it's not a typical current opinion. Let me cite American Academy of Pediatrics' Circumcision Policy Statement:
"There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.40 Several methods to provide analgesia for circumcision have been evaluated."
I didn't even remove the numbers given for references in that document. There are 5 references just in that paragraph that would seem to go against what you are claiming about infants' experience with pain. The document proceeds to list analgesia methods: eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA Cream) containing 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine, dorsal penile nerve block, subcutaneous ring block. And here is for the lollipop:
"Sucrose on a pacifier has been demonstrated to be more effective than water for decreasing cries during circumcision.59 Acetaminophen may provide analgesia after the immediate postoperative period.60 Neither technique is sufficient for the operative pain and cannot be recommended as the sole method of analgesia."
You are once again chosing to ignore neuro-development research. For me,. it is huge evidence.
Your AAP is not persuasive as an argument, since it does not state anything other than the book I was refering to is saying. Yes, elevated heart rate and other psysiological responses are present. But I said so much myself! It refers to one (1) study about a correlation of circumsison and subsequent immunization. It is just 1 study and I do not see even a hint of causation suggested. Maybe families that chose to surcumsise their males also have babies with better-developed nervous systems by the time of the immunisations, because they have fewer pre-term babies or babies with some abnormalities (the kind of babies you might not wish to circumsise early anyway).
As for the book, it is not one researcher talking about her own experiments. There is a huge bibliography section, and she refers to established studies. (And she is honest enough to claim if some theories are not yet well-established).
Your quoets do not give any indication as to their reasons to believe what they are claiming. All I know, it was a gut reaction yb some group-think commetee.
Talk to our pediatrician to get his opinion on AAP! It's not very high. He routinely choses to ignore their recommendations, many of which, he says, have flipped flopped several times during his career. It's a bunch guys, each with an agenda, who feel like they need to be giving a constant stream of advise and findgings just to justify their positions.
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?
You didn't cite all research in neuro-development, just one author. Even before doubting this author, I doubt your interpretation. It used to be widely believe in medical circles that infants' experience of pain is insignificant. Some doctors may still believe that, but it's not a typical current opinion. Let me cite American Academy of Pediatrics' Circumcision Policy Statement:
"There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.40 Several methods to provide analgesia for circumcision have been evaluated."
I didn't even remove the numbers given for references in that document. There are 5 references just in that paragraph that would seem to go against what you are claiming about infants' experience with pain. The document proceeds to list analgesia methods: eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA Cream) containing 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine, dorsal penile nerve block, subcutaneous ring block. And here is for the lollipop:
"Sucrose on a pacifier has been demonstrated to be more effective than water for decreasing cries during circumcision.59 Acetaminophen may provide analgesia after the immediate postoperative period.60 Neither technique is sufficient for the operative pain and cannot be recommended as the sole method of analgesia."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686#B61
Reply
You are once again chosing to ignore neuro-development research. For me,. it is huge evidence.
Your AAP is not persuasive as an argument, since it does not state anything other than the book I was refering to is saying. Yes, elevated heart rate and other psysiological responses are present. But I said so much myself! It refers to one (1) study about a correlation of circumsison and subsequent immunization. It is just 1 study and I do not see even a hint of causation suggested. Maybe families that chose to surcumsise their males also have babies with better-developed nervous systems by the time of the immunisations, because they have fewer pre-term babies or babies with some abnormalities (the kind of babies you might not wish to circumsise early anyway).
As for the book, it is not one researcher talking about her own experiments. There is a huge bibliography section, and she refers to established studies. (And she is honest enough to claim if some theories are not yet well-established).
Your quoets do not give any indication as to their reasons to believe what they are claiming. All I know, it was a gut reaction yb some group-think commetee.
Talk to our pediatrician to get his opinion on AAP! It's not very high. He routinely choses to ignore their recommendations, many of which, he says, have flipped flopped several times during his career. It's a bunch guys, each with an agenda, who feel like they need to be giving a constant stream of advise and findgings just to justify their positions.
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
Leave a comment