Because anesthesia is a lot of guesswork based on body size and suspected tolerances. The difficulty goes up exponentially with a tiny child. More often than not, the child will die. By removing that option, the parents go from probably not losing their child to taking their child home today.
If thats the case i think they need to wait a few years till they can numb the person. I mean looking at history its barbaric since in old days the quikest surgen cut off a limb in the shortest amount of time. Is it so hard to wait?
Is it normal that I am against child mutilation?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Because anesthesia is a lot of guesswork based on body size and suspected tolerances. The difficulty goes up exponentially with a tiny child. More often than not, the child will die. By removing that option, the parents go from probably not losing their child to taking their child home today.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
If thats the case i think they need to wait a few years till they can numb the person. I mean looking at history its barbaric since in old days the quikest surgen cut off a limb in the shortest amount of time. Is it so hard to wait?