Reply #13: I think it's BS, not only because of my personal experiences

[Crunchy Frog]

but also because there is years worth of research in the area of neonatal and premature pain that contradicts the conclusions of this one single piece of research. For anyone with a baby in the NICU, pain control and monitoring the babies for pain is one of the top priorities for the nurses and the neos, in contrast to a couple of decades ago, when pain in the NICU was completely ignored.

Completely apart from my own experiences, this is one single study, whose results appear to be rather broadly interpreted, and whose results appear to contradict a large body of research going back decades. I would say that the results, and the interpretations of those results, are at least highly preliminary.

I know that people on DU get all excited about this sort of thing because they think it will give them ammo in the abortion debate. The truth is that fetuses in this gestational range are virtually never aborted. Also, the pro-lifers are as impervious to scientific evidence as the creationists are. The only thing that's likely to be affected by this new "data" would be the treatment of premature babies in the NICU.

I'm damned glad that my NICU considered pain control to be a priority, and glad that my one son who had to have a chest tube got morphine along with it. He still spent two full days crying inconsolably after he got rid of the chest tube and the vent and the morphine, but he stopped crying when I held him.

So rather than saying that I think this is BS, I will just say that I think this particular piece of research is highly preliminary, and its results and conclusions directly contradict a huge body of scientific resarch going back decades, and on which current medical practices with preterm neonates are based. I would need to see a HELL of alot more evidence than this single study, especially since it's largely being used to promote a particular political agenda.