Mothers alcohol use shown on medical records

Hopefulhalf

You seem to have the info around this ^

Can you give some more info please? Especially around what consideration went into risk to family relationships and potentially women's safety, on allowing children this info when they turn 18.

So they can go to gp at 18 and find all this stuff out.

Soon to possibly include alcohol and drug consumption.

Details about any DV? that's something they always ask when you're pregnant IME after sending the man out of he's there, to get a cuppa.

Another poster has mentioned mental health issues.

So what is currently on this thing, when can the child read it, what is the risk/ benefit around it being available to them in terms of relationships etc, what about the privacy and confidentiality of the mother.

If the child and the mum didn't get on they could hold this info over them potentially. Especially if it seemed there was eg a pregnancy when she was young before her current long term partner or something.

What about sensitivities with different groups? What if a boy from a very patriarchal family finds out his mum terminated a pregnancy before she was married?

I mean come on let's have some more info here.

I feel like I must have misunderstood something here.

Google is not helping.

Is it the case that for babies born after 2000 the start of their health records includes personal details about the mother already. EG previous pregnancies with years and outcomes.

That can't be right surely.

'So in theory an adult who believed themselves to be an only or eldest child child could access their medical records and discover their mother had carried a pregnancy to term prior to their birth?'.

Another poster said yes, if they were born after 2000.

WHAT THE FUCK???? Seriously???

I had no idea. That's appalling. What possible reason is there for a child to know how many abortions she had or if she had had a baby adopted? If she was pregnant at 16 or 50?

I don't understand. Has anyone got any links?

Now we are saying her drinking and drug habits and potentially mental health status and issues should be on the child's record as well.

I'm genuinely taken aback.

Babies whose fathers drank in the 3 months before they were conceived are more likely to have congenital heart defects.

Are we monitoring men's alcohol use? If not, why not?

Where do you draw the line? A female child is born with her entire lifetime supply of gametes. And IIRC epigenetic studies in mice found that FAS markers were present in both the child and the grandchild. So any baby girl should have the information about her grandmother’s drinking habits - not just her mother’s - included in her medical records.

It seems like yet more cheap talk, another box to tick on a form most people will lie about. The more uncomfortable questions you ask in one session from a healthcare provider you have no relationship with, the less good the data will be.

I wonder why we capture all this data and don’t put the emphasis on quality healthcare relationships which might lead to better outcomes.

A hard no from me - this is scary and appalling in equal measure.

Women have autonomy over their own body - pregnant or not. The alternative is positively dystopian

One enduring memory of my second child's birth is the midwife telling me that if she couldn't get a clear trace while I was on the ball, she'd force me to lie on the bed (she used the word 'force'). Despite the pain, and having only had short naps for the best part of a week because of contractions, I gave a mini-speech on body autonomy

Good for you. I've supported a few vulnerable young women in pregnancy and am always shocked at the things that are assumed to be given. I've heard young women tell me what they 'have' to do or 'cant' do. Most of which is untrue.

It's bad enough when you're a middle class, older wire woman. But a teenaged young woman of colour? It's dreadful.

FireUnderTheHand
"Totally agreed (would adopted part would come in though since it isn't 'medical'?)."

I was thinking that if the mother's pregnancies were recorded on the child's medical records and she gave up a child for adoption/had an abortion/miscarried/still birth then that could be seen from the child's medical records and the discrepency in no. of siblings. Equally if child had a sibling but their medical records showed that the mother had not been pregnant before, information about the other child's parentage is made available to hcp's treating the first child.

Correction to the third paragraph from the bottom from my previous comment (Sorry for the muddle)

So, recording a disease that develops because of the mother that is not caused by the mother's behaviour, but instead by inherited genes and an antibody reaction she has no control over, is not an ethical issue at all.

Does the child not have a right to an accurate record of their health from the day they were created?

Clearly not since a court has already ruled information about inheritable diseases can't be.

Apparently unless it's women's medical history or if they had a pint before they knew they were pregnant.

One enduring memory of my second child's birth is the midwife telling me that if she couldn't get a clear trace while I was on the ball, she'd force me to lie on the bed (she used the word 'force'). Despite the pain, and having only had short naps for the best part of a week because of contractions, I gave a mini-speech on body autonomy I was so angry at how I was being treated. Especially since they were refusing to listen to a word I said about what was going on, and how it was exactly like the first birth.

Does the child not have a right to an accurate record of their health from the day they were created?

No.

What my mother did when she was pregnant with me, is up to her to tell me if she wants, but none of us have the right to demand our parents account to us for their feelings, behaviour, culinary habits etc. unless they have really signifcantly affected us.

The entitlement and control freakery of thinking we have the right to demand our mothers account to us for every little thing, is bad news for women.

[quote FlorenceNightshade]@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[/quote]
I agree. My point is that the possibility needs to be considered that weakening confidentiality for the mother will, despite intentions, actually reduce the availability of that information to HCPs.

If the aim is to have more information available and this policy leads to less information being available then it is a bad policy. One of the reasons for patient confidentiality is precisely to increase the chances of a patient confiding in their HCP, safe in the knowledge it will go no further and can't be used against them.

Personally, were this policy brought in I would seriously consider declining to answer the questions on the basis that I would be uncomfortable, on a point of principle, with the balance of rights that had been arrived at for reasons already stated on this thread.

I know full well that I have never smoked or taken drugs and that I don't drink while pregnant so would not be concerned about risks on that score and I would hope to add my little rebellion to help make the point about a counter-productive policy. I suspect I would not be alone in that approach.

I do find that I am becoming more and more 'difficult' with age...!

I think they have a right to that information, for me that includes details of the pregnancy. Lets not lose sight of the fact the child's medical records first and foremost belong to the child.

Medical records about the pregnancy belong to the mother, not her child. And the mother's medical records first and foremost belong to the mother.

I believe Rh disease is placed on a newborn's medical records. Should the same privacy concerns be used to restrict this information and why/why not? Technically, any harm caused is purely down to maternal biology.

My mother's family lost almost all subsequent babies due to RH disease for several generations. As all firstborns were girls and for whatever reason only those subsequent babies who were female survived, the family had no male children until my uncle was born first. And lucky for me, my mother survived. My brother survived because by that time, treatment was available for a Rh(d) mother with a subsequent RH(D) child.

There's nothing any of my foremothers could have done to prevent these losses. We inherit the Rh genes, behaviour has nothing to do with that. There's also nothing they could have done to stop their bodies producing antibodies that attacked their unborns before the advent of treatment, behaviour has nothing to do with that either.

So while recording a disease the get us develops because of the mother that is not caused by the mother's behaviour but instead by inherited genes and an antibody reaction she has no control over is not an ethical issue at all. But more importantly, recording Rh disease on a baby's record is the recording of a disease the baby suffers itself, hence it belongs on its medical record.

What is at issue with recording the alcohol consumption of the mother during pregnancy is that this is the recording of the behaviour of the mother in the medical record of the child regardless of whether this behaviour had any actual impact on the child.

So these are not the same thing.

Well that data won't be available will it, women will simply lie.

Does the child not have a right to an accurate record of their health from the day they were created?

I find that a little shocking tbh, I don't think that section of information should be passed on even if in the majority of cases there's no unexpected surprises in it.

I completely agree and find it to be a serious violation of the woman's privacy. Women who have been raped, became pregnant, and made a choice (either way) should not be outed on their child's medical records (just one scenario) regardless of the outcome. It isn't the newborn's business (or the adult they will grow into) on any level. Where there are surprises it could cause great familial unrest at best and complete breakdown of the mother/child relationship at worst.

It's very misogynist when you think about it. Alcohol (or drug use) in the current pregnancy is far more relevant than a 8 week termination 10 years ago, but it is always recorded.

So reading between the lines either an abortion or miscarriage. But only a medic, midwife or now half of mumsnet would know.

Well you need to be 18 to acsess your records so any of that information would be at least 19 years old. After 18 years of records you'd need to know where to look .....I don't know, the very first few adults may now be doing this I guess. Before it would have been written in a sort of medical code G4P2 means 2nd baby 4th pregnancy.

I had an abortion and a miscarriage (the abortion was pre 2000) before I gave birth to my first child.

Both were routinely mentioned in my pregnancy meetings with any new HCP. It was excruciating in retrospect. I was also asked about previous pregnancies when I was having a heavy bleed by paramedics when colleagues were with me. Again, excruciating

Yes, certainly if they were born after 2000. But probrably before that, maybe recorded in a different form.