|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pregnant mother using drugs
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If a pregnant mother uses alcohol or drugs, there is research to show it can be very bad for the developing infant. However, we're hearing locally that it is or isn't child abuse or neglect. My view is that it is child abuse to knowingly affect a developing baby this way. However, we have pregnant mothers not minding the cautions, and child protection gets involved, possibly to apply for a supervision order on the mother - essentially as I understand it, to control her on a probationary type of order, to prevent her from doing drugs. The legal argument is that a child apparently is arguably not a child ("it" is a foetus) until born and breathing.
I do have a mid-teens nephew who was adopted into our family and underwent drug withdrawal post-birth. His mother used cocaine and presently he is having another round of medical testing regarding his impulsivity and neurologically-based twitches.
I think it is appropriate to control a pregnant mother's behaviour to the point of ordering her to a lock-up to prevent the consequences.
With a thought to the violation of mothers' liberty, is it appropriate to do this in your view - to lock her up? Is it child abuse to drink or do drugs during pregnancy?
I think it is a justifiable control on her freedom and that it is child abuse.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
You might want to read this first, it's not as strong a link as people thought -
The years of tracking kids have led Hurt to a conclusion she didn't see coming.
"Poverty is a more powerful influence on the outcome of inner-city children than gestational exposure to cocaine," Hurt said at her May lecture.
quote:
Other researchers also couldn't find any devastating effects from cocaine exposure in the womb. Claire Coles, a psychiatry professor at Emory University, has been tracking a group of low-income Atlanta children. Her work has found that cocaine exposure does not seem to affect children's overall cognition and school performance, but some evidence suggests that these children are less able to regulate their reactions to stressful stimuli, which could affect learning and emotional health.
Coles said her research had found nothing to back up predictions that cocaine-exposed babies were doomed for life. "As a society we say, 'Cocaine is bad and therefore it must cause damage to babies,' " Coles said. "When you have a myth, it tends to linger for a long time."
Alcohol is another kettle of fish, fetal alcohol syndrome is I think on stronger ground.
But for the sake of the argument if poverty is much much worse for kids than fetal exposure to drugs, shouldn't we be dealing more seriously with that? Is it child abuse to attack the incomes of families on benefits and should David Cameron be locked up? And never mind the personal freedom of those companies with zero hour contracts or who pay minimum wage rather than living wage, child abusers of low-paid families, the lot of them...
/a bit of hyperbole but still maybe we should ask those questions too?
We also need to ask since such a big mistake was made with crack whether we have solid ground to use to think about this to start with. What level of alcohol consumption goes beyond 'risky' to certain harm?
[ 24. July 2013, 13:51: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Logic would suggest that pregnant women should be free drink a litre of whisky and mainline a £10 bag of heroin a day up until 28 weeks of gestation after which time legal protections can be put in place.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
For pregnant heroin addicts, withdrawal can cause the death of the fetus - so would you suggest compulsory bags of heroin for any addict who gets pregnant?
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I'm not sure £10 would buy you all that much heroin, and certainly not a whole bagful.
As usual, I suppose the argument will focus on those things which are seen as moral failings by the woman, and which can be policed and punished. And not on things like, as Louise says, poverty - or environmental pollutants, or over-processed, over- promoted food - even if those things are proven to have a greater impact on foetal health.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If a pregnant mother uses alcohol or drugs, there is research to show it can be very bad for the developing infant.
There is plenty of evidence for foetal alcohol syndrome in children of alcohol abusers. There is no evidence at all that the occasional glass of wine (or the nightly half of Guinness that my grandmother was advised to drink by her doctor) is bad for the development of the child.
The advice is that pregnant mothers should avoid alcohol completely, but this is largely based on the assumption that people are very bad with dealing with "just a little is OK", whereas a complete ban is more likely to prevent excessive drinking.
So, needless to say, I would utterly oppose any attempt to criminalize the consumption of a single drink by a pregnant woman.
That said, I am not convinced that in the case of pregnant alcohol abusers, legal sanction and jail is necessarily the best approach.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
With a thought to the violation of mothers' liberty, is it appropriate to do this in your view - to lock her up? Is it child abuse to drink or do drugs during pregnancy?
I think it is a justifiable control on her freedom and that it is child abuse.
There is some evidence that high stress levels in pregnancy can adversely affect the foetus; so ramping up a woman's stress levels by locking her up may in itself be harmful.
I couldn't find the study I was looking for, but here is one newspaper report.
Also, if you start locking women up, where do you stop? Alcohol consumption can cause fetal alcohol syndrome - at what level of drinking should a woman be forceably kept from alcohol, do you think? And then there's smoking.
Zara Phillips has been criticized for continuing to ride horses after announcing her pregnancy. The NHS recommends that pregnant women do not ride horses - should she be forceably stopped?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
It was very remiss of whoever was responsible to allow the development of incubators with minds which might expect to be allowed the liberties available to the real human beings.
I get antsy when I see pregnant women smoking, but I could not condone the idea of their being imprisoned to prevent it. Education would be a good idea to avoid this and alchohol problems.
Meanwhile, something needs to be done to prevent the new epidemic of thalidomide deformities in South America, and that isn't primarily the fault of the women.
As poverty isn't, either.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What about those mothers who have to take prescription drugs which are proven to cause damage to a foetus?
I'm thinking particularly of epilepsy where the most effective drug is known to harm a developing foetus but where the situation is that for some women (a) they've already been taking it when they become pregnant and/or their epilepsy can only be properly controlled on the drug that does the damage.
As for alcohol, there is no evidence that a small amount of alcohol is likely to have any effect whatever on a developing foetus; the problem arises with the consumption of large amounts or binge drinking.
I'd be wary about making either alcohol or drugs - legal or illegal - verboten for pregnant women.
If a decision is made to make consumption of drugs and alcohol a child protection issue then consistency would dictate that obese women should also be included in the category of "unfit" mothers and they too should be locked-up.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Given that we don't consider smoking around young children to be abuse even after the children are born I think you'd be hard pressed to have it outlawed prior to birth.
Incidentally the worst harms from alcohol, drugs, and various nutrient deficiencies are likely to occur before the pregnancy is known. Consequently we really ought to prohibit alcohol and drugs, and mandate vitamin supplements, for all women between puberty and menopause; and ban smoking for at least 4 hours before being in contact with said women.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Given that we don't consider smoking around young children to be abuse even after the children are born I think you'd be hard pressed to have it outlawed prior to birth.
Incidentally the worst harms from alcohol, drugs, and various nutrient deficiencies are likely to occur before the pregnancy is known. Consequently we really ought to prohibit alcohol and drugs, and mandate vitamin supplements, for all women between puberty and menopause; and ban smoking for at least 4 hours before being in contact with said women.
It is illegal to smoke in an automobile with children present here.
I'm not certain that you're correct about the timing of dev issues. What we're hearing is that eldest child is doing okay, second child has some effects, third is rather disabled, and now the fourth is the focus. Organ damage to filtre out the bad things is suggested.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If a decision is made to make consumption of drugs and alcohol a child protection issue then consistency would dictate that obese women should also be included in the category of "unfit" mothers and they too should be locked-up.
And should we also jail parents who don't read with their children on a regular basis? Perhaps you should have to get a card stamped at a local museum on a monthly basis in order to be eligible for child benefit?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'm not sure £10 would buy you all that much heroin, and certainly not a whole bagful.
The cost of one hit or fix of heroin is about £10. This in common drug parlance is a ten-bag or ten-bit.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Funny, the argument nearly always surfaces about if you ban x, everything will/should be banned.
We draw lines in creating laws all the time. The question of where to draw the line should always be a question, but to imply that everything will always be a slippery slope is ridiculous.
As to alcohol, a nip or two occasionally might not be harmful, but if it is truly that difficult to give up for nine months, perhaps one needs to seek help.
Not making legal distinctions, at the moment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Regarding the horse riding: my great great grandmother rode 300km to give birth to her middle two children, through a war zone (the NZ land wars). I understand she was about 7 months pregnant each time. None of her children died, and they all went on to be hardworking and intelligent citizens. Mind you, she was a Tough with a capital T Scot, not a privileged scion of royalty.
In regard to drug taking during pregnancy, I have worked with new babies being weaned off heroin/methadone/P and children with brain damage because of Mum's use of alcohol during pregnancy. We do not need more damaged kids entering the care systems. These are the saddest kids - I'm thinking particularly of a 1-year-old I spent quite a bit of time with, a beautiful looking baby who hadn't passed any of the developmental milestones of a 1-year-old. Her mother had taken multiple drugs, and drunk alcohol all through the pregnancy. Obviously, Mum was not able to care for baby, but child protection were unable to find a caregiver for what would be an extremely high needs child.
The financial cost of these kids to the government and taxpayer is huge. Their lives tend to be ghastly because of their care situation, either with neglectful drug-taking parents or in care. They are often shifted from household to household and struggle to attach to anyone. This comes back to bite everyone when they hit their teen years, when they are prime targets for risky behaviour.
Admittedly I'm talking about the worst case scenarios, but there are bloody good reasons to try and prevent adults doing so much damage to children. If you drink heavily every day of your pregnancy, you WILL harm your child. If you take drugs it WILL have an effect on your child's brain development.
I can't say I know much about the effects of less severe alcohol use during pregnancy, but if you wouldn't give your toddler a glass of wine, I wouldn't give it to an unborn either.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Yes it is entirely justifiable.
Most women, most of the time, have a choice over whether they want to become pregnant or not. In these cases (rape being a whole different scenario) then my opinion is that in the UK where birth control and contraceptives are freely (in every sense of the word) available then I don't think I'd accept someone's right to continue to get off their face over and above their responsibility to care for the child they will have. If they are unwilling or unable to do that without support and intervention then this should be given.
The lack of harm or otherwise being done long term does not detract from my belief that pregnancy can be a highly motivating factor in getting someone to enter drug treatment and BECAUSE they are pregnant they are able to access support that would not otherwise be available to them. This again is an extra chance for them to do well.
Helps Mother, helps Baby, helps society by reducing the illegal activities associated with drug use. Clear cut in my opinion.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Anyone here read Ken MacLeod's novel Intrusion?
[ 25. July 2013, 01:52: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
The first trimester is when the fetus is particularly susceptible to damage from all kinds of things including siting in a hot tub or eating soft cheese to cleaning a litter box or drinking alcohol. Many women don't even realize they are pregnant in the beginning and so I guess to be effective, all sexually active women of child bearing age would have to be treated as possibly pregnant and monitored at all times.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I have mixed feelings about this. It is terrible to see babies with problems as a result of maternal substance abuse. That said I'm also concerned about the erosion of basic civil liberties involved in incarcerating pregnant women who are not obeying rules.
It seems to me that potentially a significant number of at risk pregnant women would be placing themselves and their foetuses at risk by avoiding medical care because of the risk of being locked up. Turning health practitioners into law enforcers is problematic on a number of levels.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
If you drink heavily every day of your pregnancy, you WILL harm your child. If you take drugs it WILL have an effect on your child's brain development.
There is, as you say, plenty of evidence of this.
quote:
I can't say I know much about the effects of less severe alcohol use during pregnancy, but if you wouldn't give your toddler a glass of wine, I wouldn't give it to an unborn either.
At the level of one or two units of alcohol per day, there is no discernible effect on the baby.
I would not recommend a nightly half of Guinness to a modern mother, but there is no reason for a pregnant woman to avoid a small glass of champagne at a family celebration, or to worry about the fact that she had a couple of nights out before she knew that she was pregnant.
I probably first had a glass of watered wine with Sunday lunch when I was five or six. Were I still living in the UK, I'd do the same with my own children. As it is, all I can tell you is that they don't like the taste of communion wine.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The first trimester is when the fetus is particularly susceptible to damage from all kinds of things including siting in a hot tub or eating soft cheese to cleaning a litter box or drinking alcohol. Many women don't even realize they are pregnant in the beginning and so I guess to be effective, all sexually active women of child bearing age would have to be treated as possibly pregnant and monitored at all times.
Not certain anyone is advocating this level of oversight.
But, were I to wish to have a child, I would do most anything to ensure the best chance for that child. I would definitely not take a chance for an unnecessary indulgence.
Really, I am not anti-alcohol, I drink. But I cannot think of one indulgence that is worth a child's heath.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The half-pint of Guiness was recommended as an iron supplement (roasted malt is a good iron source), and the effect of alcohol on a foetus has been exaggerated, as noted. In particular, the most vulnerable period is well before a woman is likely to know she's pregnant. It might be just as well for a woman who is trying to conceive to avoid alcohol, but once she's into the second trimester, a glass of wine a day should be no problem.
There was a huge fuss about the generation of crack babies that were supposedly born in the 1980s. I recently saw an article (I can't be bothered to track it down now) that said it's a bit difficult to find them. As others have suggested, poverty etc. are such huge confounding factors that mere drug abuse fades into the background.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
Zara Phillips has been criticized for continuing to ride horses after announcing her pregnancy. The NHS recommends that pregnant women do not ride horses...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Zara Phillips is a member of the British Olympic team. I daresay she took medical advice about what she could and couldn't do and was told that riding was OK for her because she's used to doing it - just as any other Olympic athlete would take advice about whether to continue her normal training if she fell pregnant. Not that it's any of our business. This is another case of 'women are too stupid to understand a qualified statement, so let's just ban it outright'.
The NHS also says that women should continue to exercise throughout their pregnancies and does not forbid them to ride bicycles or cross the road - either of which activities might also result in injury or death.
If we took everything the NHS says about looking after yourself whilst pregnant seriously we would spend the whole nine months cowering under the bed terrified of doing anything. Except that's bad too, because we have to eat well and take some exercise so we can stay healthy...
And it doesn't stop there, because the NHS also says (in the current guidelines for triage nurses) that any sexually active woman of child-bearing age may be pregnant without knowing it. Are you going to lock all of us up just in case we do something that would endanger a developing foetus?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
In my head, my comment about banning Zara Phillips from riding sounded sarcastic. I didn't mean it to sound like a serious suggestion in my post.
I was trying, badly, to say what Jane R has just said better.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I thought you were being sarcastic, NEQ. I was reacting to what Arabella said - did you know that Zara Phillips was a member of the British Olympic squad, Arabella? Not merely a 'privileged scion' - except in the sense that anyone with the money to compete in equestrian sports is privileged. Technically she is also a commoner, despite being Princess Anne's daughter - she doesn't have a title.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Turning health practitioners into law enforcers is problematic on a number of levels.
In NZ all health practitioners are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse and neglect, including pre-birth abuse. In the last year nearly 800 newborns have been taken into care, some at birth. As a family therapist working for a hospital, I am required to report, as are doctors, nurses, occupational therapists...
There are days when I would not only support forcibly detaining parents, but also sterilising some. And I'm a flaming liberal of the most liberal social worker type.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I have no problem at all with Zara Phillips riding while pregnant, and she is an excellent rider - I've watched her. My point, perhaps not as clearly expressed as it could have been, was that if my great great grandma could do what she did, then there is clearly not a huge risk in riding while pregnant, whatever your socioeconomic status. Zara will presumably have access to the best doctors, where Grandma was riding to see any doctor at all!
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I would advise against riding pregnant; not for the dangers of whilst in the saddle, but for the dangers of leaving the saddle unexpectedly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
And which part of 'Zara Phillips is an Olympic-class rider who is very unlikely to leave the saddle unexpectedly when hacking quietly around her own land' did you fail to understand?
Would you have advised Arabella's great-great-grandma to stay at home because riding to the doctor's was too great a risk?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You are adding interpretation to a very simple comment.
Arabella's mother did what she must.
Most people are not Olympic class riders.
And I am passing no judgement on those who ride pregnant, just that I would advise against it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
If you are advising against it, then you evidently think that it is a risky activity and that the woman you are giving advice to shouldn't do it. How is this not 'passing judgment'?
As several people have already noted, pregnant women are advised to avoid drinking alcohol. When I was pregnant I was also advised to avoid drinking caffeinated drinks and eating soft cheese and a whole load of other things that I can't remember now. And yes, I followed all the guidance carefully because I didn't want to risk my unborn child's health. And a lot of it really is given because the people writing the guidelines think that women are too stupid to understand nuance.
Yes, foetal alcohol syndrome is a terrible thing, but one glass of wine a day is not going to cause it. And most of us are capable of stopping at one. Why should our freedom be curtailed because of the minority of women who can't control their drinking? And the worst damage is caused during the first trimester, when you can't really tell a woman is pregnant just by looking at her - do we have to show a doctor's certificate to prove we're not pregnant before we can be served in a bar?
Just for the record, I drink one or two units of alcohol a week and doing without it for a few months is no real hardship. But when I was pregnant the health visitor talked me into giving up tea and coffee because (she said) caffeine was Bad for Baby. This statement rested on very shaky evidence (something I wasn't aware of at the time). So I gave up tea and coffee for nine months unnecessarily, because the health visitor thought I was too stupid* to understand the difference between 'mainlining double-strength espresso' and 'having a cup of tea or coffee about four times a day'.
I'm still bitter.
*probably not personal; AFAICT health visitors think we're all stupid...
[ 25. July 2013, 12:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
First, I am not being consulted by pregnant women, just giving opinions on this thread.
Second, it is perfectly possible to think an activity inadvisable and still not think poorly of the person performing said activity. Hence, no judgement.
Third, I've not yet said one word regarding forcing anyone to cease anything.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If a decision is made to make consumption of drugs and alcohol a child protection issue then consistency would dictate that obese women should also be included in the category of "unfit" mothers and they too should be locked-up.
Gross infantile obesity is a form of neglect. I've heard of one child who had to be hospitalised for its own safety because the obese mother was feeding it so badly. The child was in danger of heart failure due to obesity induced sleep apnoea.
[ 25. July 2013, 16:14: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
While it's someone else who is doing the work we can all have an opinion.
End of the day....the only thing that will work is helping the mother ...to help herself.... so that she can help her child.
And sadly the best helpers for fragile, vulnerable, easily swayed, addicted 'parents to be' is Someone To Believe In Them. To cheer them on.
And social workers can't do that. Not with all their clients. There are not enough hours and not enough social workers.
So it's up to us. People. Community. Love with skin on. Tough love. Prayer. Wise Christians stepping up.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Very true Ethne Alba. Sadly, most of the mums I work with are horribly isolated from family, friends and community. I haven't found many volunteers who willingly go into those homes, either.
Also sadly, social workers are sometimes the most positive people in the kids' lives, and the ones to whom give what little attachment they can muster. I wish all the time that it wasn't the case, because again, you're quite right - I'm not going to be around frequently enough or for long enough.
Obviously, I don't work with the average family, so my views are somewhat skewed.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Turning health practitioners into law enforcers is problematic on a number of levels.
In NZ all health practitioners are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse and neglect, including pre-birth abuse. In the last year nearly 800 newborns have been taken into care, some at birth. As a family therapist working for a hospital, I am required to report, as are doctors, nurses, occupational therapists...
There are days when I would not only support forcibly detaining parents, but also sterilising some. And I'm a flaming liberal of the most liberal social worker type.
I don't have an issue with any of that and I am fully aware of mandatory reporting but I thought the OP was going a bit further than that to suggest a carte blanch incarceration of women who take drugs whilst pregnant. Do you incarcerate women who take drugs whilst pregnant in NZ? What happens when you report a case of pre-birth abuse? Is any real action taken prior to birth?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
The mum is monitored by Child, Youth, and Family, mostly to make sure she doesn't disappear. The Police are often involved as well. Where possible, social workers will try and find responsible family members to support the pregnant mum (but see my comment above about isolation).
The biggest risk is a mum disappearing, which is why the Police are also notified.
Edited to add: CYF are paranoid about losing unborn babies, due to the fact that the media and many members of the public will blame them rather than the mum if the child dies. This applies even if they didn't know about the child beforehand. One of the reasons I never want to work in child protection is that you can be the best, most committed social worker ever, and still be pilloried for the mistakes children's parents make.
[ 26. July 2013, 07:39: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think it is appropriate to control a pregnant mother's behaviour to the point of ordering her to a lock-up to prevent the consequences.
How about offering some serious practical and emotional support along with rehab facilities first?
Except that would cost more money...
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
