BIRTH DATA
Date, time, and place of birth
It makes no difference what sort of astrologer you see anywhere in the world nor does it make any difference what sort of astrology they are doing. Before a natal chart is calculated, you will be asked for your birth data:
Date of birth, Place of birth, Exact time of birth
Count on it. And don't even think of calling an astrologer unless you have these three pieces of information.
So, given the enormous diversity of astrology today, why is it that every astrologer asks for this same data? What's the big deal?
There are two reasons. The first reason deals with mathematical accuracy, and astrologers, for very good reason, get very preoccupied with accurate math. Exact birth data enables the astrologer to accurately calculate the natal chart, which is the diagram of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the exact time of birth as seen from the place where you were born. It does have to be exact.
Most people know their date and place of birth. Knowledge of the exact time of day varies. Some jurisdictions in the world put it on the birth certificate (thank you, thank you), and other jurisdictions do not (boo, hiss).
Some kinds of astrology require a birth time accurate to the minute to do the interpretation (all astrologers are grateful for this sort of precision). Other astrological techniques have a little more flexibility, and a few minutes one way or the other is okay. Yes, I have seen natal charts where a difference in time of birth of five minutes one way or the other is very significant.
This brings us to the second reason an accurate time of birth is important, the real reason actually. The traditional metaphysical teaching is that the soul makes its final descent into the newly-born baby's body at the time of the baby's first breath. Usually this first breath is just a few seconds or a minute or two after physical birth, which is why a recorded time of birth is usually accurate enough.
But if you know an expectant mother-to-be, get someone in the delivery room to note the time of the baby's first breath. Exact to the second can give an astrologer some spectacular options to work with in chart analysis, but exact to the minute is just fine.
This then leads to the question of why is the final descent of the soul into the baby such an all-fired important time to note? Ah, now we're into the cosmic stuff. Those sensitive to higher vibrations (empaths and clairvoyants) will tell you that the soul of the child-to-be hangs around the mother very closely during the last weeks and sometimes months of pregnancy. All well and good.
While the preparation work of the soul for the new incarnation may be complete, the soul still cannot pass from the "other side" (the metaphysical plane) into the physical plane until the time is "correct". What astrologers have known for thousands of years is that the "correct" time for the pass-through to the material plane is determined ahead of time by the soul, and that "correct" time is the time of the baby's first breath.
The alignment of the planets forms an energy grid, which when the baby takes its first breath, is the exact moment for the soul to "slide through" to the material plane from the metaphysical plane. Think of the complex mathematical grid of planetary placements as tumblers in a lock, always changing as the planets rotate. The only souls which can return are those who match that grid, like a key in a lock, at a particular moment. The soul's own inner patterns "unlocks" the door to return to the material plane when the planetary placements are just right.
By knowing the time of the baby's first breath, we can calculate the baby's "key" and know exactly what metaphysical evolution and lessons the child brings to its latest human incarnation based on the placement of the tumblers on the lock, the planetary positions. That's what chart interpretation is all about.
The metaphysical impact of that first breath is so dramatic that it remains with the child for the rest of its incarnation. This is why we can read a natal chart 30 or more years later and still learn interesting things about the adult.
This is why astrologers make such a big deal about an accurate time of birth: because it IS a big deal.
WHEN NO TIME OF BIRTH IS AVAILABLE
But what do astrologers do when no time of birth is available? This is more common that you might think. It's only been in the last hundred years or so that accurate time-keeping devices have been common enough in the West that time of birth is generally available to most Westerners.
Prior to the 20th Century the vast majority of humanity didn't have any idea of time of day much less time of birth. Accurate time was the exclusive preserve of the educated and wealthy elites. The masses grubbed along as best they could.
The was one of the reasons church bells were invented, to let the townspeople know what time it was. The drawback was that it required the peasants know how to count the number of times the bell rang to know the hour. Thus, the result was that it didn't work often given the abject ignorance and illiteracy of the Middle Ages.
Yet even in our time-obsessed modern world, there are adopted children, remote villages, and cultures still with a "no-time" attitude which result in no time of birth being available.
For instance, I once had a client who was adopted and who was told by the hospital where she was born in a large Canadian city that her time of birth was confidential to her mother's birth records and could not be released to the adopted child, my client, because it might identify the birth mother. This was 30-odd years after the birth. Go figure.
Thus, time of birth for many people simply isn't there in today's world. In these cases, all we have is a date of birth and a place of birth.
Well, for hundreds and hundreds of years before the invention of the digital wrist watch, date and place of birth was all astrologers had for the vast majority of humanity. What evolved was an attitude of "we'll do the best we can", and thus the Solar chart evolved into use.
Without getting too technical, the Solar chart contains at best only half the information a full natal chart contains. Because we do not have a time of birth, we cannot calculate the ascendent or any of the house cusps. In many respects, the chart looks like a hockey player's front teeth: lots of gaps. But it's better than nothing. And in some cases, it is exceedingly helpful, as limited as it is.
A case study in comparing a Solar chart and a natal chart is contained in this website. We have full birth data for Mrs. Takata, who brought Reiki to the Western world in the late 1930s. Download a free analysis of her natal chart, and you will find it's about twice as long as the free analysis you can download of the chart of Dr. Usui, Reiki's founder, for whom we only have date and place of birth.
By being limited to a Solar chart are we missing important things about Dr. Usui? Of course. But the information we have is accurate as far as it goes, and it certainly tells much about the man that neither the legends, the myths, nor his tombstone tell us. As such it gives us a start in understanding the personality of an important historical figure in Reiki who otherwise might remain a total mystery. That's the whole point of a Solar chart.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Birth Has Become More Painful For Babies
Ironically, in the hands of 20th-century physicians, birth itself has become more painful for babies. Generally, doctors have not been concerned about babies' pain. They have been more concerned about fetal distress (heart rate fluctuations signaling distress) than about neonatal distress.
1. The pain of hospital birth. In the last half century, hospital birth has become the standard birth for the majority of Americans. From a baby's point of view, it is a new type of childbirth characterized by a series of painful routines surely not designed with sentient babies in mind. Sources of pain include: scalp wounds for electronic monitoring and blood samples during labor, forceps extraction (made more frequent now by epidural anesthetics), extreme spacial disorientations, being held upside down by the heels, frigid scales and utensils in a room 20 degrees lower than the womb, bright lights, noise, heel lancing, vitamin injections, astringent eye medications, irritating wiping and washing, sudden separation from their mothers, and banishment to a nursery of crying babies, all of it distinctly painful and upsetting and a flagrant violation of the baby's senses. Obstetricians defend all these practices, calling them necessary and "the best of care."
2. Pain in the womb. Even prior to birth, conditions exist which can provoke crying. When air is available to the fetal larynx, it is possible to hear a cry. "Squalling in the womb" (known as vagitus uterinus) is a dramatic signal of fetal pain, rare but well documented over many years.44,45,46 Virtually all modern cases of fetal crying are subsequent to obstetrical manipulation: tests, versions, deliberate rupture of the amniotic sac, and attachment of scalp electrodes or taking scalp blood while the baby is still in the birth canal. The fact that 20% of these squalling babies die is testimony to the meaning and the urgency of their cries.47
3. Pain of Neonatal Intensive Care. Premature and dangerously ill newborns face pain and peril trying to complete gestation in a neonatal intensive care unit.43,49,50,51 For a comprehensive review of the many stresses babies face in this man-made womb, see Gottfried and Gaiter, 1985.52
Pain is a way of life as babies are tied or immobilized while breathing tubes, suction tubes, and feeding tubes are pushed down their throats.53 Tubes, needles, and wires are constantly stuck into them; their delicate skin is easily burned with alcohol prior to venipuncture or accidentally pulled off when adhesive monitor pads are removed.54,55 The need for gentle and maternal interactions with the babies is only partly met.56,57,58 Psychological strategies and principles of care, urgently needed in this intense, technological environment, are slowly making an appearance.59,60,61
NICU graduates are not necessarily healthy. Mortality and morbidity are high. They suffer emotionally,62 cognitively,63 and in their neuromotor development.64 Life in a neonatal intensive care unit is a mixed blessing,65 and presents agonizing problems of public policy and medical ethics.66
4. Pain of Surgery Without Anesthesia. Hospitalized newborns, from preemies to babies up to 18 months of age, have been routinely operated upon without benefit of pain-killing anesthesia. This has been the practice for decades but was unknown to the general public until 1985 when some parents discovered that their seriously ill premature babies had suffered major surgery without benefit of anesthesia.67,68,69,70,71,72 Up to this time, babies were typically given a form of curare to paralyze their muscles for surgery, making it impossible for them to lift a finger or make a sound of protest!
Jill Lawson reported that her premature Baby, Jeffrey, had holes cut in both sides of his neck, another in his right chest, an incision from his breastbone around to his backbone, his ribs pried apart, and an extra artery near his heart tied off. Another hole was cut in his left side for a chest tube, all of this while he was awake but paralyzed! The anesthesiologist who presided said, "It has never been shown that premature babies have pain."73
Mrs. Lawson was describing the most common surgery done on premature babies, thoracotomy for litigation of the patent ductus arteriosus, which experts taught could be "safely accomplished with oxygen and pancuronium as the sole agents.74 After the parents told their story with the help of nation-wide television, radio, and print media, the ethics of these practices was seriously discussed for the first time.75,76,77,78,79 Resisting change, some doctors continued to argue that "following major operations, most babies sleep," and that "all we need to do is feed them..."80
Surveys taken of policies and practices of infant surgery in the United Kingdom and the United States revealed ambivalence about whether infants really needed anesthesia or would be endangered by it.81,82 Although some hospitals reported twenty years of successful use of anesthesia with infants,83 surveys of common practice revealed infrequent use of anesthesia, under-utilization of anesthesia, and the lack of policies on the subject.84,85
Key medical objections to infant anesthesia - that it was (a) unnecessary and (b) dangerous - were resolved by the brilliant research of Kanwal Anand and colleagues at Oxford from 1985 to 1987. Making precise measurements of infant reactions to surgery, they proved that the babies experienced pain, needed and tolerated anesthesia well, and had probably been dying of metabolic and endocrine shock following unanesthetized operations.86,87,88
When these findings arrived in the midst of the parent rebellion, official bodies of physicians began to acknowledge the need for change and promised to five neonates the same consideration in surgery as they gave to other patients,89 ending 140 years of discrimination. This was a milestone, but not a guarantee. We have no way to predict just how many doctors and hospitals actually follow these policies. Historically, announcement of new policy by a guild has not always affected the practice of individual members.90
1. The pain of hospital birth. In the last half century, hospital birth has become the standard birth for the majority of Americans. From a baby's point of view, it is a new type of childbirth characterized by a series of painful routines surely not designed with sentient babies in mind. Sources of pain include: scalp wounds for electronic monitoring and blood samples during labor, forceps extraction (made more frequent now by epidural anesthetics), extreme spacial disorientations, being held upside down by the heels, frigid scales and utensils in a room 20 degrees lower than the womb, bright lights, noise, heel lancing, vitamin injections, astringent eye medications, irritating wiping and washing, sudden separation from their mothers, and banishment to a nursery of crying babies, all of it distinctly painful and upsetting and a flagrant violation of the baby's senses. Obstetricians defend all these practices, calling them necessary and "the best of care."
2. Pain in the womb. Even prior to birth, conditions exist which can provoke crying. When air is available to the fetal larynx, it is possible to hear a cry. "Squalling in the womb" (known as vagitus uterinus) is a dramatic signal of fetal pain, rare but well documented over many years.44,45,46 Virtually all modern cases of fetal crying are subsequent to obstetrical manipulation: tests, versions, deliberate rupture of the amniotic sac, and attachment of scalp electrodes or taking scalp blood while the baby is still in the birth canal. The fact that 20% of these squalling babies die is testimony to the meaning and the urgency of their cries.47
3. Pain of Neonatal Intensive Care. Premature and dangerously ill newborns face pain and peril trying to complete gestation in a neonatal intensive care unit.43,49,50,51 For a comprehensive review of the many stresses babies face in this man-made womb, see Gottfried and Gaiter, 1985.52
Pain is a way of life as babies are tied or immobilized while breathing tubes, suction tubes, and feeding tubes are pushed down their throats.53 Tubes, needles, and wires are constantly stuck into them; their delicate skin is easily burned with alcohol prior to venipuncture or accidentally pulled off when adhesive monitor pads are removed.54,55 The need for gentle and maternal interactions with the babies is only partly met.56,57,58 Psychological strategies and principles of care, urgently needed in this intense, technological environment, are slowly making an appearance.59,60,61
NICU graduates are not necessarily healthy. Mortality and morbidity are high. They suffer emotionally,62 cognitively,63 and in their neuromotor development.64 Life in a neonatal intensive care unit is a mixed blessing,65 and presents agonizing problems of public policy and medical ethics.66
4. Pain of Surgery Without Anesthesia. Hospitalized newborns, from preemies to babies up to 18 months of age, have been routinely operated upon without benefit of pain-killing anesthesia. This has been the practice for decades but was unknown to the general public until 1985 when some parents discovered that their seriously ill premature babies had suffered major surgery without benefit of anesthesia.67,68,69,70,71,72 Up to this time, babies were typically given a form of curare to paralyze their muscles for surgery, making it impossible for them to lift a finger or make a sound of protest!
Jill Lawson reported that her premature Baby, Jeffrey, had holes cut in both sides of his neck, another in his right chest, an incision from his breastbone around to his backbone, his ribs pried apart, and an extra artery near his heart tied off. Another hole was cut in his left side for a chest tube, all of this while he was awake but paralyzed! The anesthesiologist who presided said, "It has never been shown that premature babies have pain."73
Mrs. Lawson was describing the most common surgery done on premature babies, thoracotomy for litigation of the patent ductus arteriosus, which experts taught could be "safely accomplished with oxygen and pancuronium as the sole agents.74 After the parents told their story with the help of nation-wide television, radio, and print media, the ethics of these practices was seriously discussed for the first time.75,76,77,78,79 Resisting change, some doctors continued to argue that "following major operations, most babies sleep," and that "all we need to do is feed them..."80
Surveys taken of policies and practices of infant surgery in the United Kingdom and the United States revealed ambivalence about whether infants really needed anesthesia or would be endangered by it.81,82 Although some hospitals reported twenty years of successful use of anesthesia with infants,83 surveys of common practice revealed infrequent use of anesthesia, under-utilization of anesthesia, and the lack of policies on the subject.84,85
Key medical objections to infant anesthesia - that it was (a) unnecessary and (b) dangerous - were resolved by the brilliant research of Kanwal Anand and colleagues at Oxford from 1985 to 1987. Making precise measurements of infant reactions to surgery, they proved that the babies experienced pain, needed and tolerated anesthesia well, and had probably been dying of metabolic and endocrine shock following unanesthetized operations.86,87,88
When these findings arrived in the midst of the parent rebellion, official bodies of physicians began to acknowledge the need for change and promised to five neonates the same consideration in surgery as they gave to other patients,89 ending 140 years of discrimination. This was a milestone, but not a guarantee. We have no way to predict just how many doctors and hospitals actually follow these policies. Historically, announcement of new policy by a guild has not always affected the practice of individual members.90
BABIES DON'T FEEL PAIN
Abstract
During the 20th Century, when medicine rose to dominate childbirth in developed countries, it brought with it a denial of infant pain based on ancient prejudices and 'scientific' dogmas that can no longer be supported. The painful collision of babies with doctors continues today in neonatology, infant surgery with anesthetic, aggressive obstetrics and genital modification of newborn males. This presentation includes an historical review of empirical findings on infant pain, some the reasons for physicians' indifference, and speculations about the negative consequences of violence to infants.
Introduction
Babies have had a difficult time getting us to accept them as real people with real feelings having real experiences. Deep prejudices have shadowed them for centuries: babies were sub-human, prehuman, or as Luis de Granada, a 16th- century authority put it, "a lower animal in human form."
In the Age of Science, babies have not necessarily fared better. It may shock you to consider how many ways they have fared worse. In the last hundred years, scientific authorities robbed babies of their cries by calling them "random sound;" robbed them of their smiles by calling them "muscle spasms" or "gas;" robbed them of their memories by calling them "fantasies" and robbed them of their pain by calling it a "reflex."
In this paper, I reflect on the painful impact of medicine on infants over the last century. This is not an easy story to tell. It has been a century of discovery and denial, of promise and disillusionment, and the story still has a very uncertain ending.
In the 20th Century, infants have had a head-on collision with physicians, typically male physicians. Before this time, they always found themselves in the hands of women: mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and midwives. In the collision, infant senses, emotions, and cognitions were generally ignored. Over the years, doctors paid increasing attention to the pain of mothers but not to the pain of infants. Actually birth become more painful for infants. We must try to understand why.
Experiments with Infant Pain
Against a back of general (scientific) ignorance of infant behavior, experiments were undertaken as early as 1917 at Johns Hopkins University to observe newborn tears, smiles, reactions to having blood drawn, infections lanced, and to a series of pin-pricks on the wrist during sleep.1 In these experiments (the first of many), infants reacted defensively. When blood was taken from the big toe, the opposite foot would go up at once with a pushing motion against the other ankle. Lancing produced exaggerated crying, and pin-pricks during sleep roused half the babies to move the hand and forearm. Rough cleaning of the back and head to remove vernix provoked vigorous battling movements of the hands, frantic efforts to crawl away, and angry crying. Psychologist Mary Blanton concluded:
The reflex and instinctive equipment of the child at birth is more complex and advanced than has hitherto been thought.2
This line of investigation continued in a series of experiments 3,4,5 at Northwestern University and Chicago's Lying-In Hospital in which newborns were stuck with needles on the cheeks, thighs, and calves. Virtually all infants reacted during the first hours and first day after birth, but the trend, the researchers noted, was toward more reaction to less stimulation from day one through day twelve. As a physiologic finding, this suggested that, at birth, newborns were not very sensitive, but became so gradually. However, they failed to tell us (and apparently overlooked the possible consequences) that all the mothers had received anesthetic drugs during labor and delivery! For the missing information, we are indebted to psychologist Daphne Maurer.6
The Shermans discovered infants would cry in reaction to hunger, to being dropped two to three feet (and caught), to having their heads restrained with firm pressure, or to someone pressing on their chins for 30 seconds.7,8 Babies tried to escape and made defensive movements of the arms and legs, including striking at the object to push it away. Today, we would see these behaviors as "self-management," an example of "kinesthetic intelligence," but in those days, experts were arguing about whether the head or tail end of a human baby was more sensitive9
Subsequent studies to learn how well infants could feel were directed at the big toe,10 calf,11 head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. Especially influential was an ambitious study at Myrtle McGraw12 at Columbia University and The Babies' Hospital, New York, using pin pricks to reveal the progressive maturation of nerves. Seventy-five infants were stimulated with a blunt sterile safety pin at intervals from birth to four years, and their responses duly recorded (half were recorded on motion picture film). Ten pricks in each area ensured that reactions were sufficiently "intense." (We are not told if the mothers had received anesthetics.)
McGraw reported that some infants a few hours or days old showed no response to pin prick. The usual response, she said, "consists of diffuse bodily movements accompanied by crying, and possibly a local reflex." In spite of the fact that these babies did react, did cry, and did try to withdraw their limbs, Dr. McGraw concluded there was only limited sensitivity to pain and labeled the first week to ten days a period of "hypesthesia" (abnormally weak sense of pain, heat, cold, or touch.) Her reference to "a local reflex" reflected the common medical view that reactions were mechanical and had not mental or emotional importance. In the discussion section of her paper, she reveals the belief behind the interpretations:
Even when there is sensitivity is it reasonable to assume that neural mediation does not extend above the level of the thalamus. 13
To physicians, McGraw's work seemed thoroughly scientific and justified the continuation of painful encounters between physicians and newborns. In retrospect, the conclusion that infants were somehow not yet sensitive to pain was a prejudiced interpretation, which fit comfortably into the traditional view expressed in medical journals reaching back into the 19th Century.14,15 In recent research, newborns and older babies pinched on the arm reacted instantly to the pain:16 No suggestion of "hypesthesia." There were more pin-prick experiments. In 1974, in ignorance of the experiments already performed Rich tested 124 full-term babies to determine the "normal response" to a succession of pin pricks around the knee. They concluded that: "The normal response is movement of the upper and lower limbs usually accompanied by grimace and/or cry."17
All infants demonstrated the "complete" response after six or fewer pin pricks.18
A different method for studying infant pain was to run water of different temperatures through cylinders attached to the baby's abdomen, leg, or forehead while filming their reactions as the water was made hotter or colder. This line of research began in Europe in 1873 and was taken up in America by Pratt, Nelson & Sun at Ohio State University19 and by Crudden at the University of Michigan Hospital in 1937.20 Babies reacted violently, especially to cold water. Crudden found that any deviation from normal body temperature produced immediate respiratory and circulation changes in all subjects: No sign of "hypesthesia" here either.
Do Babies Really Feel Pain?
Do babies feel pain? I certainly think they do, but, to find out, we should not have stuck them with pins. there are other objective indications of pain.
1. Crying. It seems perfectly obvious now, but for a long time, experts were informing the public that infants cries were only "random" sounds, not genuine communications. It took a quarter century of cry research to prove otherwise.21 Cries are not only meaningful signals, but often compelling ones. They increase in intensity with degrees of pain. Spectrographic studies that reduce sound to an elaborate visual portrait show just how varied and complex cry language is.22 Acoustic studies show that changes in pitch, temporal patterning, and harmonic structure also reflect the degree of pain and urgency. For example, in a thorough study of cries during circumcision, acoustic features precisely reflected the degree of invasiveness of the surgery.23
Parents present at circumcision (a rarity) have recalled how their babies cried. One father, present in the delivery room told me of his great surprise when the obstetrician proceeded to circumcise this boy at delivery. Having been quiet through the entire birth, the boy proceeded to protest loudly about the circumcision! A Jewish father, reflecting on this boy's circumcision on the eighth day, said it was the saddest occurrence of his babyhood: the boy cried more that afternoon, he said, than anytime in his whole first year.
2. Facial expressions. Second, the pain that babies feel is clearly expressed on their faces.24 Brows bulge, crease, and furrow. Eyes squeeze shut: bulging of the fatty pads about the eyes is pronounced. There is a nasolabial furrow that runs down and outwards from the corners of the lip. Lips purse, the mouth opens wide, the tongue is taut, and the chin quivers. This look on a human face of any age communicates pain. Why do we doubt that it means the same on the face of a baby?
3. Body movement. Body language in its larger motor dimensions is also a language that babies share with older humans. In response to pain, babies jerk, pull back, try to escape, swing their arms, use their hands to push away, and frantically scrape one leg against the other to dislodge an offending stimulus in that area. They strike out with their upper extremities and kick with the lower. Fitzgerald and Millard25 made close observations of babies receiving routine heel lancing, a deep wound made in the heel to obtain blood samples. Using calibrated hairs, they gently stroked the corresponding areas in the injured and non-injured heel. Even premature infants showed the same well-defined hypersensitivity to tissue injury that is found in adults.
4. Vital signs. Fourth, we can see how baby pain is revealed by changed in vital signs and blood chemistry. Pain causes increased respiration. Babies hold their breath and release it in piercing cries. Researchers have observed infant heart rates increase 50 beats per minute and peak above 180 beats per minute.26,27,28 In a study to compare behavioral states of the newborn to those of the fetus, Pillai and James29 discovered that the heart rate during newborn crying was unlike anything seen in prenatal life. This racing heartbeat was unstable, often reaching peaks in excess of 200 bpm, in spite of the fact that baseline heart rates after birth are generally 20-25 bpm lower than they are in utero. These extremely elevated heart rates signal a serious and urgent disturbance.
Serum cortisol is a measure of stress. In painful conditions, adrenals may release cortisol three to four times the baseline.30, 31,32,33 In one study, cortisol levels clearly differentiated between three different surgical techniques of circumcision.34
Under painful conditions, tissue and blood oxygen levels drop.35
5. Neurobehavioral assessments. Further consequences of infant pain can be seen in neurobehavioral assessments. Babies who have been subjected to pain may have difficulty quieting themselves. Following circumcision, the normal progression of sleep cycles is reversed with immediate and prolonged escape into Non-REM sleep.36 After circumcision, babies withdraw, change their social interactions with their mothers, and modify their motor behavior.37
Als, Lester, and Tonic38 developed an Assessment of Preterm Infants' Behavior, which includes a list of infant behaviors indicating stress and defense. Behaviors indicating pain include seizuring, tremoring, spitting up, trunk arching, finger splaying, fisting, squirming, inconsolability, and restlessness.
6. Memory. Finally, we know that newborns feel pain because they sometimes remember and speak of painful experiences as soon as they acquire sufficient language.39 At age two, my granddaughter, talking about her birth, asked her parents, "Why did they poke me with a thing?" Her mother asked, "What thing?" "Like a pencil," she said, "they hurted me." She was probably referring to heel lancing, done routinely in American hospitals at birth. Various studies have shown that lancing is always painful.40,41,41 Other such spontaneous memories of birth pain have surfaced, as I have shown by the collection of stories in chapter seven of my book, Babies Remember Birth.43
Adults also remember, although reports are rare. Three men have told me they have always remembered their circumcision in infancy. Another man, Keith, of Dallas, Texas, remembers that he was born with an open abdomen. He says he has always remembered that surgery and the emotions he felt at the time.
We may not like to think babies feel pain, but they do.
During the 20th Century, when medicine rose to dominate childbirth in developed countries, it brought with it a denial of infant pain based on ancient prejudices and 'scientific' dogmas that can no longer be supported. The painful collision of babies with doctors continues today in neonatology, infant surgery with anesthetic, aggressive obstetrics and genital modification of newborn males. This presentation includes an historical review of empirical findings on infant pain, some the reasons for physicians' indifference, and speculations about the negative consequences of violence to infants.
Introduction
Babies have had a difficult time getting us to accept them as real people with real feelings having real experiences. Deep prejudices have shadowed them for centuries: babies were sub-human, prehuman, or as Luis de Granada, a 16th- century authority put it, "a lower animal in human form."
In the Age of Science, babies have not necessarily fared better. It may shock you to consider how many ways they have fared worse. In the last hundred years, scientific authorities robbed babies of their cries by calling them "random sound;" robbed them of their smiles by calling them "muscle spasms" or "gas;" robbed them of their memories by calling them "fantasies" and robbed them of their pain by calling it a "reflex."
In this paper, I reflect on the painful impact of medicine on infants over the last century. This is not an easy story to tell. It has been a century of discovery and denial, of promise and disillusionment, and the story still has a very uncertain ending.
In the 20th Century, infants have had a head-on collision with physicians, typically male physicians. Before this time, they always found themselves in the hands of women: mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and midwives. In the collision, infant senses, emotions, and cognitions were generally ignored. Over the years, doctors paid increasing attention to the pain of mothers but not to the pain of infants. Actually birth become more painful for infants. We must try to understand why.
Experiments with Infant Pain
Against a back of general (scientific) ignorance of infant behavior, experiments were undertaken as early as 1917 at Johns Hopkins University to observe newborn tears, smiles, reactions to having blood drawn, infections lanced, and to a series of pin-pricks on the wrist during sleep.1 In these experiments (the first of many), infants reacted defensively. When blood was taken from the big toe, the opposite foot would go up at once with a pushing motion against the other ankle. Lancing produced exaggerated crying, and pin-pricks during sleep roused half the babies to move the hand and forearm. Rough cleaning of the back and head to remove vernix provoked vigorous battling movements of the hands, frantic efforts to crawl away, and angry crying. Psychologist Mary Blanton concluded:
The reflex and instinctive equipment of the child at birth is more complex and advanced than has hitherto been thought.2
This line of investigation continued in a series of experiments 3,4,5 at Northwestern University and Chicago's Lying-In Hospital in which newborns were stuck with needles on the cheeks, thighs, and calves. Virtually all infants reacted during the first hours and first day after birth, but the trend, the researchers noted, was toward more reaction to less stimulation from day one through day twelve. As a physiologic finding, this suggested that, at birth, newborns were not very sensitive, but became so gradually. However, they failed to tell us (and apparently overlooked the possible consequences) that all the mothers had received anesthetic drugs during labor and delivery! For the missing information, we are indebted to psychologist Daphne Maurer.6
The Shermans discovered infants would cry in reaction to hunger, to being dropped two to three feet (and caught), to having their heads restrained with firm pressure, or to someone pressing on their chins for 30 seconds.7,8 Babies tried to escape and made defensive movements of the arms and legs, including striking at the object to push it away. Today, we would see these behaviors as "self-management," an example of "kinesthetic intelligence," but in those days, experts were arguing about whether the head or tail end of a human baby was more sensitive9
Subsequent studies to learn how well infants could feel were directed at the big toe,10 calf,11 head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. Especially influential was an ambitious study at Myrtle McGraw12 at Columbia University and The Babies' Hospital, New York, using pin pricks to reveal the progressive maturation of nerves. Seventy-five infants were stimulated with a blunt sterile safety pin at intervals from birth to four years, and their responses duly recorded (half were recorded on motion picture film). Ten pricks in each area ensured that reactions were sufficiently "intense." (We are not told if the mothers had received anesthetics.)
McGraw reported that some infants a few hours or days old showed no response to pin prick. The usual response, she said, "consists of diffuse bodily movements accompanied by crying, and possibly a local reflex." In spite of the fact that these babies did react, did cry, and did try to withdraw their limbs, Dr. McGraw concluded there was only limited sensitivity to pain and labeled the first week to ten days a period of "hypesthesia" (abnormally weak sense of pain, heat, cold, or touch.) Her reference to "a local reflex" reflected the common medical view that reactions were mechanical and had not mental or emotional importance. In the discussion section of her paper, she reveals the belief behind the interpretations:
Even when there is sensitivity is it reasonable to assume that neural mediation does not extend above the level of the thalamus. 13
To physicians, McGraw's work seemed thoroughly scientific and justified the continuation of painful encounters between physicians and newborns. In retrospect, the conclusion that infants were somehow not yet sensitive to pain was a prejudiced interpretation, which fit comfortably into the traditional view expressed in medical journals reaching back into the 19th Century.14,15 In recent research, newborns and older babies pinched on the arm reacted instantly to the pain:16 No suggestion of "hypesthesia." There were more pin-prick experiments. In 1974, in ignorance of the experiments already performed Rich tested 124 full-term babies to determine the "normal response" to a succession of pin pricks around the knee. They concluded that: "The normal response is movement of the upper and lower limbs usually accompanied by grimace and/or cry."17
All infants demonstrated the "complete" response after six or fewer pin pricks.18
A different method for studying infant pain was to run water of different temperatures through cylinders attached to the baby's abdomen, leg, or forehead while filming their reactions as the water was made hotter or colder. This line of research began in Europe in 1873 and was taken up in America by Pratt, Nelson & Sun at Ohio State University19 and by Crudden at the University of Michigan Hospital in 1937.20 Babies reacted violently, especially to cold water. Crudden found that any deviation from normal body temperature produced immediate respiratory and circulation changes in all subjects: No sign of "hypesthesia" here either.
Do Babies Really Feel Pain?
Do babies feel pain? I certainly think they do, but, to find out, we should not have stuck them with pins. there are other objective indications of pain.
1. Crying. It seems perfectly obvious now, but for a long time, experts were informing the public that infants cries were only "random" sounds, not genuine communications. It took a quarter century of cry research to prove otherwise.21 Cries are not only meaningful signals, but often compelling ones. They increase in intensity with degrees of pain. Spectrographic studies that reduce sound to an elaborate visual portrait show just how varied and complex cry language is.22 Acoustic studies show that changes in pitch, temporal patterning, and harmonic structure also reflect the degree of pain and urgency. For example, in a thorough study of cries during circumcision, acoustic features precisely reflected the degree of invasiveness of the surgery.23
Parents present at circumcision (a rarity) have recalled how their babies cried. One father, present in the delivery room told me of his great surprise when the obstetrician proceeded to circumcise this boy at delivery. Having been quiet through the entire birth, the boy proceeded to protest loudly about the circumcision! A Jewish father, reflecting on this boy's circumcision on the eighth day, said it was the saddest occurrence of his babyhood: the boy cried more that afternoon, he said, than anytime in his whole first year.
2. Facial expressions. Second, the pain that babies feel is clearly expressed on their faces.24 Brows bulge, crease, and furrow. Eyes squeeze shut: bulging of the fatty pads about the eyes is pronounced. There is a nasolabial furrow that runs down and outwards from the corners of the lip. Lips purse, the mouth opens wide, the tongue is taut, and the chin quivers. This look on a human face of any age communicates pain. Why do we doubt that it means the same on the face of a baby?
3. Body movement. Body language in its larger motor dimensions is also a language that babies share with older humans. In response to pain, babies jerk, pull back, try to escape, swing their arms, use their hands to push away, and frantically scrape one leg against the other to dislodge an offending stimulus in that area. They strike out with their upper extremities and kick with the lower. Fitzgerald and Millard25 made close observations of babies receiving routine heel lancing, a deep wound made in the heel to obtain blood samples. Using calibrated hairs, they gently stroked the corresponding areas in the injured and non-injured heel. Even premature infants showed the same well-defined hypersensitivity to tissue injury that is found in adults.
4. Vital signs. Fourth, we can see how baby pain is revealed by changed in vital signs and blood chemistry. Pain causes increased respiration. Babies hold their breath and release it in piercing cries. Researchers have observed infant heart rates increase 50 beats per minute and peak above 180 beats per minute.26,27,28 In a study to compare behavioral states of the newborn to those of the fetus, Pillai and James29 discovered that the heart rate during newborn crying was unlike anything seen in prenatal life. This racing heartbeat was unstable, often reaching peaks in excess of 200 bpm, in spite of the fact that baseline heart rates after birth are generally 20-25 bpm lower than they are in utero. These extremely elevated heart rates signal a serious and urgent disturbance.
Serum cortisol is a measure of stress. In painful conditions, adrenals may release cortisol three to four times the baseline.30, 31,32,33 In one study, cortisol levels clearly differentiated between three different surgical techniques of circumcision.34
Under painful conditions, tissue and blood oxygen levels drop.35
5. Neurobehavioral assessments. Further consequences of infant pain can be seen in neurobehavioral assessments. Babies who have been subjected to pain may have difficulty quieting themselves. Following circumcision, the normal progression of sleep cycles is reversed with immediate and prolonged escape into Non-REM sleep.36 After circumcision, babies withdraw, change their social interactions with their mothers, and modify their motor behavior.37
Als, Lester, and Tonic38 developed an Assessment of Preterm Infants' Behavior, which includes a list of infant behaviors indicating stress and defense. Behaviors indicating pain include seizuring, tremoring, spitting up, trunk arching, finger splaying, fisting, squirming, inconsolability, and restlessness.
6. Memory. Finally, we know that newborns feel pain because they sometimes remember and speak of painful experiences as soon as they acquire sufficient language.39 At age two, my granddaughter, talking about her birth, asked her parents, "Why did they poke me with a thing?" Her mother asked, "What thing?" "Like a pencil," she said, "they hurted me." She was probably referring to heel lancing, done routinely in American hospitals at birth. Various studies have shown that lancing is always painful.40,41,41 Other such spontaneous memories of birth pain have surfaced, as I have shown by the collection of stories in chapter seven of my book, Babies Remember Birth.43
Adults also remember, although reports are rare. Three men have told me they have always remembered their circumcision in infancy. Another man, Keith, of Dallas, Texas, remembers that he was born with an open abdomen. He says he has always remembered that surgery and the emotions he felt at the time.
We may not like to think babies feel pain, but they do.
Anxiety
Normal Things Which May Cause Anxiety to ParentsEvery newborn brings with him a lot of concern to the parents, concern to see if everything is normal with the baby. Every little spot or any abnormal appearance is viewed with great anxiety. Here is a brief description of a few things which occur in a newborn and which most often subside with time or are harmless.Milia:Appear as tiny white dots on the nose and the face. These are nothing but distended sebaceous glands and they disappear on their own.Erythema Toxicum:Despite its ominous sounding name these are just a few harmless reddish patches, which may appear on the trunk and face. These also clear on their own.Mongolian Spots:Again, don’t worry these are bluish, well-defined spots on the buttocks and trunk and these disappear by the by the 1st birthday.Stork bites:Believed to be due to the mythological stork holding the baby from the nape of neck (for dropping them in the mother’s womb!), these are pinkish gray spots which may also be seen on the upper eyelids, forehead or nose.Peeling of the skin:It happens in a few babies and is nothing to be worried about. The thing to remember is that the skin underneath the peal is normal and healthy looking, if you find that the skin is raw, contact your doctor.Breast engorgement:Babies of both sexes may develop a slight engorgement of the breasts on the 3rd – 4th day. A creamish white discharge may also ooze from the nipples, this is also known as witch’s milk. No treatment is required but it is important though, not to press, massage or squeeze the breasts.
Natal teeth:A few babies may be born with a tooth, but don’t worry, so born were Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Tulsidas. These are shed before the milk teeth erupt but if they are loose or cause injury to the mother’s breast they could be removed.Phimosis:In 8 out 10 male neonates the foreskin of the penis is usually non-retractable i.e. cannot be slid back. But this doesn’t usually interfere with urination and therefore no effort should be made to forcibly retract it, lest an injury is caused.Physiological Jaundice:It usually appears just after the 1st day and normally disappears by the 7th day and the bilirubin levels don’t exceed 10-mg%.
Natal teeth:A few babies may be born with a tooth, but don’t worry, so born were Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Tulsidas. These are shed before the milk teeth erupt but if they are loose or cause injury to the mother’s breast they could be removed.Phimosis:In 8 out 10 male neonates the foreskin of the penis is usually non-retractable i.e. cannot be slid back. But this doesn’t usually interfere with urination and therefore no effort should be made to forcibly retract it, lest an injury is caused.Physiological Jaundice:It usually appears just after the 1st day and normally disappears by the 7th day and the bilirubin levels don’t exceed 10-mg%.
Am I to Fat Or Too Thin.
TV shows, movies, and magazines show pictures of people who are thin. Does that mean being thin is the "right" size? Not necessarily - the "right size" is the weight that's healthiest for your body type and individual size.
If you are too thin, you may be eating less food than your body needs. Eating enough food is like putting fuel in a car - if you've ever ridden in a car that runs out of gas, you know what happens: it stops working! You need nutrition to grow, to feel good about yourself and your friends, and to do well in school and at play. Kids who are underweight may become sick more often than their friends. Your body cannot defend itself against germs as well if it is starving.
Overeating can cause problems, too. Weighing too much makes it difficult for your body to function well: it can be hard to keep up with your friends on the playground, for example. Kids who are overweight may not be getting the right nutrition either, especially if the food they eat has a lot of fat and calories. And being overweight may be linked to other health problems, such as breathing or sleep difficulties. And it's not always easy finding clothes that fit.
Being overweight or underweight can cause problems in school. For example, if your stomach is growling because you skipped breakfast, it's not easy to focus on what the teacher is saying. Or, if you eat too much junk food for lunch, you may find it difficult to stay awake. Read on to find out more about body size and kids.
What Makes Me Too Fat or Too Thin?Some people think that your weight is determined only by how much you eat. That's just part of it. Your weight is also affected by how much your parents and other relatives weigh (that's called genetics) and body type (do you have little bones or big bones?). Genetics even affects how many calories you need every day and your appetite for food.
Activity also affects your weight. Suppose you are inactive and spend most of your free time watching TV. Your body doesn't need or burn as many calories as it would if you played basketball, skated, or went for a walk instead.
But remember: people naturally are different shapes and sizes. Big kids and small kids both may be the right weight and height based on their genetics and body types. It's not "good" to be thin, or "bad" to be a certain weight, just like it's not good to be tall or bad to be short. It's just that being too thin or too fat is not healthy. So it's important to exercise and eat right to take care of your body.
If you are too thin, you may be eating less food than your body needs. Eating enough food is like putting fuel in a car - if you've ever ridden in a car that runs out of gas, you know what happens: it stops working! You need nutrition to grow, to feel good about yourself and your friends, and to do well in school and at play. Kids who are underweight may become sick more often than their friends. Your body cannot defend itself against germs as well if it is starving.
Overeating can cause problems, too. Weighing too much makes it difficult for your body to function well: it can be hard to keep up with your friends on the playground, for example. Kids who are overweight may not be getting the right nutrition either, especially if the food they eat has a lot of fat and calories. And being overweight may be linked to other health problems, such as breathing or sleep difficulties. And it's not always easy finding clothes that fit.
Being overweight or underweight can cause problems in school. For example, if your stomach is growling because you skipped breakfast, it's not easy to focus on what the teacher is saying. Or, if you eat too much junk food for lunch, you may find it difficult to stay awake. Read on to find out more about body size and kids.
What Makes Me Too Fat or Too Thin?Some people think that your weight is determined only by how much you eat. That's just part of it. Your weight is also affected by how much your parents and other relatives weigh (that's called genetics) and body type (do you have little bones or big bones?). Genetics even affects how many calories you need every day and your appetite for food.
Activity also affects your weight. Suppose you are inactive and spend most of your free time watching TV. Your body doesn't need or burn as many calories as it would if you played basketball, skated, or went for a walk instead.
But remember: people naturally are different shapes and sizes. Big kids and small kids both may be the right weight and height based on their genetics and body types. It's not "good" to be thin, or "bad" to be a certain weight, just like it's not good to be tall or bad to be short. It's just that being too thin or too fat is not healthy. So it's important to exercise and eat right to take care of your body.
Classical Music and Children
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is not only a catalyst to the potential intelligence of unborn babies, his work can also be a catalyst to the satisfaction of the vibrational needs of your older children. Do you have a child or children caught up in preteen pop music or teenage heavy metal, rap music, or other types of rock and roll (you know; loud music in their room, stereo-headphones on the rest of the time with the walkman in tow, or MTV on the boob-tube all the time?).
You will probably need about an hour and an empty house or apartment to test this idea and see if you think it will work for you. Get the requiem mass named Requiem by Mozart (K626 on the Kochel scale, started by Mozart but actually completed by his student F.X. Sussmayr based on Mozart's sketches and instructions). Queue up to the third track on the album/cd, which should be named "Sequentia" and try to have the words and the English translation available (it is written in Latin). Set the volume to a level that is barely audible for you and play the track. After you have played it once, you can increase the volume just a little and play it again (it is only a couple of minutes long). You can keep repeating this process until you get to a point that the volume is as loud as when your children play their rock and roll. At that point, you can determine if you think that the track is comparable to some of the rock and roll your children listen to (Metallica? Megadeath?), and you can determine what you think your rock and roll children might think of the track. If you test this idea, you should not be surprised if at some point you find yourself experiencing strong emotions. If you like the track, you might try playing it when your children are around and see if satisfies their vibrational needs, and if your children appear to like the track, you can play them some other select Mozart compositions that might also satisfy them.
Some other good Mozart compositions that might also satisfy the vibrational needs of your rock and roll children are in Die Zauberflote (K620, The Magic Flute), specifically the "Overture," and the tracks entitled "O zittre nicht" and "Der holle rache." Another good example can be found in Le Nozze Di Figaro (K492), if you go to the track that is the finale of the third act, which should be named "Ecco la marcia," and play it the same way as above; barely audible at first, then working up the volume. And from that point on; good luck.
A Good Start? A Sound Beginning!
Another effort to alleviate the pain and suffering of babies and children by raising the bar higher for the parents of the future.
Research information is now available that suggests that playing certain music to babies in the womb can actually help them learn specific logical and abstract lessons even before they are born. Information about lesson-teaching "womb-song" is available at the Center for Prenatal Music (The Universal Way is not affiliated with the Center for Prenatal and Prenatal Music, and receives no compensation for providing their link).
Research information is also available that strongly suggests that playing certain music to babies in the womb can be a stimulus to the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of the baby (now understood as one of the keys to intelligence; see Chakras and Brain Research Summary and Brain, but take the latter link with some grains of salt). These neural pathways are the highways that the chemical transmitters follow in the brain as it searches for information on a specific subject to return back to the main memory section of the brain for processing. The more complex and intricate these neural pathways, the easier and faster it is for a brain to process information. The specific types of music which can be found to be most effective as a stimulus to the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of a baby are compositions containing certain inaudible woodwind tones, and specifically effective have been found to be woodwind-inclusive compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This is known as the "Mozart Effect," and information about the "Mozart Effect" can be found at the M.I.N.D. Institute (The Universal Way is not affiliated with the M.I.N.D. Institute, and receives no compensation for providing their link).
Conversely, it has also been discovered that pain and traumatic stress experienced by a baby while in the womb, or by a newborn baby, can be correspondingly destructive to the development of neural pathways, and destructive to the neural pathways that have already been developed, potentially resulting in the development of many different types of neurological disorders (see Newborns and Chronic Pain Study: Pain during first days may lead to sensitivity as adult and Newborns Feel Pain and Neonatal Pain and its Effects and Neonatal Pain and Touch and Babies Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine and Prevention and Management of Pain and Stress in the Neonate). In fact, a general pattern can be discerned from this area of research, that being that love and beauty tendered to a baby while in the womb or newly born, can result in the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of the baby, which is a key to the potential intelligence of the baby as it grows into a child; conversely, hate and pain inflicted upon a baby while in the womb or when newly born, can result in the destruction of already existing neural pathways, which is a key to the development of different types of neurological disorders.
Thus, from the research information that is now available it can be concluded that a combination of simple lesson-teaching womb-songs, followed later by any and all types of Mozart compositions, can be a remarkable way to stimulate the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of a baby while in the womb, and thus the potential intelligence of the baby, and can also be an effective catalyst towards soothing a baby that is kicking or stirring up a fuss in the womb for mother. Apparently, when Mozart is played while a child is in the womb (or even when it is a toddler), without the child even realizing it, the brain can develop complex and intricate neural pathways of high efficiency when it parses the musical input and tries to process the beautiful sounds to which it is being exposed. Babies who are played lesson-teaching womb-song and/or Mozart compositions while in the womb can have a better chance of growing up to be calmer and more well-behaved than most children and can have a better chance of possessing intellectual acumen and sincere, honest emotion.
However, the possession of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain at any age apparently does not guarantee intelligence, since those pathways can atrophy through lack of use (through lack of appropriate brain stimulation) and/or the child may not make efficient use of their facilities because of lack of proper direction. Having instilled a child with a set of complex and intricate neural pathways that can often be seen in the eyes of a child, parents can also be responsible for the atrophy of those neural pathways by failing to provide the appropriate intellectual stimulation, or by providing certain negative emotional and physical stimuli to certain intellectual pursuits.
Research information is now available that suggests that playing certain music to babies in the womb can actually help them learn specific logical and abstract lessons even before they are born. Information about lesson-teaching "womb-song" is available at the Center for Prenatal Music (The Universal Way is not affiliated with the Center for Prenatal and Prenatal Music, and receives no compensation for providing their link).
Research information is also available that strongly suggests that playing certain music to babies in the womb can be a stimulus to the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of the baby (now understood as one of the keys to intelligence; see Chakras and Brain Research Summary and Brain, but take the latter link with some grains of salt). These neural pathways are the highways that the chemical transmitters follow in the brain as it searches for information on a specific subject to return back to the main memory section of the brain for processing. The more complex and intricate these neural pathways, the easier and faster it is for a brain to process information. The specific types of music which can be found to be most effective as a stimulus to the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of a baby are compositions containing certain inaudible woodwind tones, and specifically effective have been found to be woodwind-inclusive compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This is known as the "Mozart Effect," and information about the "Mozart Effect" can be found at the M.I.N.D. Institute (The Universal Way is not affiliated with the M.I.N.D. Institute, and receives no compensation for providing their link).
Conversely, it has also been discovered that pain and traumatic stress experienced by a baby while in the womb, or by a newborn baby, can be correspondingly destructive to the development of neural pathways, and destructive to the neural pathways that have already been developed, potentially resulting in the development of many different types of neurological disorders (see Newborns and Chronic Pain Study: Pain during first days may lead to sensitivity as adult and Newborns Feel Pain and Neonatal Pain and its Effects and Neonatal Pain and Touch and Babies Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine and Prevention and Management of Pain and Stress in the Neonate). In fact, a general pattern can be discerned from this area of research, that being that love and beauty tendered to a baby while in the womb or newly born, can result in the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of the baby, which is a key to the potential intelligence of the baby as it grows into a child; conversely, hate and pain inflicted upon a baby while in the womb or when newly born, can result in the destruction of already existing neural pathways, which is a key to the development of different types of neurological disorders.
Thus, from the research information that is now available it can be concluded that a combination of simple lesson-teaching womb-songs, followed later by any and all types of Mozart compositions, can be a remarkable way to stimulate the development of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain of a baby while in the womb, and thus the potential intelligence of the baby, and can also be an effective catalyst towards soothing a baby that is kicking or stirring up a fuss in the womb for mother. Apparently, when Mozart is played while a child is in the womb (or even when it is a toddler), without the child even realizing it, the brain can develop complex and intricate neural pathways of high efficiency when it parses the musical input and tries to process the beautiful sounds to which it is being exposed. Babies who are played lesson-teaching womb-song and/or Mozart compositions while in the womb can have a better chance of growing up to be calmer and more well-behaved than most children and can have a better chance of possessing intellectual acumen and sincere, honest emotion.
However, the possession of complex and intricate neural pathways in the brain at any age apparently does not guarantee intelligence, since those pathways can atrophy through lack of use (through lack of appropriate brain stimulation) and/or the child may not make efficient use of their facilities because of lack of proper direction. Having instilled a child with a set of complex and intricate neural pathways that can often be seen in the eyes of a child, parents can also be responsible for the atrophy of those neural pathways by failing to provide the appropriate intellectual stimulation, or by providing certain negative emotional and physical stimuli to certain intellectual pursuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
