To hate the idea of the new smoking bribe?

[CharleyFarleyy]

What do people who dont smoke anyway get? seems like they are going to miss out un-fairly.

Also if quitting for your and your babys health isnt incentive enough will shopping vouchers help anyway?

Why, when a woman is doing wrong, do we always paint them as some poor victim living in terrible circumstances.

I've given support to pregnant women on here trying to give up. Ive cheered them on when they said they'd got down to one a day. But incentives? No.

"Why, when a woman is doing wrong, do we always paint them as some poor victim living in terrible circumstances. "

Very true Grays.

Bumley & Grays -

And I agree witb everything Cleo said.

No, I'm not, Goodbye. You're deliberately including examples that aren't analogous - such as theft.

Check the rest of the thread where details of incentives related to obesity have been trialled. A quick Google threw up a Mayo Clinic study that found that 62% of obese people offered $20 a month succeeded in meeting their weight loss targets, compared to 26% of people given no financial incentive.

Given the costs to the public purse (NHS spending), the , and the complex nature of the problem on an individual level (well documented), if there is evidence that it works for some people, why would you be against it? And that's without lost productivity and the impact on the individual and their families. As a straightup fiscal argument, it makes some sense.

The NHS already pays for people to attend weightloss groups and gives discounted personal training or gym sessions to help people with obesity - again because the potential benefit to the NHS (and to the individual) outweighs the cost.

Opinions about nhs are interesting but I think money should be spend trying to persuade these women to stop smoking in other ways rather than using money as an incentive. Their babies health should be all the incentive they need.

But it's clear that, for some women, it's not. We can judge those women all we like - it makes us feel warmly superior, what's not to like? But after we've done that, some women will still be smoking during pregnancy. What are the 'other ways' you'd like money spent on, in that case?

I like a drink but have given it up during pregnancy, surely they can do the same? I have not been given any money for this.

Ah yes. You clearly have a good handle on the nature of addiction.

Exactly.

Of course there are exceptions with abuse, violence etc but maybe they aren't in the best situation to be having children anyway then!?! If their lives are so bad why bring a child into it?

The ones I know who smoked had partners, houses and no violent circumstance etc. They were just selfish twats.

Why must we make them all out to be unfortunate struggling saints. They aren't! They have a mind, they know the science and the risks and they choose to ignore it.

bubaloo - so, what, in that case we should be happy for their children to have raised likelihood of health issues, because they are selfish twats? Sins of the mother?

For me the case for incentives for pregnant women is much more clear cut than non-pregnant smokers or obese people. The health of a second person is directly and immediately at risk.

Jassy - calling it an addiction does not mean it's automatically acceptable!

Oh she's on crack and decided to have a baby but it's an addiction the poor thing, let's give her some shopping vouchers.

They know they are addicted to a harmful substance when they smoke and still choose to get pregnant. They know it can seriously harm their baby.

Lots of you pro-pregnancy smokers that have posted on here seem to be completely ignoring these obvious facts in favour of arguments about where else to spend the money etc.

Jassy - if the mother is so fucking selfish she won't quit smoking in pregnancy unfortunately there will most likely be a long list of health problems the poor child will face in the future.

I'm sure a mum who is selfish enough to smoke throughout pregnancy isn't going to worry about healthy food, diet, exercise and not continuing to smoke around them during their childhood.

Why do we need to pay people to get them to care enough about their baby's health to give up smoking/breastfeed?

Short answer - to alleviate shit life syndrome.

Longer answer - if you are poor, have few employment opportunities, work precarious hours or too many low paid hours, are being hassled or sanctioned by the jobcentre, have debt, haven't had a stable upbringing, have an unplanned pregnancy, live in insecure or substandard accommodation, have a disability or long-term condition or care for someone who does, have dysfunctional or abusive relationships, didn't have a great education, live in an unsafe area, are a victim of crime ...

Any combination of several of these (or many other stressful factors, mostly bound up with poverty) can substantially diminish your ability to think long term and make good decisions. You're living in permanent survival mode which means you make the choice that gets you through TODAY. And every day is like that so you never get the chance to think about what would be a good idea in the long term. You're permanently running on empty in terms of money, energy and time. A few hundred quid can make a vast difference to people living in difficult circumstances. It can relieve multiple pressures and give people the mental space they need to think clearly, make better choices and cope with the additional short-term stress of putting them into practice. It's what? about half the price of a handbag for many MNers but it can turn somebody's life around.

I do wish we could get away from the idea that women who sign up for voucher schemes don't care enough for their baby's health. If they allowed themselves to properly feel how much they care and how far their lives fall short of what they would wish for their children they'd fall to bits and miss the bus for their 6am cleaning job (or whatever other soul-destroying pressure they are facing today) and then where would they be?

Got any evidence for that, bubalou? But how nice that you're quite happy to see a kid get the worst possible start because they have a shit mum.

Surely a kid in the situation you've painted (and is that 10% of children's homes? Really?) needs the best start they can get. And given that the rates of quitting in this pilot were observed after a year (not 8 or 9 months), it seems that more kids would have a good first few months as well as a better chance of being born healthy.

But yeah, fuck'em. Their mum was too rubbish to quit smoking so they don't deserve it.

SarahManning - I dread to think what a negative thread about smoking in pregnancy must be like if you're praising this one for the positivity shown.

There's been some horrible things said about pregnant smokers here and an awful lot of hostility towards them.

Im sorry but BS.

I grew up in Harpurhey (google it if you don't know the place, its grim!) so many deprived women and the hard working ones that love and support their kids are the ones that dont smoke! they cant afford it and dont want to cause them the harm. The ones that do smoke are so addicted that they can't stop even if they are offered vouchers (like my mum) or they can give up but dont care about the effect it has on the kids unless they are offered vouchers.

This is why IMO vouchers would not work!

Charley, charming as that anecdote is, 11% of women in England and closer to 20% of the women in Scotland are apparently smokers at the time of giving birth.

The pilot studies showed that vouchers made a significant difference. If you know better than the people in the BMJ, why not give them a call? Explain why their results are off?

I personally don't know anyone who didn't give up smoking while pregnant but interestingly enough, I get that my personal experience doesn't speak to the total picture.

I, like your thread title, hate the idea of this. I hate that it would even be necessary. But the reality is that - yes, it's necessary, and yes, there's some early evidence that it works. At least in Glasgow. Maybe people are wired completely differently in Manchester.

There is a massive correlation between smoking and both poverty and poor mental health. See here and here. Vouchers should be offered because lots of pg smokers actually need the money to get them in a good enough place to cope with quitting.

cleo I dead against this and would sign a petition against it. well then you'd have blood on your hands. Actual lives are at stake here, do you not get that? And what's your pressing reason for opposing this so strongly? It's simply not fair and annoys me. Oh well I take it all back then. Clearly you not being annoyed or feeling hard done by is far more important than preventing miscarriages, still-births and neonatal problems, not to mention the extra years of healthy life the mothers could have had. Totally reasonable. And Charley - And I agree witb everything Cleo said. well then you're as reasonable as she is.

statistics are great but they dont give the whole picture.

WHY are women that are given the incentive more likely to give up?

That needs investigation. More education is needed maybe? More help available? I dont know.

But just because it works (or seems to) doesn't mean its right! i

If you think pregnant smokers are selfish, shit parents who don't deserve children you're pretty fucking naive. And lucky you've managed to live in a bubble for so long where smoking is the worst thing that parents can do to their kids.

But Charley - the news story is that they DID work! there is evidence to prove it. Your opinion counts for exactly nothing on that point. You appear to be missing the point of your own thread.

Plenty - and you are very resonable!

"you will have blood on your hands"
for signing a petiton! who is using extreme examples now!

IMO from what ive seen, women that smoke while PG are either not arsed or heavily addicted cant stop. Thats a fair asumptions surley?

Women that cant stop, vouchers will not help?

Women that are not arsed, may stop for the incentive of vouchers but I worry that the child is in more danger than just the effects of smoking if the womens sole interest is vouchers?

I said nothing about the kids not deserving it - what a shock as I've said you ignored the obvious.

I think everything should be done to protect the poor children. However think it's awful that people are on here sticking up for these selfish women.

As for there being far worse things - I'm fully aware of this. Does that mean we ignore smoking mothers because some mothers do drugs, ignore mothers doing drugs because some beat their children, ignore the ones beating their children because some abuse their kids and so on.

Where is it acceptable for you because 'there's worse things'.

I literally can't comprehend so many people sticking up for them. Maybe I am living in a bubble where I thought people should put the health of their unborn baby before their own selfish needs.

Despite me being extremely healthy, no smoking, drinking, low bmi, good diet and exercise - my baby is going to be born in a few months with a serious heart problem that will see him having open heart surgery when he is just a few days old.

There's nothing I could have done to prevent this but if I was told drinking only water, eating a raw, organic, vegan, holistic diet and standing on my head for the 9 months of pregnancy would have prevented it I would do it in an instant. I would do anything for him to be healthy.

Unfortunately that is not possible. Some of us do everything we can and we still become the awful unlucky one - like in our case a 1 in 5,000 statistic.

or they can give up but dont care about the effect it has on the kids unless they are offered vouchers.

Uhm ... for one thing the stop smoking vouchers have only been offered as part of a RCT in Glasgow. For another, how do you know these women are not simply unable to quit? I really doubt they'd confide in you, given your attitudes, so I can't work out how you would know this.

Well obviously if they can give up, they can give up. Why can they suddenly do it when a reward is offered?