Doctor's Love for "Preemies"

[URA]

"A pleasant voice multiplies friends & softens enemies,
and a gracious tongue multiplies courtesies.". --Sirach 6:5​

Just a nice little article on a doctor discussing work done to help babies born prematurely. It references the abortion arguments, and if that's what you'd like to discuss, please remember to do so in a respectable manner. It's an emotionally loaded issue for a lot of people, and many have personal experiences that will affect how they take any tone of harshness towards them for their views.

Doctor Sings the Praises of ‘Preemies’

May God bless us all & all of the youngest among us!

 

[Tanj]

What a ridiculous article. Beyond propaganda, there is no point in conflating premature births and abortion.

Spent much time in NICU have we Unofficial? I sure have.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The overinterpretation of reflex responses is a little disturbing from someone in her position - assuming she's being quoted verbatim.

 

[Brightmoon]

Reflexes go from the limb to the spinal column and back out to the limb. That’s why when you burn your finger you’ll pull it away from the heat seconds before you actually feel it. That’s why it’s a reflex because it happens before you can think about it

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The overinterpretation of reflex responses is a little disturbing from someone in her position - assuming she's being quoted verbatim.

To what are you referring? Nothing she says sounds like the various newborn reflexes (Moro, Sucking, Rooting, etc.). You may be interpreting her saying that they fight the underarm thermometer as the Tonic or Fencing reflex, but this also differs markedly from the description here, as that is not wilful movement, does not equate to a strike toward the opposite side, rather flexion. As a NICU doctor, she obviously knows these reflexes well, so I really do not understand on what grounds these descriptions are being termed merely reflexes.

As she referenced though, foetuses and newborns show preference for their mother's voice, and secondarily their father's:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_Voice_But_Prefer_Mother's_Voice_after_Birth

Further, we know newborns do voluntary imitative behaviours:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

So nothing she is saying is implausible as far as I am aware, nor need be merely reflex. So sure, a Catholic publication saying these things will most likely butter it a bit thick, but the opposite seems equally biased by a priori notions of embryological theory or political beliefs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To what are you referring? Nothing she says sounds like the various newborn reflexes (Moro, Sucking, Rooting, etc.). You may be interpreting her saying that they fight the underarm thermometer as the Tonic or Fencing reflex, but this also differs markedly from the description here, as that is not wilful movement, does not equate to a strike toward the opposite side, rather flexion. As a NICU doctor, she obviously knows these reflexes well, so I really do not understand on what grounds these descriptions are being termed merely reflexes.

As she referenced though, foetuses and newborns show preference for their mother's voice, and secondarily their father's:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_Voice_But_Prefer_Mother's_Voice_after_Birth

Further, we know newborns do voluntary imitative behaviours:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

So nothing she is saying is implausible as far as I am aware, nor need be merely reflex. So sure, a Catholic publication saying these things will most likely butter it a bit thick, but the opposite seems equally biased by a priori notions of embryological theory or political beliefs.

OK, I too was being rather loose in terminology, but I was surprised that she called the response to the underarm thermometer 'straight-out angry' and 'screaming mad', without qualification. I'd like to see the evidence that the response had more than a superficial similarity to anger, e.g. wasn't just discomfort or distress; or even that these 'preemies' are capable of the particular kinds of distinctive emotional responses seen in more developmentally advanced individuals. IOW, I thought it was careless talk.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

OK, I too was being rather loose in terminology, but I was surprised that she called the response to the underarm thermometer 'straight-out angry' and 'screaming mad', without qualification. I'd like to see the evidence that the response had more than a superficial similarity to anger, e.g. wasn't just discomfort or distress; or even that these 'preemies' are capable of the particular kinds of distinctive emotional responses seen in more developmentally advanced individuals. IOW, I thought it was careless talk.

Perhaps, but in her defence, this is essentially a magazine article - a church magazine, no less. This is not a journal or something, so exactitude of terminology is hardly required. If anything, this is meant to preach to the choir, I'd say.

Besides, it is hard showing something as subjective as emotion. Even something that seems more obvious like pain, took a long time to be ascribed to newborns or animals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps, but in her defence, this is essentially a magazine article - a church magazine, no less. This is not a journal or something, so exactitude of terminology is hardly required. If anything, this is meant to preach to the choir, I'd say.

Besides, it is hard showing something as subjective as emotion. Even something that seems more obvious like pain, took a long time to be ascribed to newborns or animals.

Perhaps the constant misinterpretations of scientific work and unsubstantiated claims I see in the media and on forums have made me oversensitive, but when a medical expert says something like this without the obvious qualification (e.g. "It's as if..."), it disturbs me.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Perhaps the constant misinterpretations of scientific work and unsubstantiated claims I see in the media and on forums have made me oversensitive, but when a medical expert says something like this without the obvious qualification (e.g. "It's as if..."), it disturbs me.

"It's as if" introduces its own set of implied misunderstandings, such as it is merely a mistaken or false impression and the contrary holds. That would merely shift the bias of the piece. Qualifiers such as 'in my opinion' or 'some interpret that' would be better, or failing that a review of the medical evidence, but the latter would be a bit outside the context of the source. Popular media is always imprecise and rife with misunderstanding, but this is clearly an opinion piece, though appealing to her authority. It is really not making a coherent argument about anything, so not really reasonable to expect such measured language, even if the journalist isn't editing or abridging her comments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Popular media is always imprecise and rife with misunderstanding, but this is clearly an opinion piece, though appealing to her authority. It is really not making a coherent argument about anything, so not really reasonable to expect such measured language, even if the journalist isn't editing or abridging her comments.

The way I see it, such popular media pieces, where a less scientifically literate audience are likely to take expert pronouncements as 'gospel', are the very places that measured language is most important. YMMV.