The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) recently released a press statement summarizing their new position statement concerning fetal pain.
While the ACPeds acknowledges this issue is sometimes relevant to legal and moral discussions about abortion, the point of their statement is not to focus on whether abortion should be legal or if it is moral.
Instead, the focus of the group, “a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents,” is generally on how young humans are treated medically with regard to pain management.
They state: “While it is obviously unethical to harm innocent human beings irrespective of their ability to perceive pain, because of the resulting acute stress responses and subsequent potential long-term negative effects, the ACPeds holds that avoiding, mitigating, and directly treating fetal, neonatal, and pediatric pain is a medical and ethical obligation.”
The full position statement reviews the growing body of evidence which points to “nociception (which refers to the anatomical and physiological responses to hurtful stimuli)” being possible even in very young humans, perhaps as young as 12 weeks oldas a review from researchers Stuart W.G. Derbyshire and John C. Bockmann points out. From how they write in their paper, this age seems to be based on normal gestational age, which is counted from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP). In reality, age post-fertilization could reasonably be about 1-3 weeks shorter than the age based on the standard LMP measurement.
This is incredible. It means humans as young as 9-11 weeks old have developed sufficiently to display nociception.
The ACPeds reviews other evidence which has been pushing back the timeline of infant and fetal pain. Many studies on premature infants’ pain responses and even fetal pain responses have all contributed to the growing consensus that humans can feel pain from a very early age, and that painful stimuli are actually more painful prior to about 43-44 weeks gestation.
This is important to ACPeds because that means very young humans can have their entire lives altered based on how their pain was managed. Human development can be drastically affected by the experience of painful stimuli early in life. Because of this, the ACPeds “advocates the need for in-utero, neonatal, and pediatric pain prevention, mitigation, and treatment.”
The ACPeds also pushes back against the International Association for the Study of Pain’s (IASP) claim that pain must have two components to be regarded as actual pain, or pain of moral and ethical significance, which are biological/sensory and emotional.
The IASP tries to separate the idea of pain from nociception, insisting pain must also have the aspect of a conscious experience or perception.
However, this runs into ethical dilemmas quite quickly.
Pain is therefore purely subjective and never truly knowable. And for people who cannot communicate their perception of pain to others, how are we to know if they truly are feeling pain, and how then does that lack of knowledge inform how we may treat that person? How does that affect fields like medicine, then, where professionals must take ethics into account when developing treatments?
The ACPeds maintains that nociception, whether or not the human receiving the stimuli is aware of it or not, is alone enough to define pain. At least, it is enough for doctors and medical professionals, who must be able to use measurable characteristics to determine courses of action when treating a patient.
It is well-known that for any human, mitigating the body’s response to painful stimuli helps improve outcomes for treatments such as surgery.
In fact, the ACPeds covers a study done on infants undergoing heart surgery who received either lighter or deeper anesthesia. The outcome of the study was so stark that the authors decided they could not ethically try to repeat it. Not only did the babies receiving deeper anesthesia score better on markers of biological stress than the babies who received lighter anesthesia; but no babies receiving the deep anesthesia died before hospital discharge, while 4 out of 15 of the babies receiving light anesthesia did.
While some people would argue that pain (or absence of it), no matter its definition, does not make killing a human any more or less ethical; for other people, the pain involved in killing a human is very important. For some people, the fact that a human fetus could feel the pain of an abortion procedure would absolutely be relevant to their stance on abortion.
The growing body of evidence for nociception in very young humans seems to point strongly to the fact that a 12-week-old human would, indeed, feel pain. Consider the fact that according to the latest CDC abortion estimates, over 40,000 humans were killed in 2018 who were pain-capable.
As a bit of a parting shot, the ACPeds ends their press statement by saying, “Medicine’s double standard of acknowledging pain capability in wanted premature babies while denying it in unwanted unborn babies of the same gestational age is unconscionable.”
Whether we like it or not, whether the ACPeds wants to wade into politics or not — the pain capability of human fetuses does have a place in the abortion debate for many people.
DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS WEBSITE!
The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for a one man team to manually review each and every one of the posts atomicbobs.com gets on a daily basis.
The content of posts on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or administration of Atomicbobs. This site may contain adult language, if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to
USE DISCERNMENT
and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Atomicbobs.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Atomicbobs.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This website implements certain security features in order to prevent spam and posting abuse. By making a post on this website you consent to any automated security checks required by our system to authenticate your IP address as belonging to an actual human. It is forbidden to make posts on this website from open proxy servers. By making a post on this website you consent to an automated one time limited port scan of your IP address which is required by our security system to validate the authenticity of your internet connection.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Atomicbobs.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
At some point freedom of speech and copyright law merge. The following interpretation of "Fair Use" and subsequent posting policy were developed with the assistance of qualified legal council however, we are not lawyers and cannot offer you legal advise as to the limits of "Fair Use"
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
Though legally each situation is evaluated independently according to guidelines that were intentionally left open to interpretation, we believe generally this policy represents "Fair Use" of any such copyrighted material for the purposes of education and discussion.
You are responsible for what you "publish" on the internet. You must be sure any copyrighted material you choose to post for discussion on this forum falls within the limits of "Fair Use" as defined by the law.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "Fair Use" and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright
we may be contacted concerning copyright matters at:
If you require a courier address please send a fax or email and we will provide you with the required information.
For expedited human review & removal of potential copyright violations we encourage users & copyright holders to utilize the "Report Copyright Violation" button that accompanies each post published on this website.
In accordance with section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act our contact information has been registered with the United States Copyright Office. "Safe Harbor" noticing procedures as outlined in the DMCA apply to this website concerning all 3rd party posts published herein.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question. It is our strict policy to disable access to accounts of repeat copyright violators. We will also ban the IP address of repeat offenders from future posting on this website with or without a registered account.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Atomicbobs.com makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
---
DON'T BREAK THE LAW!
---
Other than that you can do / say whatever you want on this forum.
We reserve the right to block access to this website by any individual or organization at any time for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all.
| 
