to think that this sounds like a load of rubbish.

[ModreB]

What do you think? (Read the whole article) happy babies or not happy?.

I mean come on - do people really still think that babies dont feel pain??

I read half of it, couldn't be bothered with the rest.

What a load of crap.

So when my DS is laughing his head off at me or DH hiding from him, no he isn't really happy at all is he?

No of course they don't feel pain.

I disinctly remember DS having to have bloods taken from his heel to test his jaundice levels. He was screaming and screaming. Obviously he felt no pain there.

that babies undergoing surgery didn't used to get pain relief
of course babies can feel pain - don't they all cry at their 8 week jabs?

I don't think they're saying babies don't feel pain are they?

I read it as saying that babies do feel pain, giving them sugar before a painful procedure appears to prevent pain based on the babies outward response (less crying etc), but isn't effective based on the brain response.

Therefore people shouldn't necessarily equate absence of crying with absence of pain

I think people shouldn't read about scientific studies if they can't be arsed to read them properly. You've completely missed the point.

the article clearly says that the used to think bbies didn't feel pain and so didn't give them any pain relief. I agree that's not what is being said now, but that bit is the most shocking bit for me.

The headline has no relevance whatsoever to the piece.
It's designed to get mothers in everyday situations fretting because their smiley baby doing day-to-day baby things isn't actually happy.

But the piece is actually about gauging pain responses in babies undergoing procedures.

Shoddy and scaremongering. Not what I'd expect from the Independent.

That's just so awful about not being given analgesic drugs for surgery.

"Shoddy and scaremongering. Not what I'd expect from the Independent."

That is exactly what I expect from the Independent. They love those headlines covering the entire frontpage announcing that the world is coming to an end

SPB - agree that that is shocking, I have seen the same argument used about animals, but had no idea this used to be thought about babies.

I think we would be shocked at a lot of the 'scientific' ideas of the 50s tbh. Times move on, we find out more etc etc. I wonder what the evidence base was for that view in the first place.

"Do people really still think that babies dont feel pain?" - quite blatantly from the article people think that babies DO feel pain.

"So when my DS is laughing his head off at me or DH hiding from him, no he isn't really happy at all is he?" - This statement has nothing to do with the study that the article is talking about. Are you sure you didn't just read the title?

"I disinctly remember DS having to have bloods taken from his heel to test his jaundice levels. He was screaming and screaming. Obviously he felt no pain there." - Of course he felt pain! - the article clearly says that they USED to believe that babies couldn't feel pain. People also used to believe that the earth was flat.

I really wish that people would read an article about a scientific study (or better yet read the actual study) and then take a moment to reflect about what is actually being said rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions from the title.

I think pushmepull you has given the correct interpretation ot the article.

You're probably right pmpy, the 50s was when my parents were born so I think of it as being fairly recent and modern...plus the NHS was in existence

"a spoonful of sugar before an injection or blood test may alter its expression without lessening its pain" - 3rd sentence in the article.