> For decades, surgery was performed on infants without anesthesia
What hasn't yet been processed is the horror and barbarity of having done so. To this day, when it's mentioned, we can't take in what it means.
When the practice was discontinued (around 1984 IIRC), the NYT reported on the change much as if a style guide for medical reports had just been revised. (Sorry I don't have the link handy.)
Edit: I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090410072646/https://www.nytim... from 1987, but that one is an op-ed that actually does express some feeling (despite its obligatory "They did so for the purest of reasons" at the start). The report I was remembering, or perhaps misremembering, was devoid of that.
What hasn't yet been processed is the horror and barbarity of having done so. To this day, when it's mentioned, we can't take in what it means.
When the practice was discontinued (around 1984 IIRC), the NYT reported on the change much as if a style guide for medical reports had just been revised. (Sorry I don't have the link handy.)
Edit: I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090410072646/https://www.nytim... from 1987, but that one is an op-ed that actually does express some feeling (despite its obligatory "They did so for the purest of reasons" at the start). The report I was remembering, or perhaps misremembering, was devoid of that.