Mothers alcohol use shown on medical records

Oh and written on their children's health records...

Let's talk about this support, shall we? What does it involve, how comprehensive is it, how quick and easy to access? Is it like the support of social care as it already is now? In what format is it presented?

I don't want to hazard a guess, but . . .

There are two current threads that are interesting in light of this one. One is about GPs pushing LARC on women and the other is about Diagnosis Detectives and how so many go for years without proper support for their medical conditions.

'The issue is complicated because the child becomes a patient when it’s born and it’s medical history starts in utero. You can’t give a full
history without mentioning maternal health.

On balance I think it’s necessary to include the information if it’s available'

Starts with sperm and egg surely.

I've read about various things about men or their habits that can effect sperm quality and potentially lead to issues for babies.

Also my understanding is that men who are heavy drinkers can cause damage of various types to their families.

Is all that going to be recorded?

(Rhetorical question).

Woman who don’t engage or who aren’t honest flag up anyway.

Be curious as to how you determine - without analysis - whether a woman is lying or not.

Obviously if they roll into an antenatal reeking of booze saying "never touch a drop", you might have cause. But otherwise ?

Woman who don’t engage or who aren’t honest flag up anyway.

Yep, women are all so stupid you see, and HCPs never are, the latter can always tell .

'Woman who don’t engage or who aren’t honest flag up anyway. By opening a dialogue about alcohol or drugs or any other risky behaviour there is a chance to provide support.'

This already happens :/

Agree with those who say women will simply lie and that's an even worse outcome.

Not quite. Some women will lie - especially those that fall into a demographic to have reason to distrust the state. However as always happens, the naice naive trusting women that have never had a bad experience won't lie. And it'll be them that get scooped up by Operation BabyBeer, as Viz might title it.

@StFrancis as a HCP I will always believe that it is in the patients best interests for staff to have all the relevant information. Wether that’s a mother or an infant.

Woman who don’t engage or who aren’t honest flag up anyway. By opening a dialogue about alcohol or drugs or any other risky behaviour there is a chance to provide support.

The issue is complicated because the child becomes a patient when it’s born and it’s medical history starts in utero. You can’t give a full
history without mentioning maternal health.

On balance I think it’s necessary to include the information if it’s available

Thanks Cara. You said what I was trying to type as a reply to Florence more eloquently. Florence we understand that social workers do work with vulnerable women pre birth to try - rightly- to ensure the best outcomes possible for the unborn baby - but the point is that the mother’s engagement is voluntary and cannot be legally compelled as she has agency over her own body and actions within the parameters of the general law. In the U.K., outside of the restrictions applicable to abortion, there are few or no restrictions on the freedom of action of a woman because she is pregnant. The vast majority of women would I think think that this is right - we are not thank god in a country that locks pregnant women up for miscarriages or being a participant in a violent altercation (as in a recent US state). This means that some women will hurt their unborn babies by making poor choices. However taking those choices away from all women is a worse ill. If human rights mean anything they have to protect the rights of those we don’t like or agree with too.

A lot of people from anti abortion to 'progresive' pro surrogacy types to yeah yeah the child is more important of course share their data with all and sundry have one thing in common which is that they think women who are incubating should have reduced rights.

Fucking hell this is a hard no from me.

A couple of years back they had the idea of testing pregnant women for smoking and I'm pretty sure that didn't get anywhere.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hospitals-should-test-pregnant-women-9434210.amp

The idea seems to be that human rights to privacy, data protection etc etc all go down the pan when you are a woman who is pregnant. Or indeed 'pre pregnant' as we've seen pressed in the USA.

No fuck that and fuck them. We are people not baby vessels.

Agree with those who say women will simply lie and that's an even worse outcome.

Would I judge the hell out of a woman who drank to excess in pregnancy? Yes. Would I hold her morally responsible for damage to her child? Yes.

But - and it's a fucking huge but...

You still cannot do this. It is a step towards treating women like incubators on legs, and arguing their rights come second to those of an unborn foetus. It's a huge violation of their right to confidentiality. It's a huge violation of their right to the best medical care for them as the patient. It's a huge violation of the relationship of trust between HCPs and the patient. It's a huge violation of their civil liberties.

It is awful that some children are born with FAS. But legally enshrining the principle that women - all women - should be treated like incubators on legs rather than full human beings with bodily autonomy and a right to privacy is worse.

@FlorenceNightshade

Leaving aside your position on human rights (legal or moral), one problem with your reasoning is that you seem to be assuming that this policy will necessarily result in better care for each individual child, or children overall.

With respect, that is a rather large leap that fails to consider the number of pregnant women likely to be put off disclosing honest information to their healthcare provider that would result in the best care, or from accessing healthcare at all while pregnant (which they are by no means obliged to do - it is usual but optional), or indeed from accessing care once their child is born.

Failure to give the mother confidentiality may therefore be the thing that puts the child at greater risk and this should be properly considered.

I think a longer-sighted and more rounded view of this proposal may be needed.

@CharlieParley again we are talking about continuing pregnancies. Anti-abortionists are great at twisting rational arguments to fit their agenda.

[quote FlorenceNightshade]@CharlieParley we aren’t talking about abortion we are talking about women who are continuing their pregnancies. You need to choose your words more carefully[/quote]
Here are your words:

Most women understand and respect that when they are pregnant the child’s health and well-being is important too. It’s a balancing act that should, imo, put the child first at all times where possible.

That is the same point of view espoused by anti-abortion activists who place the rights of the child above its mother.

You are wrong in demanding that and you are wrong in assuming that pregnant women should want to place their child's wellbeing above their own. Many of us do. That doesn't mean we should.

@CaraDuneRedux of course they can’t lock women up but they can and do act pre birth. There are specialist midwives and other professionals who work with pregnant women to reduce harm to themselves and in turn their babies.

And new referrals are often from midwives who report women who miss appointments and who give cause for concern.

Women will do what they do, the role of the professionals is to educate and reduce harm where possible. Sadly that doesn’t happen everytime and children are born with health issues.

My cousins kid has fas, it affects him even as an adult. If it was known that his mother was drinking in pregnancy, perhaps they could have supported her to reduce to lower levels (drinking around 2 bottles vodka a week). Nobody makes you have children, but if you choose to they deserve to be protected

Here's how secure your records are ...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4025367-Ive-just-been-sent-the-full-medical-records-of-another-person

I asked for a report and medical reports under the FOI. I have been emailed a pdf of another person's full medical history instead of my own. The email was unencrypted and the name completely dissimilar to mine.

[quote FlorenceNightshade]@EvelynBeatrice you are incorrect. This is why social work departments have pre birth teams.[/quote]
But the point of pre-birth teams is to put assessments in place for once the baby is born. They have no powers to lock pregnant women up, Magdalen Laundry style, to prevent them abusing substances. They can only act after birth.

And the women on their books will be the ones with chaotic lifestyles, usually having already had children removed, who are already on social service's radar.

Prior to birth, the only person there legally and morally to be taken account of is the mother.

It won't get any decent data because women will lie - just as they already lie about post natal depression.

A properly designed study would involve an ethics assessment, informed consent, anonymised data and would be able to explain to women how their data would be anonymised.

My pregnancy drinking amounted to half a pint of lager and a glass of champagne (separate occasions). I would lie about this, for sure. The slippery slope issue is a very very real worry - look at some of the states in America bringing manslaughter prosecutions against women for substance abuse in pregnancy and subsequent miscarriages.

Exactly. Who wants to get judged or labelled for doing normal things like binge drinking and smoking loads of weed every day around the time of an unplanned

@EvelynBeatrice you are incorrect. This is why social work departments have pre birth teams.

“ You can’t give a mother confidentiality if it puts a child at risk. It’s not that hard to understand“
This is wrong. There is no child in law until birth; the mother/patient’s right to confidentiality is and remains paramount. This proposed new policy is legally questionable and I think will be challenged. In practice I suspect most women will lie and do as they see fit as they are legally entitled to do with their own bodies. Morality is a different issue.