Talk:Pain tolerance

Sex differences in pain tolerance
This article needs to change the theory that "men are more motivated to tolerate and suppress expressions of pain because of the masculine sex role, whereas the feminine sex role encourages pain expression and produces lower motivation to tolerate pain among women". This is a weak theory. We need to have a new source and theory to replace it... "Women generally experience more recurrent pain, more severe pain and longer lasting pain than men. Not only this, but they feel pain in different ways to the opposite sex, offering different symptoms for the same conditions. Different hormones, body composition and central nervous systems means women are more susceptible to a range of painful conditions, according to experts at a conference for the International Association for the Study of Pain. " Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1048863/Women-DONT-higher-pain-threshold-men.html#ixzz1WCKiGCec or http://www.fmwf.com/features/2008/08/the-agonising-truth/

They are the same article but the latter is a feminist website if that says anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.182 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 August 2011
 * Thank you. This important article is missing nearly everything that needs to be said about it, and speculations about the reasons for sex, race and age difference in tolerance are way down on the list of what is relevant. Please feel free to add or subtract wherever you feel it is appropriate. Ideal sources, per this policy: WP:MEDRS, can be found by searching the PubMed database. Each article on the PubMed database has its own eight-digit ID number. To cite an article you found on PubMed, type this after the relevant text, replacing 12345678 with the actual article ID number. It can take a few minutes to a few hours for the proper citation to be automatically generated and appear in the list of references at the bottom of the article. Any questions, ask here or at WT:MED. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to be morphine?
There are many substance that surpress or relieve pain and here, I read the suggestion "use morphine, even before surgery", it is a very US-centric view on life. In europe, you would likely receive any of the other substances, like cinchocaine, which has none of the evil and addiction-forming properties of the morphine. This is just an observation, and it also depends on the type of the surgery, but one can not overlook the bad side of morphine (immune system alteration, etc.) as if it were an aspirin. Or, why prevalently doctors have the view that aspiring is dangerous and possibly lethal, but on the other hand readily give you oxycodone? On the threat scale, oxycodone is way more dangerous than aspirin. Is it not?

70 years ago, the use of morphine was understandable, as there was little else available, but today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.43.127 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)