Anesthesia and the Catholic Church

[epepke]

With respect to Randi's quote of Mark Twain, about three decades ago there was a television miniseries on the history of anesthesia and surgery that made this very point. Not only did the Catholic Church oppose anesthesia for pregnancy; they opposed it for every use.

This series appeared on PBS in the United States. It may have been originally a BBC series; we were importing a lot of BBC series at the time. I remember several scenes from it; a woman in 19th century Britain who wanted "the chloroform" before getting an ingrown toenail fixed and who died from it, a surgeon who had an assistant time his amputation surgery (he got consent by saying "Mr. So-and-so, will you have your leg off?" a lecture hall where people were ridiculing a proponent of nitrous oxide for analgesia, and a surgeon who, when an assistant offered a basin in which to wash his hands, took the basin and dropped it on the floor to show his disdain. I think they also employed actual physicians in some of the roles.

Does anybody else remember this miniseries? It was very good.

[ceo_esq]

I don't recall that particular miniseries. Here is an essay (http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/chloroform.htm), however, purporting to debunk the claim that the Catholic Church ever opposed anesthesia. I haven't checked any of the sources, but there are numerous citations including (most notably) to like-minded articles on the subject in the scholarly journals Annals of Science and Anaesthesia.

This brief history of anesthesia page (http://www.choosegha.com/aAnesthesia/History/History.htm) makes no mention of religious opposition to this medical practice. It does, however, point out that the first nursing specialist in the field was a Catholic nun at a Catholic hospital in the 1880s.

Nothing about the entry entitled "Anaesthesia" in the circa-1900 Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01447b.htm) suggests that there was ever a theological dispute regarding the practice.

I suspect that the whole affair might be another anti-religious myth originating in Andrew Dickson White's justly derided 1896 hatchet job A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.

[Dr. Imago]

As a budding anesthesiologist, thanks for sharing that information ceo_esq.

As an interesting juxtaposition, though, it's worth mentioning Mother Theresa. In a recent episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullsh*t!" on Showtime, they talked about Mother Theresa's mission to "know Christ through suffering" and how her mission was glorified and perhaps fundamentally misunderstood by the superficially glancing masses. Watching this particularly program (recognizing the iconoclastic perspective that the series generally takes), I can't help but think that there may be some validity to the "martyr" complex that some patients will endure, whether they be directly attributable to Catholicism or not.

My personal experience thus far tells me that most people want anesthesia, and that there doesn't appear to be a consistent pattern (at least in my empirical estimation) of denying it based on religious faith. However, having done part of my training in a Catholic hospital, I can tell you that the topic of abortion and birth control was completely verboten. I find this to be a fundamental conflict of interest, especially because this (and other such hospitals) receive a large portion of their funding from secular programs such as medicare/medicaid. As well, they claim that they don't discriminate in their admissions policy based on gender, religious practices, etc.

Separate issue, I know, but it's still a bit amazing to me that in this day and age that the policy of a supposedly "private" hospital that receives federal funding can get away with such a policy.

-TT

[Nate Whilk]

I remember the progam the OP describes. But my memory is inconsistent. I do remember a series. But another part of my memory says it might have been just a single program, one of the earliest NOVAs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/01.html

Strange Sleep

Medicine was transformed in the 19th century by the discovery of anesthesia; surgery, until then hasty, bloody and completely unable to deal with internal disorders, subsequently took its place in the front rank of medical practice. This NOVA docudrama depicts the pioneers of medicine.

Original broadcast date: 04/07/74
Topic: medicine/health care & surgery

[Beady]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
My personal experience thus far tells me that most people want anesthesia...

Personally, I want to be put out at every opportunity. I freely admit to being the world's biggest coward.

I must say, though, that in restrospect it can be a little frightening. I've had general anesthesia twice, as an adult. The first time was as a gas for a tooth extraction (via a cup over the nose). I remember just starting to think "Here I go," and the next thing I'm waking up. The second time was for stomach surgery, and I'm not sure how it was administered. That time, however, there wasn't even the slightest hint that I was losing consciousness; the doctor said to count backward from 10 to 1, and then I was coming to in the recovery room.

Neither time were there dreams. Usually, when I sleep, there are dreams and at least the slightest knowledge of time passing. Under anesthesia, though, there's nothing. The alien abductionists talk about "Missing Time," in which the abductees vaguely remember entire lives under alien control. The time in between going under and coming out, however, simply does not exist.

And that's what's frightening, when you stop to think about it. I think that's what it must be to die. All thought just simply stops. The machine is turned off, and it truly would not matter in the slightest if it were never turned back on. If going under anesthesia truly is like dying, then dying isn't the poetical "going to sleep," it's the stopping of all thought. There's no out-of-body experience, no floating, no visions. There's nothing.

[Pidge]

I've had GA twice as well - once for wisdom teeth extraction, once so an orthopaedic surgeon could bolt my R. heel and screw my L ankle back together after an 8m fall*,**

Same experince as beady - I went out like a light, then woke up in recovery. I have utterly no recollection of anything happening between those two points, including pain. Lots of pain after I woke up, though :hit:

Back on topic, as a lapsed Catholic, I've never heard anything about refusing Anesthesia at any point in my 4 years as a Catholic (previously an Anglican). Plenty on abstinance and abortion. Nadda on any other medical procedures.


* just enough time to think "oh f**k, this is going to hurt", btw

** indoor sports climbing, failed utterly the check whether or not I had actually clipped into the belay system, went to rely on it to have rest... and I wasn't clipped in properly. The kind of mistake you only ever get to make once in a life. No divine intervention, just a small ledge and my belayer managing to catch my shoulders to stop my upper body hitting hard.

[Ririon]

THIS, however, is scary:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990226.html

Ririon

[BillyJoe]

Beady,

Originally posted by Beady
Under anesthesia, [t]he time in between going under and coming out....simply does not exist.For the anaesthetist, time certainly exists but, for you, time temporarily ceases to exist. But then neither do you exist while under anaesthetic. Think about that. Similarly, you do not exist after death. This time, however, the condition is permanent.

Originally posted by Beady
If going under anesthesia truly is like dying, then dying isn't the poetical "going to sleep," it's the stopping of all thought. Yes, anaesthesia is the temporary stopping of all thought. And death is the permanent stopping of all thought. The difference that frightens you is that, with death, it is permanent. However, the alternative is to have never been born at all. Is that a frightening thought for you as well? I guess not. You can't miss what you've never had. So, the problem seems to be to exist and then not to exist. This, to you, is frightening.
On the positive side we can all celebrate that we are all existing for at least some time. Let's drink to that.

regards,
BillyJoe

[epepke]

Originally posted by Nate Whilk
I remember the progam the OP describes. But my memory is inconsistent. I do remember a series. But another part of my memory says it might have been just a single program, one of the earliest NOVAs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/01.html

Strange Sleep

Medicine was transformed in the 19th century by the discovery of anesthesia; surgery, until then hasty, bloody and completely unable to deal with internal disorders, subsequently took its place in the front rank of medical practice. This NOVA docudrama depicts the pioneers of medicine.

Original broadcast date: 04/07/74
Topic: medicine/health care & surgery

Thank you! That's probably it.

[ceo_esq]

This commentary item is no longer current, but having just come across some relevant information in the course of researching another topic, I thought I'd share it.

British science historian Colin A. Russell, in "The Conflict of Science and Religion" (published in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia), refers to "the alleged opposition to James Young Simpson (1811-70) for his introduction of chloroform anesthesia in midwifery":Despite repeated claims of clerical harassment, the evidence is almost nonexistent. Insofar as there was any conflict, it was between the London and Edinburgh medical establishments or between obstetricians and surgeons. The origins of that myth may be located in an inadequately documented footnote in White (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WhiHist.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=13&division=div2)[.]

[Brown]

Read Michael Crichton's "Travels." Sure, there's a heavy load of BS in it, but I do recommend the chapters on medical school (early in the book), which are comparatively BS-free.

Crichton went to Harvard Medical School, and worked in Boston hospitals in the 1960s. He reported that Catholic hospitals administered anesthetic to married mothers, but denied it to unwed mothers, apparently judging that unwed mothers deserve to suffer.

[Moose]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Yes, anaesthesia is the temporary stopping of all thought.

It's an interesting line of thought, but I believe this to be incorrect. Anecdote time.

Five years ago, I had a series of three abdominal surgeries. For all three surgeries, my memory of the events remain rather vivid, and the memories are quite similar in terms of the sequence of events.

They'd finished attaching the epidural, and were setting up the IVs. The anasthesiologist told me that he was administering a relaxant, so I was likely to feel just a little funny. A few seconds later, while I was still sitting up without back support, my mental logfile ends. Very abruptly. I felt no sense of fading whatsoever.

Later, my mental logfile restarted, just as abruptly, while I was in the recovery room (although I do recall feeling both awake, fuzzy, and in significant pain until they nudged up my morphine a bit to take the edge off.)

Okay, so why am I quite certain you're at least somewhat incorrect? Simply this:

Shortly after regaining my memory after the first surgery, I'd realized that the fingers of my right hand were tingling, a lot, as if my circulation had been cut off. Except my circulation felt fine (I couldn't feel the burning sensation as the blood rushed back through). What I was feeling was different. I mentionned it to the duty nurse, who summonned my anathesiologist.

The anathesiologist vetted my hand with a simple single-blinded test (and seemed random enough to me, though it probably wasn't entirely), and involved me discriminating between a poke on a fingertip either with a single prong, or both prongs of his little poking thingy.

I was required to respond vocally to report what I'd felt, either one or two prongs. I was quite unsuccessful, BTW, the tingling was drowning out the pokes. I could feel I was being poked, just not how.

Then the anathesiologist commented that I had neither reported the tingling, nor had any trouble discriminating his fingerpokes when he'd tested me in the operating room.

This, of course, surprised me, but when I inquired, he told me that, oh yes, I'd been awoken and was quite responsive (and even dropped a few quips) while in the operating room, and only a few minutes after they'd finished closing me. (It makes sense, you want to make sure the patient is functional and not in immediate danger before tying up the OR team with another patient.)

I have no recollection whatsoever from the moment my memory stopped while sitting up until I awoke in the recovery room, and yet, it would appear that I was concious enough to respond to instructions and describe sensations, for quite some time.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Moose
It's an interesting line of thought, but I believe this to be incorrect. Anecdote time.


Moose, you do realize, don't you, that according to some people in the Skeptics Can't be Religious thread, this little tale is worthless as evidence? ;)

[Moose]

Originally posted by Beady

Moose, you do realize, don't you, that according to some people in the Skeptics Can't be Religious thread, this little tale is worthless as evidence? ;)


Yup. :)

I've replied to this in detail in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871027691#post1871027691), where it's directly pertinent.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Moose
Then the anathesiologist commented that I had neither reported the tingling, nor had any trouble discriminating his fingerpokes when he'd tested me in the operating room.

This, of course, surprised me, but when I inquired, he told me that, oh yes, I'd been awoken and was quite responsive (and even dropped a few quips) while in the operating room, and only a few minutes after they'd finished closing me. (It makes sense, you want to make sure the patient is functional and not in immediate danger before tying up the OR team with another patient.)

I have no recollection whatsoever from the moment my memory stopped while sitting up until I awoke in the recovery room, and yet, it would appear that I was concious enough to respond to instructions and describe sensations, for quite some time.

Almost exactly the same thing happened to me!

19 years ago I went for surgery, and also completely blacked out under anaesthetic and have no recollection of anything between the anaesthetic and waking up. But when I came to, I found myself under intense scrutiny by hordes of whispering nurses and doctors and got very worried that they'd cut off something they shouldn't have! :) Anyway, after confirming to my own satisfaction that I wasn't missing any (obvious) major appendages I asked one of the doctors what everyone was whispering about and why I was the object of so much interest. He told me that during the entire surgery I'd apparently been fully conscious and I'd been engaged in a deep logical argument with the anaesthetist! I told him I had no recollection of it at all, and pointed out that I could hardly have been rational. He replied that the concensus in the OR had generally been that my argument had been more rational than the anaesthetist's! :D It apparently caused such a stir that they'd called several doctors into the OR to witness it during the procedure. I'd allegedly reported at that time that I was comfortable and in no pain and so they'd gone ahead, but had asked me all kinds of questions to test just how conscious I really was. They concluded I was completely conscious and rational the whole time.

The anaesthetist later came to see me and told me how much he'd enjoyed our discussion. I asked him if this sort of thing was common. He told me that it was extremely rare, and that he had never experienced it before, but he had heard accounts of a couple of similar incidents from other anaesthetists and surgeons. He had no idea why or how it happened. Incidentally, today, he is one of my best friends!

It's really odd - but I genuinely have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of any of it - I most certainly wouldn't have classed myself as being "conscious" - but apparently that didn't stop me thinking (or arguing! :D). Go figure!

[Moose]

Okay, now that's a cool story. I'll just bet you wish you'd been there, eh? ;) Did your new friend eventually recap the debate for you?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Moose
Okay, now that's a cool story. I'll just bet you wish you'd been there, eh? ;) Did your new friend eventually recap the debate for you?

That's exactly how I feel! :D

Yeah, he told me that he had suggested a formal debate to test whether I really was rational and that he'd been arguing in favour of social anarchy and that I had taken a devil's advocate position of arguing in favour of oligarchicly controlled quasi communism! Which is even more bizarre! :D

[BillyJoe]

Moose,

Originally posted by Moose
Shortly after regaining my memory after the first surgery, I'd realized that the fingers of my right hand were tingling, a lot, as if my circulation had been cut off. Except my circulation felt fine (I couldn't feel the burning sensation as the blood rushed back through). The circulation felt fine because it was fine. It was the nerve supply to your hand that had been interrupted, not the circulation. Cutting off the circulation would cause pain and your hand would be both cold and pale. Cutting off the nerve supply causes tingling or numbness.

Originally posted by Moose
I have no recollection whatsoever from the moment my memory stopped while sitting up until I awoke in the recovery room, and yet, it would appear that I was concious enough to respond to instructions and describe sensations, for quite some time. Well, okay, I was talking about effective anaesthesia. Apparently yours was not. Anyway, I am a bit confused as to why so are so amazed by what happened to you. Haven't you ever heard of retrograde amnesia after a head injury where you lose memory that you had before your head injury; or antrograde amnesia where you lose memory you had after the head injury. Subsequently you can regain both. Seems similar to you anaesthetic experience....

Originally posted by Moose
They'd finished attaching the epidural, and were setting up the IVs. The anasthesiologist told me that he was administering a relaxant, so I was likely to feel just a little funny. A few seconds later, while I was still sitting up without back support, my mental logfile ends. Very abruptly. I felt no sense of fading whatsoever.....Later, my mental logfile restarted, just as abruptly, while I was in the recovery room. Sounds like you had an epidural anaesthetic to anaesthetize your peripheral nerves - so that you would feel no pain - and a "relaxant", probably medazolam, which was continuously infused to anaesthetize your brain - so that you wouldn't remember anything. However, it seems the infusion was not smooth in your case. The concentration of the drug in your brain decreased and, as a result, you "woke up" during your surgery (the epidural did not wear off so you still felt no pain). The memory of that awakening was then lost (retrograde amnesia) when the concentration of the drug was subsequently increased by the anaesthetist by increasing the infusion rate of the drug.

So I think my point about anaesthesia stopping all thought still stands. :)
It just needs to be effective anaesthesia. ;)

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Beady,

Originally posted by Beady
Moose, you do realize, don't you, that according to some people in the Skeptics Can't be Religious thread, this little tale is worthless as evidence? ;) It is worthless!

You, I assume, have no personal knowledge of Moose or what happened to him on that occasion, so you don't know whether he is telling the truth, telling lies, mis-remembering or was merely confused by what happened to him. His story is useless as evidence for anything. It is, however an interesting story.

It is even useless for Moose.

Unless he really understands what went on on that occasion, and unless he really remembers correctly what happened, he has nothing in the way of evidence in support of his point that anaesthesia does not "stop all thought". It could merely be an interesting example of incomplete anaesthesia.

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Moose,

Originally posted by Moose
Okay, now that's a cool story. I'll just bet you wish you'd been there, eh? ;) Well, of course he was, and then he wasn't, and then he was again and couldn't remember that he had been there before. What's so difficult about that?

BillyJoe

[Moose]

Hey BillyJoe, your RL name wouldn't happen to be Michael Flatley, would it? 'Cause that seems to me to be a rather prodigious amount of dancing around for three posts. Enough to leave me somewhat confused and dizzy, anyway.

"Nerve supply"?

Just sayin'.

[BillyJoe]

Moose,

Originally posted by Moose
Hey BillyJoe, your RL name wouldn't happen to be Michael Flatley, would it? 'Cause that seems to me to be a rather prodigious amount of dancing around for three posts. Well, some folks are happy to just sit in their chairs it seems. :D

Originally posted by Moose
Enough to leave me somewhat confused and dizzy, anyway.Aw, come on, try just one little dance won't you? :(

BillyJoe

[Moose]

Well, BillyJoe, ignoring the impression that you're blatantly trolling me, and also ignoring the fact that even peer-reviewed journal articles are at their core (methodical) anecdotes, and while both my and Pragmatist's stories have weak evidentiary value, even with their limitations they trump your woo-like claims outright.

You see, your post makes claims (and overbroad ones) without any sort of evidentiary support whatsoever. None at all. Merely wild speculation.

And even casual anecdotes, when used as counterexamples, trump wild unsupported claims.

In any case, doctors have a technical term for "complete anaesthesia" and "stopping all thought processes". You know what it is? Euthanasia. Laypeople know it as the more-to-the-point: Dead.

Thanks, but I much prefer the "incomplete anaesthesia" technique practiced by real doctors. No pain, no discomfort, no trauma, and yet my autonomic functions (breathing, heartrate, etc) persist.

(Doesn't tapdance, but isn't adverse to the odd waltz now and again.)

[BillyJoe]

Moose,

Sounds like a three feet shuffle to me! :D

Not sure where you read complete anaesthesia in my post, but if I ever require major surgery, I hope I receive effective (yeah, go back and read it again! :D ) anaesthesia.

And while you are at it you might like to ponder what sort of a thought requires no consciousness. :nope:

regards,
BJ

[Beady]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Not sure where you read complete anaesthesia in my post, but if I ever require major surgery, I hope I receive effective (yeah, go back and read it again! :D ) anaesthesia.

You did, however say that Moose had received "incomplete" anesthesia. If you meant "ineffective," why didn't you say "ineffective."?

[BillyJoe]

Beady,

Fair enough. That was in my follow up post. In the original post, I used the phrase "effective anaesthesia". Got sloppy in the follow up. Still, he did select the quote he needed and (so as to) ignore my actual point.

BJ

[Moose]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Fair enough. That was in my follow up post. In the original post, I used the phrase "effective anaesthesia". Got sloppy in the follow up. Still, he did select the quote he needed and (so as to) ignore my actual point.

Sorry I didn't reply before now, the net's been down in my end of the country for the last 24 hours or so.

*snort* So I'm supposed to respond to what you meant and not what you said? Are we supposed to be psychic, BillyJoe?

I think you'll find the onus is on you to write what you mean.

In any case, you have yet to make any effort whatsoever to provide evidence to support your claim, and you've completely ignored my rebuttle except to point out the one sentence where I was supposedly selective about demolishing your argument.

How about backing up your claims, even a little, for a switch? Hmm?

Until you actually write something worth responding to, I think I'm going to sit out the rest of this thread.

[Moose]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
And while you are at it you might like to ponder what sort of a thought requires no consciousness. :nope:

Ten second task if you're into Biology at all.

Ah, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic). Is there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex) anything you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams) don't know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_right)?

[BillyJoe]

Moose, <=this means this post is for you to comment on

Originally posted by Moose
*snort* So I'm supposed to respond to what you meant and not what you said? Are we supposed to be psychic, BillyJoe? No. Just read the post in which I reply to YOU. That would be much easier. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Moose
I think you'll find the onus is on you to write what you mean. My posts to you always commence with "Moose" right at the top. It can't be too hard.

Originally posted by Moose
In any case, you have yet to make any effort whatsoever to provide evidence to support your claim..... It might surprise you but I have not made any claims. I am providing insight. Do you know what that is? Oh well. :(

Originally posted by Moose
.....and you've completely ignored my rebuttle except to point out the one sentence where I was supposedly selective about demolishing your argument.Actually you ignored completely my post to YOU (has "Moose" at the very top ;) ), and commented on my post to Beady. I have admitted my mistake in that post. I take it it is not a mistake to acknowledge a mistake??

Originally posted by Moose
How about backing up your claims, even a little, for a switch? Hmm? What claims?

Originally posted by Moose
Until you actually write something worth responding to, I think I'm going to sit out the rest of this thread. Well, to continue without further input from you, would mean that you would win (by picking up those valuable insights from me ;) ) and I would lose (no laughs reading your posts :D ). So I will await your further response......

thanks,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Moose,

Originally posted by Moose
Ten second task if you're into Biology at all.

Ah, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic). Is there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex) anything you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams) don't know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_right)? ah....no! :D

Good ten second read!!!
Actually, it did take me ten seconds to skim through and there's nothing new there that I can see. But try me ;) .

I didn't, however, see anything relevant to this thread.
Good revision though. :)

BJ

[Moose]

Well, I gave you as much benefit of my doubt as I can muster, BillyJoe, but I can see you have no intention of participating in this thread with any semblance of good faith.

At least pillory is funny.

[BillyJoe]

Moose,

All I can say is that it's pretty hard to respond to something when it is not at all clear what I'm supposed to be responding to.

Back a bit, I responded paragraph by paragraph to one of your posts, which was in response to one of mine, and then you later accuse me of not responding to most of your points. Then, instead of responding to my post, where I responded at length to one of yours, and where I clearly used the term "effective anaesthesia" at least twice, you ignore the whole post and comment on a short follow up post I made in response to a post by Beady, where I inadvertantly used the term "incomplete anaesthesia" (and where, by the way, the term sort of made sense in the context of the post I was replying to).

So, I have yet to see any semblance of good faith on your part?

Sure I was a bit off-hand with my last couple of posts, but I really was just trying to offer some insight earlier on. The tingling in your arm was, to put it more technically, an interruption in the functioning of the nerves that carry sensory input from sensors in the skin of your arm to your brain. I thought a good short-hand way of writing this was to simply say "interruption of the nerve supply" to contrast with your "interruption of blood supply". I think you might remember your sarcastic remark. I'm sorry my short-hand didn't meet with your approval!
You were under the impression in that post that the tingling was an interruption of the blood supply, yet you never came back with a reply as to why you thought so and why I might have been wrong. All there was from you was that sarcastic remark!

And that was your first post in reply to mine in this thread!

In view of that, I fail to see what you are complaining about, when I start to treat you the same way after a couple of tries at, well, offering a bit of insight or, if you prefer, an alternative view.

nevermind though,
BJ