March 5th 2011

  Buy Issue 2846

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Labor pounces on divisions among Liberals

HEALTH CARE: Public hopes dashed by Gillard health 'reforms'

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE: Gillard's pseudo-PPL scheme a malign charade

PUBLIC WORKS: The urgent need to build new dams

COVER STORY: Planned Parenthood's activities finally exposed

EDITORIAL: Arab political turmoil: what's cooking?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Obama reaps whirlwind in the Middle East

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: Can we avoid a second global financial crisis?

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Business leaders call for national investment fund

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY: Children's right to know their genetic parents

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Medical cover-up of fetal pain perception

TASMANIA: Euthanasia and assisted suicide back on the agenda

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Bible banned at citizenship ceremonies

OPINION: The failure of multiculturalism

Brisbane dams fiasco 1 (letter)

Brisbane dams fiasco 2 (letter)

Legalising abortion (letter)

BOOK REVIEW: THE TROUBLE WITH CANADA... STILL! A Citizen Speaks Out, by William D. Gairdner

BOOK REVIEW: WHERE MEN WIN GLORY: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, by Jon Krakauer

Books promotion page

Medical cover-up of fetal pain perception

by Babette Francis

News Weekly, March 5, 2011
Fetuses under 24 weeks cannot feel pain and therefore do not require pain relief when undergoing surgical procedures or abortion, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has argued.

In June 2010, the college published a controversial report, "Fetal awareness - review of research and recommendations for practice". The RCOG's apparent purpose was to update its 1997 publication in the light of more recent evidence, and also to provide "information for women and parents".

The main conclusion of the report, which has attracted widespread criticism from within the medical profession, was that fetuses under 24 weeks could not feel pain and therefore did not require pain relief when undergoing surgical procedures or abortion.

Peter Saunders, CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members, criticised the report on his blog. He suggested that "the RCOG had simply cherry-picked experts guaranteed to deliver convenient conclusions in order to justify its historic position that babies killed by late abortion are not really sentient human beings worthy of any respect". (Peter Saunders' Blog, February 5, 2011).

In the first week of February, an editorial in a leading medical journal, Archives of Disease in Childhood (ADC Fetal Neonatal edition), Dr Martin Ward Platt, of the Newcastle Neonatal Service, launched a major criticism of the RCOG and characterised the report as "an Emperor with no clothes".

Dr Ward Platt says that the RCOG report caused some controversy in the media last June when it was widely attacked as being political not scientific, a document that aimed to shore up the pre-existing position of the RCOG rather than take a dispassionate view of the scientific evidence.

Dr Ward Platt supports the current permissive abortion laws in Britain and has not been involved in the current political debate, but does take the RCOG to task over the science.

He summarises the scientific argument in the RCOG document as follows:

• The fetus is rendered unconscious during intrauterine life by endogenous substances.

• And the fetus at under 24 weeks does not have the neuroanatomical apparatus that would allow pain perception at a cortical level.

• Therefore the fetus is neither aware, nor can feel pain, under 24 weeks.

After reviewing the RCOG's presentation of evidence Dr Ward Platt concludes:

"So, what is the evidence that the human fetus lacks 'awareness'? In a word, there is none.... I have looked at the references in the report, and the references in the references, and when I finally got back to the primary literature I found no evidence for the contention that the human fetus lacks awareness, or exists in some different conscious state, beyond the unwarranted extrapolation from sheep.

"In contradiction to the notion of the 'unaware' fetus, the everyday experience of pregnancy - the felt behaviours and responses of the unborn baby, especially to sound - as well as much primary research literature on the human fetus, contains strong evidence for an opposite view."

I can certainly support Dr Ward Platt's contention that the fetus is responsive to sound. I shop near a railway station, and none of my babies in utero liked the sound of the train sirens as the trains arrived at the station. From around 20 weeks' gestation, whether they were asleep or not, they always jumped and kicked in the womb when they heard a siren. I would pat my abdomen and say soothingly, "It's only a train - you will like them when you are older."

Dr Ward Platt writes: "There is an extensive literature, in humans, on fetal sleep and wakefulness, fetal mobility, fetal memory, fetal hearing, fetal breathing and its control and fetal behaviour - and these are just examples that scratch the surface. None of this work is easily reconciled with the notion of a permanently unconscious human fetus."

With regard to how we treat babies of similar gestation born prematurely he argues as follows: "Over the last 20 or more years, researchers have accumulated good observational, experimental and pathophysiological reasons to consider that babies at these gestations do feel pain, that they benefit from analgesia, and that pain experiences in early life cast neurophysiological and behavioural shadows far down childhood.

"Equally importantly, babies have a right to receive humane treatment. We work from an ethical imperative that even though these babies cannot verbalise their experiences, and cannot remember them in any way comparable to a child or adult, they should not be subject to pain or distress if we can possibly prevent or treat it. From this argument, there is no reason not to treat the 23-week fetus like a 24- or 25-week fetus, just as we do for babies."

Dr Ward Platt reviews the RCOG's argument that the fetus under 24 weeks is not neurologically developed enough to feel pain.

He writes: "One notices statements in the report such as: 'Interpretation of existing data indicates that cortical processing of pain perception, and therefore the ability of the fetus to feel pain, cannot occur before 24 weeks of gestation'. We could rewrite this as 'in theory they can't feel pain, therefore they don't'. It is the substitution of wishful thinking for empirical enquiry."

He concludes: " seems that this report constructs a theoretical viewpoint and then tries to squeeze the contrary observations of the real world into it - just like the naked emperor in Hans Anderson's story, who in his vanity, and because enough courtiers agreed with him, considered himself clothed....

"In preparing this editorial I noticed that there seems to be no scientific literature on fetal behaviours that uses the maternal experience of quickening, or other aspects of fetal responsiveness, as its basis. This is a huge methodological gap.... A sensible debate needs a solid base of rigorous empirical enquiry. As it stands, the report is an emperor with no clothes. We need to dress him."

Dr Saunders comments: "This editorial by a consultant neonatologist in a leading peer-reviewed journal is hugely significant. The RCOG currently recommends that fetuses do not require analgesia for interventions occurring before 24 weeks, based on the belief that fetuses at this age are neither aware nor can feel pain.

"Dr Ward Platt, however, argues that there is actually no real evidence for this belief. Rather there is strong evidence to support the opposite view.

"This raises serious questions for those who would argue that we should treat babies in the womb any differently from babies of the same age in a neonatal unit. It is also relevant to the abortion debate.

"It does look very much as though the RCOG, rather than taking a dispassionate view of the scientific evidence, has indeed cherry-picked 'experts' guaranteed to deliver politically convenient conclusions.

"I wonder how they will respond. I expect that all we may hear is a deafening silence."

One of the bloggers on Saunders' site wrote: "It wasn't so many years ago that 'experts' informed mothers that their newborn babies couldn't see them, and that newborn baby boys couldn't feel pain when they were circumcised."

Now mothers are told that the moments after birth are very important for the bonding between mother and baby, that the baby focuses its eyes on the mother's face and that is the first image imprinted on the baby's brain.

Analgesia is now also routinely offered to babies during circumcision. Fashions change, but the intransigence of the medical organisations which profit from induced abortions appears to go on forever.

Babette Francis, B.Sc. (Hons), is national coordinator of Endeavour Forum Inc.



"Fetal awareness - review of research and recommendations for practice", Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (London), June 2010.

Martin Ward Platt, "Fetal awareness and fetal pain: the Emperor's new clothes", Archives of Disease in Childhood (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and BMJ Group): ADC Fetal Neonatal edition, Vol. 96, February 3, 2011.

Peter Saunders, "Senior neonatologist brands official RCOG report on fetal awareness as 'Emperor's new clothes' in leading journal editorial", Peter Saunders' Blog, February 5, 2011.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am