Printable View
Les denne linken Babies Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine (Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health)
Tidligere brukte man ikke bedøvelse når man opererte små barn, man trodde ikke de følte smerte. Er helt i sjokk etter å ha lest lenken. :sad:
Visste dere at man operterte spedbarn uten anestesi, kun curare for å lamme muskler, helt til 1985?
Tror dere leger har holdt på sånn i Skandinavia også, når de har gjort det i USA?
Fra nyfødte og helt opp til 18 måneder gamle ble operert uten bedøvelse står det i denne lenken. Man trodde fravær av språk var det samme som fravær av smerte. Hvor dum går det an å bli? Dette er jo reneste Mengele historien. Nazitilstander i helsevesenet! Jeg har ikke vært så sint på lenge som da jeg leste dette. Men denne Chamberlain, han har skrevet masse flott om babyer og alt de forstår, noen av artiklene hans finnes tilgjengelig her http://birthpsychology.com/person/david-b-chamberlain Han har også skrevet noen bøker, jeg ville lest dem hvis jeg skulle ha barn. Å bli foreldre starter før unnfangelsen, skriver han. Han beskriver hvordan forskjellige sanser er aktive allerede fra åtte uker gamle ufødte fostre. Det er så vakkert. Å lese om denne nazibehandlingen av spedbarn og det han beskriver av nyere forskning er to vidt forskjellige verdner. Om dette har skjedd i Norge, må det være godt gjemt. Vi vet om tvangssterilisering på omstreifere, lobotomering av psykisk syke, men om babyer har blitt operert på denne måten her i landet, har det ennå ikke nådd offentlighetens lys. Jeg håper det gjør det før de som utførte disse forbrytelsene er døde. De burde blitt satt i fengsel.
Chamberlain beskriver at denne praksisen med å unnlate å bedøve små barn skjedde helt til 1985. New York Times beskriver i 1992 at dette fortsatt skjedde, eller også at leger ga babyene for lite anestesi.
Sitat:
But because of lingering fears of harm, many doctors continue to anesthetize babies only lightly during surgery. In such cases the babies are unconscious, but their bodies feel pain and react to it.
The new study, to be published Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine, suggests that withholding complete pain relief is dangerous because the stress of pain appears to make operations riskier.
http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stor...ut-anesthesia/Jeg fryser på ryggen. Operasjoner uten bedøvelse, det var slikt man bedrev i Nazi-Tyskland, ikke sant? Så tok det altså ikke slutt. Og dette sier noe fundamentalt om hvordan man ser og har sett på bittesmå barn. De er ikke ordentlige mennesker.Sitat:
But I also can’t help think of something else. Thirty years ago, this cute baby boy might have endured open heart surgery without anesthesia or painkillers. As late as the mid 1980s this was the routine. Babies were given curare to induce temporary paralysis and a little nitride oxide (“laughing gas”). But pain control was mostly ignored.
How is this possible? Surgeons were worried that anesthesia could harm babies, and in fact some babies had died of overdoses in the 1940s and 1950s. So there was good reason for caution — and there still is today.
But there was more to it. Doctors took the official view that young babies don’t really feel pain.
The belief was probably based on several things – wishful thinking, a dubious study conducted in the 1940s, and evidence that many infant brain cells are unmyelinated – meaning that the neurons lack a protective sheathing that makes the transmission of nerve impulses more efficient. Presumably, surgeons reassured themselves with the idea that the pain signal would get lost on its way to the brain.
Fortunately, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand didn’t buy it, and he took action.
Her er Dr. Kanwaljeet Anands forskning som gjorde at behandlingsregimet snudde i de små menneskenes favør http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20928962
En fransk artikkel fra Wikipedia, litt googleoversatt forteller at laboratorierotter hadde bedre juridiske rettigheter når det gjaldt smertestillende enn våre små mennesker i 1992 (n 1993, Gauvain-Piquard Meignier and more vehement, commented: "The baby is still carried out in conditions which are totally excluded from the animal laboratory, the better protected by the regulations point of view that the newborn humain), menYves HatchuelSitat:
Until the 1950s there are texts suggesting that the child, and more babies have a greater sensitivity to pain than adultes
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douleur_chez_l%27enfantSitat:
One might think that we are talking here of the Middle Ages, but in a review of 1987, we see that very scholarly studies considered the newborn felt no pain and that taking risks using drugs which were unknown to him.
På den engelske Wikipedia artikkelen sies det følgende om ettervirkninger av en slik behandling av våre småhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682Sitat:
Research suggests that babies exposed to pain in the neonatal period have more difficulty in these areas. Professionals working in the field of neonatal pain have speculated that adolescent aggression and self-destructive behaviour, including suicide, may, in some cases, be attributed to the long term effects of untreated neonatal pain.
Her er hele brevet fra moren som også satte i gang debattenFra http://www.recoveredscience.com/ROP_preemiepain.htmSitat:
Standards of Practice and the Pain of Premature Infants by Jill R. Lawson
Our son Jeffrey was born in February, 1985, at 25-26 weeks' gestational age, weighing one pound eleven-and-a-half ounces (760 grams). He was responsive with Apgar scores of 3 and 7, but he was very sick.
He was immediately placed on a respirator. He developed several lung disorders, a moderate brain bleed, and kidney and liver problems. After two weeks, an artery intended to help a fetus's circulatory system bypass the lungs while still in the womb wasn't closing as it should.
So Jeffrey was transferred from Columbia Hospital for Women to Children' Hospital National Medical Center for patent ductus arteriosus surgery. (PDA surgery is the most common operation performed on preemies.)
At the same time he was to have implanted in his chest a semi- permanent secure catheter to deliver liquids and medications when regular intravenous lines are difficult to maintain. On the morning of surgery, which had been scheduled three days in advance, Jeffrey became somewhat unstable when taken to the operating suite.
He was not moribund. He was not comatose. He was still, as the transport team had described, "a very small pink male ... very active ... with appropriate responses and gestures".
This was not rushed, emergency surgery but rather surgery scheduled to increase the likelihood of improvement over a length of time. In spite of this, the anesthesiologist decided the operation would proceed without delay, and she paralyzed him, using no pain relief or anesthesia of any type either before, during or after surgery.
It was beside the point that I had been promised before I signed consent forms that Jeffrey would be given general anesthesia. And somehow it was possible for professionals who perceived a baby as too fragile to tolerate general anesthesia to perceive that same infant as able to withstand open-chest surgery without pain relief.
My husband and I were not told of these decisions, even though one of us was present most of the time, including before and during surgery. On the contrary, on two successive occasions after the surgery, Jeffrey's nurses told us that he was so still because his anesthesia was still wearing off.
Jeffrey died five weeks after surgery. Shortly before his death, a nurse friend had mentioned that there was a time when babies were not anesthesized for surgery. After recovering from my own baby's death, I called his doctor for reassurance.
Instead the anesthesiologist informed me that she had not used any anesthesia or analgesia on Jeffrey. He had only been given a paralyzing agent called Pancuronium bromide (Pavulon).
She said it had never been demonstrated that babies can feel pain, and that it had not occurred to her to use alternate methods of pain control after she ruled out general anesthesia. She also told me Jeff's blood pressure had been too low to tolerate anesthesia (other physicians who have reviewed his records have concluded that his pressure was satisfactory for a preemie that size).
The anesthesiologist never told our son's surgeon that she was going to withhold anesthesia. Therefore he never had a chance to make an informed decision, just as we the parents never had a chance to make an informed decision.
The anesthesiologist's department chairman defended her by claiming that Jeffrey's pain was comparable to the discomfort experienced when a patient has a tube placed down his throat, and also that chemicals produced in the brain under stress should have been sufficient to mask deep pain. But I learned later that the cerebrospinal fluid levels of such endorphins required to mask pain in human adults are 10,000 times higher than the highest recorded levels in newborns (Foley, Kourides, Inturrisi, et al., 1979).
And Jeffrey endured more than having a tube placed down his throat, which is usually a five-minute procedure. For one and a half hours he had holes cut on either side of his neck, another hole cut in his right chest, a catheter inserted in his jugular vein, and these holes stitched shut. We were told by the surgeon afterward that they had trouble securing the catheter, so they repeated that procedure.
Next Jeffrey was cut open from his breastbone around to his backbone. Then his flesh was lifted aside, his ribs pried apart, his left lung retracted, and the blood vessel near his heart was tied off. Then the tissues were stitched together in layers and a final "stab incision" made in his left side to insert a new chest tube.
Jeffrey's surgical charts indicate that when he was cut open, his blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen requirements all jumped, classic signposts for pain. After surgery his pulse and pressure remained elevated for two days before subsiding to previous levels.
The night following surgery Jeffrey's lab test results went haywire. The resident on duty called us and said that Jeffrey might die before morning since his body had started to digest itself (catabolism) due to stress and shock. He had to be resuscitated as his heart, kidneys and liver failed due to the kind of severe chemical imbalance described by Drs. Anand and Hickey (1987) among infants unprotected from pain during PDA surgery. His dependence on his respirator increased and his brain bleed worsened.
Later, when I met informally with hospital staff, Jeffrey's anesthesiologist represented to me that Pavulon could be construed as affording some pain relief. But Pavulon has no effect on pain.
In addition, adult patients who have been given this agent report discomfort caused by Pavulon itself, notably prolonged sensation of drowning in one's own saliva. Besides that, Pavulon can create side effects as potentially harmful as some anesthetics (Taylor, 1980).
When I asked why the operation proceeded without waiting till Jeffrey was having a better day, if that was indeed the problem, the anesthesiologist replied that such decisions are up to the surgeon. But she never told the surgeon that she was going to withhold anesthesia.
I was the one to tell him, five months later. Therefore he never had a chance to make an informed decision, just as we the parents never had a chance to make an informed decision. The anesthesiologist also presented the changes in pulse and pressure by claiming that they only increased after the artery was ligated and that this was welcome evidence of increased circulatory capability.
But the chart shows the biggest jump occurred when Jeffrey's chest was cut open, not after ligation. And since his pulse and pressure subsided to previous levels two days later and remained down till he died, her claims don't make sense to me.
After these initial contacts with the physicians involved, I can remember assuming that all that remained to be done was to call people's attention to the facts and then everyone would see that this doctor should never practice medicine again.
I was wrong.
I discovered instead that Jeffrey's maltreatment wasn't due to one individual's aberration; rather it happened frequently.
The Chairman of the Committee on Fetus and Newborn of the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote that "We did a small survey of neonatal units around the country about this issue. We found that there are still some units that regularly operate on the smallest, sickest premature infants using the same technique that your son experienced" (Poland, 1986).
A researcher at the University of Iowa's College of Nursing who had given more than 100 presentations on the topic of children's pain wrote that nurses in her audiences who worked with infants and premature infants in hospitals around the country, reported that, with very rare exceptions, no anesthesia was the rule, rather than the exception for surgical procedures (Eland, 1987, emphasis in original).
Such awareness was fairly common among doctors, nurses and technicians. A second friend and my stepmother, both former nurses, said, "Oh, yeah, I knew about that," as soon as I told them what I had discovered.
When I went to the National Library of Medicine, even though I had never seen medical literature before, within two hours I found three articles detailing PDA surgery on infants without pain relief. Two noted current practices of using no anesthesia and then outlined success using fentanyl anesthesia.
The third article advocated only that "The surgical procedure is safely accomplished with oxygen and pancuronium as the sole agents" (Wesson, 1982).
I also discovered through other articles that reputable physicians writing in reputable journals had taken, and quite passionately, opposing positions on the existence of infant pain. The literature also revealed that reasonable safe, potent anesthetics had been available for five years for even the smallest preemies (Berry and Gregory, 1987).
But many pediatric anesthesiologists, surgeons and even some neonatologists made the decision not to use them. This is in contrast to the fact that adults are uniformly given anesthesia/analgesia even though this is acknowledged as the riskiest part of surgery. We accept these substantial risks to avoid inordinate suffering.
Following my search of the literature and my meeting with staff at Children's Hospital, I consulted with two attorneys. They concluded that there are no laws extant requiring doctors to mitigate pain and that unquestionably the doctor involved met "standards of practice".
Then I approached many medical groups, advocacy associations and individuals for help. Most either declined to help or supported the doctor's actions. These include, but are not limited to, the District of Columbia Board of Medicine, which is the local licensing and regulatory agency; the Medical Society of D.C., which wrote that
It appears there is controversy in the literature about the appropriate form of anesthesia for small infants and that the transmission of neuro-impulses in such a young child may not be sensed as pain in an immaturely developed brain. The patient may not sense the pain as such.
The anesthesiologist must balance the risks of using anesthesia versus allowing possible pain. In Dr. _________'s judgment, it was far safer for the patient to undergo the surgery with close observation and monitoring. It appears she was dealing with a difficult anesthesia situation in a very sick child and that she acted ethically and in good faith with the best interests of your child in mind. (Barr, 1986);
also the American Civil Liberties Union, to whom I appealed they try Jeffrey's case on an age-discrmination basis; our medical insurance plan, whom I asked to apply financial pressure to hospitals to use humane methods; the American Pain Society; the Hastings Center Report, a publication concerned with bioethical issues, which declined to print anything on the subject on the basis that it was not sufficiently concerned with ethics; even "Dear Abby, who said the doctor must know best and that this didn't have anything to do with vivisection, which she opposes; the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association; the AMA's section on Medical Science and Education; the Joseph & Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University; the American Board of Anesthesiology; the American Society of Anesthesiologists; Children's Hospital's patient representative, who asked whether I was getting psychological help when I complained; the U.S. Department of Justice Baby Doe unit, which had listed cruel and unusual treatment as one of its three criteria for intervention; the D.C. Child Welfare Division; the D.C. Parents of Preemies support group, whose then president declined to get involved on the grounds that parents would rather not know about this; the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Surgeon General, himself a pediatric surgeon; the Children's Defense Fund; the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families; the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse; the National Perinatal Association; and the then Chairman of the Section on Anesthesiology of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
One mother said to me, "I never thought to inquire about anesthesia. I'd as soon have asked if the surgeon was plannimg to wash his hands before the operation".
One of the more disturbing experiences in this process was the comment made to me by the senior neonatologist on staff at Children's Hospital. At a meeting concerning Jeffrey's treatment, he said that what happened to my son didn't matter because he was a fetus. When I asked how old someone has to be to feel pain, he placed the line of demarcation at about two years.
Other parents tell the same story. Cases which are a matter of record include Carmen Machado, who "survived six brain surgeries, often without the benefit of anesthesia" (Machado, 1985); Jacob Schrag, who died during abdominal surgery for necrotizing entercolitis without anesthesia in Oakland, California, in April, 1988 (Stern); Michael Londner, who had two brain surgeries without anesthesia in Miami, Florida in late 1981 (Londner, 1988).
There are other cases too. In most instances parents checked their babies' records after reading about Jeffrey, and in that process they learned for the first time what had been done to their children. Ultimately my son's story attracted national and international attention. People started talking about the issues, and a few remarkable individuals and groups did effect changes.
The first article appeared simultaneously in the popular press and in a medical journal in November, 1985 (Scanlon). In June, 1986, the Journal Birth printed my letter concerning surgery on infants without anesthesia. In August, 1986, the Washington Post printed a feature article which was carried over UPI wires and reprinted in several major city newspapers. That article in turn was picked up by Cable News Network, which provided extensive coverage of this issue the week of October 17, 1986.
That coverage was discussed and shown at the American Society of Anesthesiologists' annual conference the next week, and at about the same time I received word from Dr. Ronald L. Poland that the American Academy of Pediatrics was going to bring out a policy statement.
The American popular and medical specialty press generated a total of seventeen articles and television segments about our son's treatment. Recently there has been a flood of publications and conferences on the whole topic of pediatric pain control, most of it positive.
The resolution of the American Academy of Pediatrics detailing the new consensus protecting infants from unnecessary pain during surgery was published in the September, 1987 issue of Pediatrics, endorsed unanimously by the House of Delegates of the American Society of Anesthesiologists at its annual conference in October, 1987, and printed in the ASA's Newsletter in December, 1987.
Children's Hospital staff are now using painkillers on most, if not all, babies (Fletcher, 1987). And Dr. Anand was invited to speak there this past summer.
I feel heartened by the response from concerned individuals and by evidence of a positive change in professional and public awareness since our son's surgery. But I know human nature well enough to realize that people change slowly, and some people never change.
A consensus that is only theoretical doesn't help patients. Nance Butler (in press) has described some of the factors which exert a powerful influence on physicians and which result in their not accepting anesthesia for infants. So, for at least the next few years, some babies will still suffer unnecessarily.
The doctor who failed to mitigate the pain of our son also caused our whole family pain. We have to remember Jeffrey with a world of hurt. Our son is dead, and we can live with that. What is so hard to live with is his life. The doctor who "anesthetized" Jeffrey diminished his quality of life and his chances for survival. Nothing can undo that or bring him back to us.
*
Update by Peter Aleff:
Mrs. Lawson was prescient in predicting that some doctors would still not accept anesthesia for infants. It turns out that conveying common sense to medically indoctrinated minds resembles the labor of Sisyphus in the Greek myth who had to roll a rock up a steep hill only to have it crash back down each time.
The official statements Mrs. Lawson obtained from the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar guilds admitted at long last that babies feel pain and deserve protection from it. That was the medical priesthood's' public show and promise to make the scandal go away.
However, that does not mean the barbarian doctrine is dead. A more recent study of circumcision suffering published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that some physicians still believe newborns neither feel nor remember pain, as reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer on 12-25-97 under the title: "New study supports use of anesthetics in circumcisions".
Second update :
The editorial in the August 2002 issue of Scientific American comments under the title "A Real Pain" that even for adults, pain relief is still not routine in many very painful situations, such as snipping off internal live tissue samples. The editors cite a lack of knowledge and of interest among doctors, concerns for the risks and the monitoring costs these cause, and a medical culture that seems
"to believe that pain ought to be part of medicine and must be endured".
This troglodyte attitude of doctors supposed to care for their patients endures into the twenty-first century, and it will only end when those guilty of such gross gullibility are held accountable for the consequences of their unsupported, unscientific, and patient- harming beliefs.
Continue to our "Help for Victims" page for a suggestion to expose and thereby end some similarly baby- torturing practices that are still common in intensive care nurseries today.
Det finnes en lege som har varme og omtanke for de som har gjennomlevd dette torturhelvetet som små barn, han har en blogg http://ltinnin.com/Det finnes også http://myincision.wordpress.com/2011...ut-anesthesia/ men det ser ut til at hennes blog er flyttet hit http://restoryyourlife.com/blog/, her er de nyere innleggene hennes Jeg har nettopp begynt å lese disse to, legen og pasienten, så jeg har ikke så mye å tillegge ennåSitat:
My continuing search for telltale characteristics of adult victims of infant surgery without anesthesia suggests two that are expressed in literature and art. These adults seem to live “a life of quiet desperation” as quoted from Thoreau’s Walden
Legen skriverSitat:
Anyone now 23 years or older who had major surgery as a baby is at risk for chronic posttraumatic illness because the surgery was probably done without anesthesia, which was the custom in most hospitals prior to 1987. Abdominal surgery for pyloric stenosis and chest surgery for congenital heart problems were the most common forms of infant surgery. Together these surgeries were required for about 8 cases per 1000 births. A rough estimate of the number of survivors during the single year of 1987 (3,829,000 live births) is 30,600. We do not know what proportion of these survivors is now suffering with posttraumatic symptoms but considering the severity of the pain and the helplessness of the infant we would expect that the majority of these infants were traumatized.
http://ltinnin.com/2010/12/30/infant...ut-anesthesia/Sitat:
Imagine what it must have been like for the infant: unable to lift a finger; unable to move away from the searing pain of the scalpel; the sensation of being turned inside-out as the heart or intestines are grasped; and the overwhelming pain. People that have survived these early traumatic experiences usually cannot recall them verbally while they cannot forget them nonverbally.
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/Sitat:
The reality of pain memory (and birth memory) is confirmed by a mother whose premature baby was shunted for hydrocephalus without painkillers and while paralyzed with curare. Large incisions were cut in his scalp, neck, and abdomen and a hole drilled in his skull. She writes that ten years after the operation her son will still not allow anyone to touch his head, neck, and abdomen in the areas touched during surgery. The mere sight of the hospital provokes in this child violent trembling, profuse sweating, screaming, struggling, and vomiting.
Det samme har vært gjort i Norge, også. Jeg har jobbet med funksjonshemmede barn i mange år. Ett av dem var ei jente født med misdannelser, i 1993. Moren fortalte at hun ble operert i føttene uten bedøvelse, fordi legene den gangen trodde at spedbarn ikke følte smerte på samme måte som voksne.
Da jeg var liten pike måtte ørene mine stikkes opp pga ørebetennelse;
selvfølgelig uten bedøvelse.
Overgrepet skjedde på St.Josephs hospital i Drammen.
Min mor har fortalt at det nok er det verste hun har vært med på:
hun måtte hjelpe nonnene med og holde meg nede,
mens ørene ble stukket opp.
Jeg var ca tre år gammel...graate1
http://drammen.katolsk.no/innhold/st_m_historie.htm
Jeg blir helt kald inni meg av det dere forteller. 1993. Det kunne vært mitt barn som ble operert uten bedøvelse graate1
Og mot funskjsjonshemmede har det skjedd mange overgrep
Det er så fuldkommen vanvittigt. Svært at ha ord. Men man kan da godt dø af smerte - så hvordan har de her børn overlevet?!
De har det ikke så bra mange av dem Nielsigne. En snakker om "lifetime of endless reactivity", en annen "I realized that I still have PTSD from this early infant trauma", " I still have nightmares of being held down with surgical lights over me and pain…tremendous pain. " "In the 70s when people were experimenting with LSD , my trips were filled with people shinning bright lights in my face and stabing me with knives…now i may knw why…" osv osv
En lege som jobber med dette sier "The Answer Begins With The Numbers
The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study is a major research study that compares current adult health status to childhood experiences decades earlier. This study of 17,421 cases reported in 1998 was done as a collaboration project by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Kaiser Permanente’s Department of Preventive Medicine in San Diego, California. The study revealed a powerful relation between the emotional experiences of children and their adult emotional health, physical health, and the major causes of mortality. It would probably be possible to correlate the medical history of infant surgery before 1987 to current adult health status using this same approach."
Ja, jeg har lest at presset på det metabole systemet er helt ekstremt. Dette er jo ekstrem tortur, annet navn finnes det ikke på det. Ett sted sto det at det kunne oppstå hjerneskader på linje med hjerneslag. Så det er omfattende og helt ufattelig.
Dette er en god forklaring på hva som skjer generelt med barn som opplever traumer http://childtrauma.org/images/storie...e_trait_95.pdf
Det er vel bare naturligt, at kroppen reagerer voldsomt og resten af levetiden for dem, der har været ude for dette. Jeg synes omvendt, at det nærmest er unaturligt, at de overlever ...
12. september 2012
Læger lader syge børn lide. Når dit barn er sygt kan lægen hjælpe. Men hvis barnet også har store smerter, kan du ikke regne med lægens hjælp. For børnesmerter interesserer hverken forskere eller læger særlig meget, og derfor lider mange syge børn af smerter, som man aldrig ville byde en voksen. -Læger er ikke opmærksomme nok på børns smerter. Det er sværere at vurdere smerterne hos børn, for et lille barn kan jo ikke fortæller særlig præcist, hvor det gør ondt og hvor store smerterne er. Derfor lader man være med at smertebehandle. (Kilde: BT)
Er så glad for at min lille dreng ikke har skullet opereres for noget på trods af at hans syv første uger af livet blev tilbragt på neonatalafdelingen; fortællinger som disse får mig til at kramme ham lidt tættere. Min dybeste sympati går til de børn der har oplevet disse rædsler og det svigt de har følt, når voksne lod dem gennemgå dette helvede. Også sympati til forældrene, som siden er blevet klar over hvad deres børn har været udsat for.
Tænker på min søn på kun 1 kg i mine hænder, og på de små kuvøser inde ved siden af, hvor grønne dragter og skinnende instrumenter samledes i flok når det gik værst til og alarmerne bimlede. Tænker på døren der blev lukket ind til os, så vi kunne sidde og give vores raske dreng noget kærlighed og tryghed hud mod hud, i mens et lille barn og dets forældre har gennemgået helvede inde på den anden side - måske for 5. gang den uge.
Man lærer at blive ydmyg og taknemmelig.
Kan en mamma vara osäker på om barnet lider av smärta när det gråter eller skriker?
Kan en mamma inte alltid höra skillnaden mellan skrik av smärta eller om spädbarn gråter av andra skäl?
http://www.technologyreview.com/site...y/babies_4.jpg
Source: http://www.technologyreview.com/news...in-in-infants/
Even seasoned parents can find it tough to tell the difference between a baby in pain and a baby who is hungry. But now a face-recognition system is being developed that could help lift the veil on infant communication and allow us to know when babies are genuinely experiencing pain. (...)
Until fairly recently, the general consensus was that newborn babies couldn’t experience pain. In fact, until the mid 1990s it was common for infants to undergo surgery without any kind of anaesthetic or pain relief, says Martin. “It’s really terrible to think of,” he says. But the belief was that a newborn’s nervous system wasn’t mature enough to experience pain, he explains. (Read more)
Helt grusomt at barn har blitt behandlet slik.
Da min eldste sønn ble født for snart tretti år siden, ble det en tøff påkjenning for ham, fordi han begynte og puste mens han stod fast slik at bare toppen av hodet hans viste. Klarte og få ham ut på den fjerde rien der han stod slik, og legene konkluderte med at alt var helt ok.
Jeg oppdaget omtrent rett etter jeg kom hjem fra sykehuset at gutten hadde klaustrofobi og var mørkredd. Jeg knyttet dette til den påkjenningen det må ha vært for ham og ta sine første åndedrag klemt fast. Legene har i alle år fnyst av meg fordi bebier kan ikke ha fobier eller være redd. Jeg har hele tiden holdt på mitt, og etter som forskningen går fremover, viser det seg jo nå at barn kan føle mye mer enn de tidligere trodde.
Jeg fant litt tilfeldig en utrolig spennende artikkel om smerte hos fostre og småbarn i New York Times
Anna Taddio, a pain specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children in TorontoSitat:
Twenty-five years ago, when Kanwaljeet Anand was a medical resident in a neonatal intensive care unit, his tiny patients, many of them preterm infants, were often wheeled out of the ward and into an operating room. He soon learned what to expect on their return. The babies came back in terrible shape: their skin was gray, their breathing shallow, their pulses weak. Anand spent hours stabilizing their vital signs, increasing their oxygen supply and administering insulin to balance their blood sugar.
“What’s going on in there to make these babies so stressed?” Anand wondered. Breaking with hospital practice, he wrangled permission to follow his patients into the O.R. “That’s when I discovered that the babies were not getting anesthesia,” he recalled recently. Infants undergoing major surgery were receiving only a paralytic to keep them still. Anand’s encounter with this practice occurred at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England, but it was common almost everywhere. Doctors were convinced that newborns’ nervous systems were too immature to sense pain, and that the dangers of anesthesia exceeded any potential benefits.
Sitat:
..When we do something to a baby that is not an expected part of its normal development, especially at a very early stage, we may actually change the way the nervous system is wired,” she says. Early encounters with pain may alter the threshold at which pain is felt later on, making a child hypersensitive to pain — or, alternatively, dangerously indifferent to it. Lasting effects might also include emotional and behavioral problems like anxiety and depression, even learning disabilities (though these findings are far more tentative).
Jeg må legge til at det er en provoserende mann med i denne artikkelenI denne lenken er det en del vanlige folk som svarer på hva de mener om forskningen hans http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/ap...ellbeing/print (her har han moderert seg til 4 måneders alder av en eller annen grunn) http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...7111947AA57PdDSitat:
For all his vehemence in print, Derbyshire is affable in conversation, explaining that his laboratory research on the neurological basis of pain in adults led him to the matter of what fetuses feel: “For me, it’s an interesting test case of what we know about pain. It’s a great application of theory, basically.” The theory, in this case, is that the experience of pain has to be learned — and the fetus, lacking language or interactions with caregivers, has no chance of learning it. In place of distinct emotions, it experiences a blur of sensations, a condition Derbyshire has likened to looking at “a vast TV screen with all of the world’s information upon it from a distance of one inch; a great buzzing mass of meaningless information,” he writes. “Before a symbolic system such as language, an individual will not know that something in front of them is large or small, hot or cold, red or green” — or, Derbyshire argues, painful or pleasant.
He finds “outrageous” the suggestion that the fetus feels anything like the pain that an older child or an adult experiences. “A fetus is biologically human, of course,” he says. “It isn’t a cow. But it’s not yet psychologically human.” That is a status not bestowed at conception but earned with each connection made and word spoken. Following this logic to its conclusion, Derbyshire has declared that babies cannot feel pain until they are 1 year old.
Sitat:
If my children got bumbed, they cried. If they got pinched, they cried. When comforted, they stopped crying. If I stumbled, they felt fear of falling and cried out in fear. These researchers are idiots and should be banned from any further research that requires use of the scientific method!
Sitat:
They may not know the word "pain" or how to define or describe it, but they sure do feel it- otherwise why would they cry when feeling pain- even just discomfort like hunger or being wet? We can only hop the professor isn't reborn, because many people might want to poke him, as a new infant, with a pin!
