Babies On Display: When a Hospital Couldn't Save Them, a Sideshow Did (2015)

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/10/421239869/babies-on-display-when-a-hospital-couldnt-save-them-a-sideshow-did

by raldi • 9 years ago

139 45 9 years ago

npr.org

omegaworks• 9 years ago

Couney used Coney to incubate his incubators!

sixQuarks• 9 years ago

Couney hacked Coney to incubate his incubatores

Cyphase2• 9 years ago

I hope I wasn't the only one who thought for a moment that this was talking about a startup incubator. Even though that wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense.

dEnigma• 9 years ago

I thought exactly that after reading the title and for some reason was only mildly surprised by it.

el_benhameen• 9 years ago

The title churned my stomach until I took a moment to think about it a little more. Eesh.

Cyphase2• 9 years ago

The title was "Incubator pioneer funded his work by displaying premature babies at a carnival" before it was changed.

GotAnyMegadeth• 9 years ago

I read the current title, "Babies On Display: When a Hospital Couldn't Save Them, a Sideshow Did (2015)" as slideshow instead of sideshow!

dang• 9 years ago

We changed the URL from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/25/517221933/... by the submitter's request. The two articles are closely related of course.

kristopolous• 9 years ago

I think about this story every time I hear "Goodbye My Coney Island Baby" and imagine someone serenading an infant in an incubator in 1920.

tudorw2• 9 years ago

This is a lesson in shifting morals, and brings to mind a discussion I had that for me puts the nail in AI, modelling rational systems is 'easy', modelling systems that change over time is very hard, how would an AI's moral system keep in lockstep with the shifting whim of humanity ?

posguy• 9 years ago

Speaking of morals, is it really moral to not promote and invest in kidney transplants rather than have the federal government pay for dialysis for 5+ years before a person dies (due to the failed kidneys usually)?

We could easily get most people off Dialysis, and allow them to live much healthier and longer lives if we allowed patient collectives (akin to Iran) to reward donors with cash and healthcare for the rest of their lives.

Why do we choose to let this chunk of our population die slowly and at great expense, rather than do a (relatively) inexpensive & safe transplant? Seems twisted and sadistic on society's part to basically tourture this segment of the populace.

tudorw2• 9 years ago

I sympathise with your aim, more donors is a good thing, however some of the restrictions on sourcing donors are in place to protect vulnerable people from abuse, so it's not a clear cut decision, if AI is to replicate human thinking it would need to have these kind of discussions, I don't think we really want or need AI, faster and smarter calculators yes; the idea that this is 'intelligence' is akin to attributing intelligence to trees because we have libraries.

seanp2k2• 9 years ago

"""It is a sad indictment of the human condition that wherever there is a market, people will strive to find a profit margin even when this results in human exploitation."""

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291132/

Because having a market for everything with no bounds isn't a good thing.

Barraketh• 9 years ago

I have at various times wanted to start a non-profit that would provide benefits similar to veteran benefits (paid college tuition, paid health insurance, etc) to people who donate kidneys to strangers at the top of the transplant list.

The fact that the kidney goes to the person at the top of the list solves the potential issues of the rich getting better health outcomes because they can pay. Also, we as a society have already accepted these benefits as being acceptable reward for risking life in order to (ostensibly) save American lives in a military context - this simply extends the concept.

babyrainbow2• 9 years ago

Speaking of morals, is it really moral to not promote and invest in kidney transplants...

This is not an easy subject, but I think there is nothing immoral about letting a human being die if their organs fail...It can be thought of as being sad. But not immoral or evil.

Also, since death is inevitable, I think in most cases, it is better not to drag it out. And on the whole, it is better not to provide alternatives like this. People, out of obligation, won't let a family member go, (even if they are of old age). So in the end, even people who are not financially sound will be forced to pay huge sums of money...

Just wait until hospitals build a market around this, and you can bet that it will be followed by immense social pressure (perpetuated by these markets), to follow this norm.

In the end, the net suffering increases...

There is also another thing another user pointed out by another user when this topic came up before.

When this has become norm, then you will be expected to pay things via your organs. If you are not financially sound, then your son/daughter will probably expect you to pay for their higher studies via your organs..People will ask, hey why don't get a car, so and so companies have schemes based on the health of your kidneys...(unthinkable today, but hey we are talking about how morals change, right?)

The thing is, for most people, leading a poor (as far as you are not starving) life is better than having some temporary prosperity by selling a kidney and leading degraded life till the end....

Now. That is evil.

DougWebb2• 9 years ago

That's the first step on a bad road.

Step 1: Reward volunteer donors with cash, healthcare

Step 2: Reward 'volunteer' donors with welfare, housing

Step 3: Reward 'volunteer' donors with reduced criminal penalties

Step 4: Reward 'volunteer' donors with reduced prison sentences

Step 5: Make donation a compulsory sentencing option

Step 6: Compel criminals to donate both kidneys

Now you're China.

anothercomment• 9 years ago

Morals are just mental shortcuts for cases when the rational explanation is over the head of most people.

PhasmaFelis• 9 years ago

I was not expecting "sick babies displayed at carnival sideshow" to be a wonderful, heartwarming story.

leoc• 9 years ago

Context: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Stork-Eugenics-Defective-Americ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Haiselden "Harry John Haiselden (March 16, 1870 – June 18, 1919) was the Chief Surgeon at the German-American Hospital in Chicago in 1915 who refused to perform needed surgery for children born with severe birth defects and allowed the babies to die, in an act of eugenics."

paulpauper• 9 years ago

this seems applicable to libertarianism

owenversteeg• 9 years ago

That's the most heartwarming NY "hustle" story I've ever heard. Working long hours at a carnival, in the NY summer heat, pre-air conditioning (he started in 1896!) to save thousands of lives for no recognition. He did this for half a century, and for no profit either: he provided free medical care to the parents!

This man is a damned hero. Stories like these are why I could never sympathize with eugenicists, who prevented incubators from being introduced in hospitals until the 1940s.

jessriedel3• 9 years ago

Although no one uses eugenics to justify it anymore, there are still plenty of infants who are allowed to die because of severe birth defects that prevent mental development or give a high risk of early death. The moral situation arguably has greatly improved, but the difference between then and now is not nearly so clean cut.

Filligree• 9 years ago

That's a different situation, isn't it?

I mean, it depends on the specifics, but if you have someone who'll never reach even the intelligence of a cat... It's hard to justify their life on ethical grounds, when effectively "they" don't exist. Maybe that wasn't the situation you had in mind.

cbr• 9 years ago

Pictures of the carnival stand at different times:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Infant-In...

http://www.neonatology.org/pinups/ConeyIslandBooklet1.jpg

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/720/cpsprodpb/D28F/productio...

Endy2• 9 years ago

My great-aunt was one of the Coney Island babies. She's not dead yet, last I heard.

Endy2• 9 years ago

BTW - I just confirmed that she is alive and well with my Uncle.

Babies On Display: When a Hospital Couldn't Save Them, a Sideshow Did (2015)

Related Stories