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.
Igor cited a book, not just one study. The book has a lot of references in it and is based on the research compiled together by the authors.
I actually don't see what's so controversial in saying that some people don't experience pain the same way as other people (substitute your set of people for "some people"). Every person experiences pain differently, and it has been shown statistically that in some situations our pain perception is dulled/increased/whatnot based on other chemical/psychological happenings in our body at the time. Why is it hard to accept that babies pain reactions may be different from adults?
I've actually seen it in Gosha: he definitely reacts to pain now slightly differently than he did before. Before some kind of things he wouldn't react to at all -- note that I'm not talking about after-effects, but about the immediate reaction -- and now he does and says it hurts or cries or tries to move away from the sensation. To me it seems plausible that before he perceived those sensations, but didn't interpret them as "suffering" per se (if I had to pick a word apart from "pain").
I am not saying that after-effects aren't or shouldn't ever be considered. All I'm saying is that experience of pain can't be discounted in cases when after-effects might be. Our society feels it's important to execute criminals and slaughter animals in a way that minimizes their suffering. The cases of extreme prematurity we are discussing are the ones where long-term benefits are extremely doubtful. The question is whether it's acceptable to prolong life for a premie who is in terrible shape. To say that it's definitely OK because of after-effects arguments doesn't make sense to me.
Any one book still doesn't constitute the entire body of a particular branch of science. I do believe the book is well-researched. In fact, I said I doubt Igor's conclusions that "babies don't suffer" more than I doubt the books contents - after all, I haven't read it. As moretp points out, there is much research indicating that infants' experience of pain can't be discounted. AAP says that much in the passages I'm quoting. That's why I am not ready to buy into the theory that babies don't experience suffering.
It's not hard to accept that people experience pain differently, and even that babies might experience pain as being duller. It's just a dangerous basis for deciding it's OK to subject them to pain needlessly, especially in cases we are talking about: with overwhelming probability the pain lasts their entire life which is artificially prolonged with few prospects of recovery.
I haven't noticed effects you are describing with Gosha in our daughter, which possibly raises another objection: what if some babies become more sensitive to pain earlier? You know how newborns aren't supposed to react much to noises and light when they sleep (and sure, I've seen that myself), but Gosha always seemed to be bothered by loud noises.
I have not seen Gosha bothered by loud noises. In fact, when Lucy & Gosha are sleeping together, me walking into a room always wakes up Lucy and not Gosha. I can even bang somehting (I'm clumsy) and Gosha stays asleep.
Gosha, by the way, did not show much discomfort at any of the immunisations.
None of that is an argument, of course. But I am responsding to a non-argument as well.
As for my interpretation of the book, well, there is nothing I can do except give you the book to read. :)
Gosha being bothered by loud noises as a newborn is something I heard from Lucy.
Sure, the book sounds interesting. Other than that, I think we tried long enough for now to determine that каждый останется при своем мнении to wrap up this discussion.
I don't think anyone (including Igor) is suggesting that babies don't feel pain at all or that we shouldn't consider the possible suffering in calculating the outcomes. I read his comment to say that if there's some chance of survival and normal life, then some people might consider it worth to inflict N amount of pain to try to get the good outcome.
Re: sensitivity, it's all possible. As I said, each person is different and then in addition you can also build up a lot of different theories: say that there's a threshold of accumulated total pain, beyond which your sensitivy increases, etc. Or it's possible to say that maybe his sensitivity hasn't increased, maybe the irritants are bigger now.
I'm comparing his reaction to redness/rash in the pubic area when he was a few months old and now, but maybe those are not the same rashes and they hurt him differently.
I am not sure there is much to discuss in cases of 22 week old babies. They can't be saved, and there is value in letting them pass as peacefully as possible. In the face of a extremely poor prognosis, a preemie's pain and the length of time the baby will endure it seems very important to me. The entire discussion about "suffering" disturbs me precisely because it seems to take us into the direction of "it doesn't much matter".
I think (I could be wrong) that what disturbs you is, once again, our different reverense of Life.
You said many times that you prefer to view even a several-weeks-old fetus as a Child -- a human being, with a soul and all psycological and (therefore?) moral attributes of a Person.
I, on the other hand, view life as a bio-electro-mechanical system and only think that when such system is of a suffecient (neural) complexity, it deserves to be called a Person and, thereby, deserves a corresponding moral treatment.
(A corrolary is that I am fully willing to grant a futuristic AI system of a suffecient complexity all the moral values and reverence granted to a Person.)
Hence, my arguments about the different neurological organization of newborns and adults seem to you entirelly non-consequential.
While your observation about our differences is true, I don't think it's crucial in this case. Neurological organization may be significantly different in different people to whom you assign personhood as well - due to their differences in age and health status. To be precise, I don't view a child as having all psycological attributes of an adult the child will become, but that doesn't matter either. I don't assign personhood to animals, but subjecting them to pain still seems wrong, so it's not a personhood argument.
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.
Igor cited a book, not just one study. The book has a lot of references in it and is based on the research compiled together by the authors.
I actually don't see what's so controversial in saying that some people don't experience pain the same way as other people (substitute your set of people for "some people"). Every person experiences pain differently, and it has been shown statistically that in some situations our pain perception is dulled/increased/whatnot based on other chemical/psychological happenings in our body at the time. Why is it hard to accept that babies pain reactions may be different from adults?
I've actually seen it in Gosha: he definitely reacts to pain now slightly differently than he did before. Before some kind of things he wouldn't react to at all -- note that I'm not talking about after-effects, but about the immediate reaction -- and now he does and says it hurts or cries or tries to move away from the sensation. To me it seems plausible that before he perceived those sensations, but didn't interpret them as "suffering" per se (if I had to pick a word apart from "pain").
Reply
Any one book still doesn't constitute the entire body of a particular branch of science. I do believe the book is well-researched. In fact, I said I doubt Igor's conclusions that "babies don't suffer" more than I doubt the books contents - after all, I haven't read it. As moretp points out, there is much research indicating that infants' experience of pain can't be discounted. AAP says that much in the passages I'm quoting. That's why I am not ready to buy into the theory that babies don't experience suffering.
It's not hard to accept that people experience pain differently, and even that babies might experience pain as being duller. It's just a dangerous basis for deciding it's OK to subject them to pain needlessly, especially in cases we are talking about: with overwhelming probability the pain lasts their entire life which is artificially prolonged with few prospects of recovery.
I haven't noticed effects you are describing with Gosha in our daughter, which possibly raises another objection: what if some babies become more sensitive to pain earlier? You know how newborns aren't supposed to react much to noises and light when they sleep (and sure, I've seen that myself), but Gosha always seemed to be bothered by loud noises.
Reply
Gosha, by the way, did not show much discomfort at any of the immunisations.
None of that is an argument, of course. But I am responsding to a non-argument as well.
As for my interpretation of the book, well, there is nothing I can do except give you the book to read. :)
Reply
Sure, the book sounds interesting. Other than that, I think we tried long enough for now to determine that каждый останется при своем мнении to wrap up this discussion.
Reply
Do you remember numerous loud parties, which Gosha slept through in his baby carrier? Happened ALL THE TIME!
Reply
Every single discussion in the world always ends this way. Nothing new. :)
Opinions change very slowly, as a result of many-many discussions and simply passage of time.
Reply
Re: sensitivity, it's all possible. As I said, each person is different and then in addition you can also build up a lot of different theories: say that there's a threshold of accumulated total pain, beyond which your sensitivy increases, etc. Or it's possible to say that maybe his sensitivity hasn't increased, maybe the irritants are bigger now.
I'm comparing his reaction to redness/rash in the pubic area when he was a few months old and now, but maybe those are not the same rashes and they hurt him differently.
Reply
Reply
You said many times that you prefer to view even a several-weeks-old fetus as a Child -- a human being, with a soul and all psycological and (therefore?) moral attributes of a Person.
I, on the other hand, view life as a bio-electro-mechanical system and only think that when such system is of a suffecient (neural) complexity, it deserves to be called a Person and, thereby, deserves a corresponding moral treatment.
(A corrolary is that I am fully willing to grant a futuristic AI system of a suffecient complexity all the moral values and reverence granted to a Person.)
Hence, my arguments about the different neurological organization of newborns and adults seem to you entirelly non-consequential.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment