I think there is a definitional problem with "kids" vs "infants" vs "newborns" which are all difficult to define, the type of anaesthesia that was administered and we are also talking about 40 years ago. Our understanding of anaesthetics and heart surgery in newborns was much different than today. America definitely has a checkered and sordid past here and in psychiatry. But we also have a duty to be definitionally exact here which is why I tried to get a bit more context when the GP used the term "kids". I had thought before investigating that meant all the way up to teenagers.
I admit that "kids" is a bit imprecise and can lead to misunderstandings. But that is just not important to this discussion.
And the exact definition of the anesthesia given to most infants before 1987: A paralytic. Nothing else.
If you feel adventurous, have your family doctor give you a paralytic and then push a sterile needle under your fingernail. Then tell me the exact definition of sufficient anesthesia in that case ;)
