to be furious that pregnant women in derbyshire are to be offered a cash incentive to give up smoking while pregnant.

[Wormshuffler]

Just reported on central news. Up to £750 in shopping vouchers.

I see what you are saying. Will try to clarify.

It is an addiction, and one that 99% of addicts know is going to kill them. Most smokers say they want to quit but continue in the self delsusion, and group delusion, that allows them to continue as they think they wont ever be able to quit.

Health warnings etc are so vague and easy to ignore that they have no effect. Information about money saving arent relevant because, as I said, the smoker can afford it.

But offering someone hard cash to do the thing that they have been promising themselves they will do works in 2 ways. Cash is not vague, you either got it or you aint and is hard to ignore! And to get it, you have to attend the smoking cessation clinics that prescribe free NRT/Champix etc and support thereby increasing the chances of success. Many addicts wouldnt attend these clinics out of choice and with no incentive other than the perceived (to them) health benefits.

And then you spend it, start smoking again, and then what?

Anorexia isnt an addiction, it is a MH disorder.

An addiction is as much an addiction whether it is gambling, fags, heroin,food, alcohol, sex....

If you cant live without it, and trying to seriously affects you and those around you, then does it really matter what the substance is? It costs money, health and happiness, the only difference being that hard drugs will rob you of those quicker than fags.

Frankly if I was a smoker on Derbyshire I'd be going KERCHING and sitting online right now spending my 750 fag quids.

Enjoy

THat is something I have been pondering, so I would hope that the research that was mentioned earlier and the research that this decision has been based on, has included looking at how many quitter were still off the fags 1, 5 and 10 years down the line.

Thank you bogeyface :)

Frankly I would be amazed if it hadnt, thinking about it, given the outcry they must have known would follow the announcment.

YANBU

In regard to the placenta claim, my friend who did smoke through her pregnancies was shown her placenta and there was a layer of grit on the top that the midwife peeled off. Unsurprisingly from that, midwife can look atr a placenta and tell if you have smoked.

I am well aware thesmoke doesn't go straight to the placenta but it still works as a filter for toxins.

For whatever it was I said Trickle you are welcome :)

you keep saying a lot of very sensible things but also for sorting out that link

I think this money would be better off spent on trying to persuade overweight Mums to be, to lose weight before they TTC.

No-one likes a pregnant smoker (for obvious reasons)

But hardly anyone bats an eyelid at overweight pregnant women who are putting their babies and themselves at risk.

My guess is that at £6 or £7 a packet, there are a lot more overweight pregnant women than smokers.

It's just as selfish imo.

Many addicts wouldnt attend these clinics out of choice and with no incentive other than the perceived (to them) health benefits.

Well someone who really puts their addiction and lack of effort to at least try and quit, over the health/life of their unborn baby, is simply tragic.

I am not a smoker (dabbled in my younger days but never consistently). However I do think people are being fairly harsh on people that do smoke in pregnancy. I don't drink tea, coffee or fizzy drinks because I don't like the taste of any of them and as a by-product of that I don't have caffeine regularly. When I was pregnant I didn't drink any alcohol at all (I'm an all or nothing kind of girl!). However, I did not judge those who had some alcohol/caffeine throughout their pregnancy because they were "unable" to give it up. I wonder if many of these people would have been able to give it up with a financial incentive. This, in my opinion, is the same as smokers. I don't care how people give up things that will make them and their babies healthier, it's just great if they can somehow I think.

ahh! no worries Trickle :)

Oh lovely, lets slag off fat birds too, that'll help

I do understand where you're coming from Bogeyface. But I still have reservations about the whole thing. Serious one.
If, as you are saying, cash is a real, tangible reward, then surely that cuts both ways. Why isn't cash being offered to non smokers too, to incentivise them to not take up smoking? Or simply to reward them for having made a good decision.?

I think at the end of the day, if cash is seen as a 'good' incentive, then you need to accept that particularly in these cash strapped times, there are many people out there who could do with it, and it's simply not equitable to give it to people as a 'reward' for stopping doing something which other people have the sense not to start in the first place. It contributes to this very unhealthy culture of rewarding people who don't take control of their own life.

And finally, what loopydo says is absolutely right, it's tragic that anyone could actually be incentivised more by 750 quid than by their child's well being.

I'm definitely not judging the pregnant smokers; I'm judging the govt. and their hair brained ideas of which we've had rather a lot lately.

Yes, I can imagine that level of data was examined.

Or it's a desperate and totally ineffectual way of dealing with a habit that doesn't see you slumped in a desperate, incoherent, adled state but indeed quite capable of making a choice. You may chose to deny that, but I stand here to contradict you.

I'm having a nice bottle of tonight, and I'm off to argue with Question Time. I wish you a pleasant evening.

Yes it does contribute to that culture, but if it works and saves the country more money in the longrun then I still think it is a good idea.

Sadly, if you are going to create a nanny state then you immediately create people who expect to be looked after.

And as I explained earlier, to some people the idea that their own health will be affected by smoking is a nonsense, so they certainly are going to struggle with the concept that a child that isnt even born is going to suffer.

Stand where you like!

Enjoy :)

I don't really see the difference between smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy to be honest. If there were a scheme that offered people £750 for not drinking any alcohol at all during their pregnancy I am sure that many people would happily take up the offer. Were the offer not there they may have continued to drink alcohol throughout their pregnancy (whether that be one or 20 units a week). Does this mean that they are being "incentivised more by 750 quid than by their child's well being."?

You see, with the financial aspect, it's not as simple as saying 'well £750 is cheaper compared to the NHS costs of smokers'.

You need to look at it more long term. We have a growing culture in the UK of being seen to 'reward' people who don't take control over their life. That's really dangerous, and also economically unviable over time. It might seem like a quick fix, but what it's actually doing is sustaining this idea that someone is entitled to be given money for all sorts of bizarre things: Become a smoker and we'll pay you to stop. Choose not to start in the first place, and we won't give you anything!!

It seems like I'm defending this scheme whereas overall I would obviously love it if we were in a position where we would not need any kind of incentives at all, I just have no idea of what that position would be or how to get there!

I'm sure the scheme has the best of intentions. However the problem is with these schemes is it doesn't send out the right signals to the rest of society.

We are once again rewarding bad behaviour whilst the people who are doing everything right get nothing.

It's no different to sending a teenage thug on safari to Africa. Yes I'm sure it's an enriching experience for them but it sucks if you are the grade A student who didn't get to go because he didn't beat anyone up.

So whilst I can totally understand that £750 is probably peanuts and even a net saving when compared to the NHS money which they later may cost us, at the same time I think we have to consider the signals it sends out.

Using the same logic, maybe we should simply pay all smokers to stop smoking? Or perhaps even pay criminals not to commit crimes under threat of not getting paid if they do........

Not a good idea? I didn't think so.