Mothers alcohol use shown on medical records

@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

Article 8, UK Human Rights Act guarantees your right to privacy in regard to your medical records.

There is a bill going through parliament at present that negates that.

@Hardbackwriter you can’t disclose anything to a professional that poses harm or potential harm to a child and have your confidentiality maintained. That’s just a fact.

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.

I'm not at all suggesting that midwives shouldn't be asking about alcohol consumption to start a dialogue but surely the most productive way to have this conversation is if the woman can be assured that whatever she says is in confidence?

Not just that, but the confidence that in 5 years time the confidence will stand. No use being promised one thing now (to get that data) and then have the rules changed down the line after they've extracted it from you. Especially if there's a few quid in it for Happy Hancock his merry band of US data vultures.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised to learn that data has already been sold. "Anonymised" naturally.

If anything every time a mum says I’m worried about xya it be “oh I see you have half a cider when your baby was 3 days post conception” it was obviously that.

You can’t give a mother confidentiality if it puts a child at risk. It’s not that hard to understand.

That's sounds very much like the type of argument made by anti-abortion activists who place the rights of the child above that of the mother. But women do not lose their rights we all have as individuals when we become mothers. Making that argument is inherently misogynist precisely because it reduces women to vessels.

Your right as an individual no longer exists now you've given birth. The rights of your child are paramount instead.

That's simply not how human rights work. Article 8, UK Human Rights Act guarantees your right to privacy in regard to your medical records. The state is only allowed to interfere with this right if it can show that it is lawful, necessary and proportionate to do so.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned. (From the EHRC page)

The experts discussing this issue throw this proportionality very much into doubt in this case. It might be argued that it may be necessary to share data in the case of an individual woman with substance abuse problems whose newborn presents with acute symptoms. It cannot be argued that it is appropriate to deny all pregnant woman their Article 8 Rights.

I started the AIBU thread so interested to read this one too. I think this is really concerning; I'm not at all suggesting that midwives shouldn't be asking about alcohol consumption to start a dialogue but surely the most productive way to have this conversation is if the woman can be assured that whatever she says is in confidence? I can't imagine how anyone could think that putting it on the child's medical records would lead to honest disclosures - and so how likely is it that they'd even gather any evidence that would be of any use for diagnosing FAS?

Reframing the debate, somewhat ...

What real life redress is available to anyone whose medical confidentiality is breached ?

In fact an even wider debate might be what actual rights anyone has to any confidentiality in the UK.

I'm not talking about pretty words that can be cited in smartarse replies on chat forums. I'm talking about instances and examples of serious penalties being applied in cases of breaches.

I don't think people have as many rights as they think.

If there's no comeback against someone spaffing your medical details - especially if it's "for the baby", then there's not much more to be done.

Women who are abusing alcohol in pregnancy will just lie.

What's the point??

Diagnostic difficulties are not addressed by this policy either. So why do it?

And it's a clear breach of GDPR. So why do it?

My experience with persons drinking when they shouldn't for medical reasons btw was that they flat out lied to their doctors about it. Even when that negatively impacted on their own health.

In my view, which research seems to back up too, this type of policy pushes even more women to lie. And that can be far more harmful to both mother and child. So why do it?

Even though I didn't drink or take drugs or eat anything deemed even slightly worrisome during pregnancy, if I had known that anything I tell my healthcare professionals about myself could end up on my child's medical records, I wouldn't have said anything even when that would have endangered myself and ultimately the child. Because the fear of being mistreated as a woman sits deep.

Because where does it stop? I didn't allow myself to bond with my baby in utero (pregnancy after a loss) and used to blame myself for having a more complicated relationship with my middle child because of that. Who's to say that in years to come subsequent behaviour problems wouldn't in all earnestness eventually point to that disruption in the expected mother-child-bond as a wilful rejection of my child and hang a question mark over my fitness as a mother? Worse things have happened in the state's treatment of mothers, after all.

For once, the slippery slope argument is an important one to make. If women are expected to give up their right to medical privacy for the sake of their child - and have their behaviour before it is even born recorded - how far is it from that to arguing they are forbidden from that behaviour in the first place?

Look around you! There are countries where women miscarry and they are sentenced to life for murdering their unborn if the state argues they behaved in a way that may have caused the miscarriage.

There are surrogacy contracts legal in other states that give control over everything the birth mother does to the people commissioning the child.

In human history we have very many instances of treating women as mere vessels for man's seed over many thousands of years.

Taking away our right to patient confidentiality is a big step towards enshrining such treatment in modern law.

To take some action on this, you can comment directly on the NICE consultation by filling in a form and emailing it to them by Friday:
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-qs10139/consultation/html-content-3

@Batshitbeautycosmeticsltd it becomes obvious from how women do or do not engage what kind of support they need.

Asking about drug/alcohol use isn’t about oppressing the mother but about ensuring the child’s needs can be met. Early intervention is crucial. There will always be women that don’t engage for many reasons, and when they don’t attend appointments or answer questions then it is obvious to staff that they need support.

You can’t give a mother confidentiality if it puts a child at risk. It’s not that hard to understand.

In our trust this information is already on the infant's record, along with HIV and Hep B status. All three pieces of information are critical to providing appropriate early care for babies.

Does anyone remember the news story about the woman who had a baby and could have been told about her DF's Huntington's but wasn't? Pretty sure it was ruled that she had no right to know. So how can it be right for a mother's alcohol consumption during pregnancy to be shared?

I'm in complete agreement about this being the easy, cheap option (with the added bonus of only oppressing women, so that's all fine, nothing to worry about there) when taking a holistic view inclusive of the impact of male behaviour/violence is much harder work/difficult to achieve/unlikely to garner support from (male) policymakers. I also think the "it's the child's medical history" argument is flawed, because unless you keep pregnant women in a cage throughout their pregnancy, they are liable to make choices every day that could be viewed as risky. Almost like they're people rather than mobile incubators.

That's very interesting indeed @MrsTerryPratchett.

Much easier to try to control women's behaviour than tackle male violence I suppose.

There was a study done in Canada (goodness knows I can't find it) which found that in active drug using mothers who were homeless, the outcomes for the children were dire. However, when they were enrolled in a non-judgmental housing program that offered accommodation, counselling, freedom from male violence, an exit from street sex work and antenatal nutrition/care etc. their outcomes were great, even if they continued to use drugs.

It is very interesting to me that alcohol and drug use in pregnancy is so important to control while freedom from male violence might actually improve outcomes. Most of the women I know who drank heavily in pregnancy were either currently living through or had survived abuse. Deal with that, you deal with FAS and drug impacted children.

No? I wonder why?

Women are under no obligation to refrain from alcohol or drug consumption in pregnancy, nor should they be.

I am in the middle of a miscarriage at the moment, but should I get pregnant again, there is no way I would consent to answering these questions.

No-one has a right to force another person to do anything with their body, nor to have access to private medical information, not even a foetus or infant.