Prenatal pain

The hypothesis that human fetuses are capable of perceiving pain in the early stages of a pregnancy has not received sufficient evidence to be proven or disproven; the developmental stage of research and instrumentation is so far insufficient to this task.

Some authors,[3] however, argue that fetal pain is possible from the second half, or even the second tremester,[4] of pregnancy.[5] In March 2010, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted a report,[6] concluding that "Current research shows that the sensory structures are not developed or specialized enough to respond to pain in a fetus of less than 24 weeks", pg. 22.


The neural regions and pathways that are responsible for pain experience remain under debate but it is generally accepted that pain from physical trauma requires an intact pathway from the periphery, through the spinal cord, into the thalamus and on to regions of the cerebral cortex including the primary sensory cortex (S1), the insular cortex and the anterior cingulated cortex.3,4 Fetal pain is not possible before these necessary neural pathways and structures (figure 1) have developed. -pg. 3

The report specifically identified the anterior cingulate as the area of the cerebral cortex responsible for pain processing. The anterior cingulate is part of the cerebral cortex, which begins to develop in the fetus at week 26.

On the other extreme, in 1996, physiologist Peter McCullagh spoke on behalf of a pro-life group to the British Parliament. He said, "At what stage of human prenatal development are those anatomical structures subserving the appreciation of pain present and functional? The balance of evidence at the present time indicates that these structures are present and functional before the tenth week of intrauterine life."[7]

The issue is considerably complicated by the usual difficulties in perceptual research of unresponsive subjects: "Though techniques such as positron electron tomography scanning might reveal those parts of the brain that respond to a painful stimulus, this does not tell us what the individual is experiencing."[8]

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[9][10] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at weeks 22-34, reliably at 29) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain, as they allow peripheral sensory information to arrive at the cortex.[11]

Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be difficult to know when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[12] In 2006, an opinion piece by Stuart Derbyshire[13] in the British Medical Journal proposed that pain is dependent upon cognitive and emotional developments that occur after birth:


Theories of development assume that the early human mind begins with minimal content and gradually evolves into the rich experience of older children and adults. Although the view of a neonate as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, is generally rejected, it is broadly accepted that psychological processes have content concerning people, objects, and symbols, which lay in the first instance outside the brain. If pain also depends on content derived from outside the brain, then fetal pain cannot be possible, regardless of neural development.[14]

Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain.[9]

Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He questions the value of such data:


Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however, that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially incorrect.

He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both sedated and anesthetized when in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn's first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized.[15] “A fetus,” Mellor told The New York Times, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”[16]

In 2001, a working group of the Medical Research Council (UK) in the United Kingdom called for more research regarding fetal pain.[17] According to the Daily Telegraph, Eve Johnstone, the chair of that working group "makes a strong case for additional research." Ms. Johnstone told the newspaper, "We ought to study this carefully."

Sail, your citing Wikipedia is considered by most to be not a reliable source, for the pages are open to any Tom, D*ck, or Harry to revise.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.


While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester. Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and hormonal stress responses present earlier in development are not explicit or sufficient evidence of pain perception because they are not specific to noxious stimuli and are not cortically mediated.


A variety of anesthetic and analgesic techniques have been used for fetal surgery, including maternal general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, and administration of medications for placental transfer to the fetus. However, these techniques are not necessarily applicable to abortions. Surgical procedures undertaken for fetal benefit use anesthesia to achieve objectives unrelated to pain control, such as uterine relaxation, fetal immobilization, and possible prevention of neuroendocrine stress responses associated with poor surgical outcomes. Thus, fetal anesthesia may be medically indicated for fetal surgery regardless of whether fetal pain exists.


In the context of abortion, fetal analgesia would be used solely for beneficence toward the fetus, assuming fetal pain exists. This interest must be considered in concert with maternal safety and fetal effectiveness of any proposed anesthetic or analgesic technique. For instance, general anesthesia increases abortion morbidity and mortality for women and substantially increases the cost of abortion. Although placental transfer of many opioids and sedative-hypnotics has been determined, the maternal dose required for fetal analgesia is unknown, as is the safety for women at such doses. Furthermore, no established protocols exist for administering anesthesia or analgesia directly to the fetus for minimally invasive fetal procedures or abortions. Experimental techniques, such as administration of fentanyl directly to the fetus and intra-amniotic injection of sufentanil in pregnant ewes, have not been shown to decrease fetal pain and are of unknown safety in humans.


Because pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should be noncompulsory. Fetal anesthesia or analgesia should not be recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase risks for the woman. Instead, further research should focus on when pain-related thalamocortical pathways become functional in humans. If the fetus can feel pain, additional research may lead to effective fetal anesthesia or analgesia techniques that are also safe for women.

Anand, 2006, p.2, col.2, para.5, “Multiple lines of evidence thus corroborate that the key mechanisms of consciousness or conscious sensory perception are not dependent on cortical activity”

Anand KJS. Consciousness, cortical function, and pain perception in nonverbal humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 30:1 (2007) 82-83.

Seems like we have medical opinions disagreeing with each other. I wonder why. Is there any chance that the sources you cite were produced by abortion practictioners?

Nah. That couldn't be, could it?

...
Now, before reading the medical science statements below, I want to be clear this isn't to pass judgment on anyone, or cause anyone undue grief or guilt. It is written that the only sin that is unpardonable is the sin against the holy spirit.....

Since there is no such thing as a holy spirit then there is no such thing as an unpardonable sin. Even if there was such a thing as holy spirit only reveals your lack of morals, and certainly moral vacancy of Christianity. You would forgive pedophiles, murderers, genocidal manics, and so on. According to you, the even the worst psychopath can't do anything really that wrong. If you simply state "it is written" would still show us your lack of personal moral character because of your lack of personal responsibility.

Who says so? You, or abortion practitioners?

I suspect you say more studies are needed,.. because you don't like the results of those that have already been conducted.

you also seem to be very much in support of abortion on demand

Has nothing to do with abortion ..... it has to do with a woman's rights.

walt, if you're so hung up on the rights of the fetus why don't you find one about to be aborted and sue on it's behalf? let the courts decide. ponder that awhile and i think you'll see it's a near impossible task.

You were once a fetus, JR.

that's why i think a woman should not chose to abort a fetus.

But there is responsibility. And I uphold personal responsibility for the offenses you listed. Criminal responsibilities. Just because, according to the laws of the land, an offender must be convicted & sentenced--and should be--it does not mean they can not find forgiveness before God.

If they do find that forgiveness, does death row let them go? Of course not.

That is what makes the resurrection and message of forgiveness of sins so wonderful.

The only unpardonable sin, according to scripture, is a lifelong--to the grave--rejection of that free gift of reconciliation & peace with God.

i'm every bit as morally against abortion as you are and would be happy to see the procedure disappear from the face of the planet.

i do feel that way but the difference between me and you is that i don't b*tch and moan about something that i can do nothing about, in this case settled law. what i have done is explore options that might protect future fetus' but as i suggested earlier i see such options as nearly impossible. now are you ready to move this discussion along in a worthwhile direction or will you continue to whine about a decision made more than four decades ago?

how does this 'great moral question' you pose here do anything to change what is in fact a legal matter as well as a moral one?

Even if fetuses could feel pain, so what? The argument was never about whether or not they could feel pain, but whether or not they're persons.

According to the loony Bible. Causing an unwanted abortion results in a fine. So what about wanted abortions? Apparently that is a lesser offense or no offense.

Even if fetuses could feel pain, so what? The argument was never about whether or not they could feel pain, but whether or not they're persons.

Wasn't Casey centered on that question? At a certain point, the government had compelling interest to violate a woman's right to privacy to protect potential life which was measured by viability?

Even if fetuses could feel pain, so what? The argument was never about whether or not they could feel pain, but whether or not they're persons.

Who says so? You, or abortion practitioners?

I suspect you say more studies are needed,.. because you don't like the results of those that have already been conducted.

You sign each of your posts with "Peace." Do abortion practitioners also say "Peace" just before they violently enter a womb and destroy a human life?

I have to think they do, because you also seem to be very much in support of abortion on demand.

The old argument has been ingrained in women's minds, by Planned Parenthood that "It's my body." Well, no, that life miraculously formed is not part of a woman's body. It just happens, for a time, to be nestled safely inside it--we hope.

How silly would be that same woman's argument, if she did find life sacred, and gave birth,... saying "this is not a small boy or girl, but my body. "It" belongs to me.

It is horrifying mankind's inhumanity to man, when we reduce a human being to an "it."

Keep in mind there are various different definitions of the term fetus, but bottom line the so called "fetus" is a baby, so why label the baby with a insignificant term?

Because, it makes it easier to kill the "baby" when you place another label upon him or her , which shouldn't exist.

Very cunning and crafty are certain individuals when creating "labels" and definitions regarding the truth of the matter.

Baby or child is sufficient, no need to add or detract from that FACT.

Stages of LIFE , NOT trimesters.

Another word that shouldn't exist.

Why?

Because it robs from the true preciousness of life.

Words and definitions have power and persuasion and should be created and used accordingly.

Not in manner that masks the truth involving such a most delicate and intense subject as life.

If it's important to stop or attack anythying that "robs from the true preciousness of life" then you and blake have lost your chance when your lives were robbed when you became irrational, superstitious and delusional religious fanatics.