A good chunk of the 19th century anesthesia hadn’t even been invented or widely used for anyone, let alone babies.
-
-
Replying to @efunkonline @webdevMason
Not arguing that some procedures were done without appropriate analgesia, but the image of surgeons operating on babies who are paralyzed but conscious isn’t accurate from my understanding of medical history.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @webdevMason
Bumping into a lot of paywalls... sounds like there were some instances of it from the Times article, but lots of evidence that peds anesthesia was flourishing by the early 1900s, and paralytics not even invented until post WWII.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @webdevMason
Saw that, but have never been able to track down a citation and no PubMed search turns this research up. What we do have is documented evidence of 100% of babies, getting that surgery, during that time period, being given general anesthesia. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF03007435.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @efunkonline
Literally from this paperpic.twitter.com/bgSnnsvSLV
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
That study (8) is a case series at UCLA, the Times cites a worldwide survey. That's not it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @efunkonline
...I know? But it seems like pretty strong evidence that anesthesia wasn't broadly considered necessary in infants, at least for this particular heart surgery, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Like, if you can read that and conclude that babies were not being operated on while they were conscious, I don't know what more there is for me to say
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.