I have no idea what the original rationale was for treating newborns in this fashion. Perhaps there was some idea that they needed the stimulus. Years ago, a midwife friend showed a bunch of us childbirth educators and doulas an old film from the 1960s (anybody out there remember movie projectors?) she had that was used by the navy to teach about childbirth . That was when women had heavy doses of narcotics during labor whether they wanted them or not. The baby was limp and gray at delivery. We were horrified at the baby's condition, but the delivery room personnel treated it as no big deal, undoubtedly because that was how all the babies looked at delivery, and, yes, they held the baby upside down and spanked it to get it going.

I am also aware that well into the 1980s, medical staff didn't think babies could see, hear, or feel, so it didn't much matter what you did to them. One of the great abuse scandals of those days was that they would operate on infants without giving them anesthesia, just a paralytic drug to keep them from moving. The theory was that an anesthetic was risky, and the baby didn't feel anything anyway. A mother who realized that this is what had happened to her son started a campaign that ultimately resulted in putting an end to the practice--at least I hope it has. I'm not so sure after reading your post that it still wouldn't be wise for a parent whose baby needs surgery to ask if the baby will be receiving anesthesia. Maybe there are some neonatal surgeons and anesthesiologists who haven't gotten the message.

As for why the younger doc would do it, I would guess that he saw it done that way during his training, and because doctors are not questioned or challenged pretty much no matter how egregious their behavior, no one has ever said to him, "What the hell do you think you are doing?!"

-- Henci