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?

Jassy, you really don't read my posts. Youre confusing the analysis that goes into developing such programs as the one we are discussing and the eligibility criteria. I'm speaking of the latter. These babies are going to qualify for most similar programs rolled out by the NHS etc, because eligibility is determined by broad assumptions based on factors such as maternal smoking and income. Mothers who smoke while pregnant statistically tick a number of troubling boxes, Why don't you google it yourself?

I'm not confusing anything.

People will be eligible for 'similar schemes' if they smoke; they are more likely to smoke if their parents smoke during their childhoods. That had nothing to do with smoking in pregnancy, where the risks are more related to health (birthweight, lungs, posdible future obesity).

Therefore the benefits of getting a parent to stop smoking during pregnancy are even greater if that parent stops smoking permanently (relapse rates after a year tend to be quite low; I looked it up. A lot of studies out there). Because not only are you improving the child's health and the mother's, you are potentially avoiding a future smoker.

One also needs to be quite careful about confusing features of certain demographics (families with complex problems are likely to have a parent who smokes) with the converse (not all parents who smoke have families with complex problems). Unless there's alternative research you want to share.

However, you said 'I've made assumptions, just as bureaucrats do when they formulate these programmes.' I pinted out to you that your statement was factually incorrect as your assumptions do not appear to be based on evidence. I read your post just fine, your statement was nonsense.

Which chemical are you addicted to?

One also needs to be quite careful about confusing features of certain demographics (families with complex problems are likely to have a parent who smokes) with the converse (not all parents who smoke have families with complex problems).

How many times have I said that there are exceptions (like all statistical data) to the statement: "Mothers who smoke while pregnant are more likely to tick boxes that will form the basis of eligibility criteria for wider state-run "good behavior" and intervention programs" ?

One should likewise not confuse "parents who smoke" with "mothers who smoke while pregnant". I'm going to again assume that the latter has a more troubling profile than the former, without even googling.

You like this program because you say it saves the NHS money. I disagree/think its besides the point because of my philosophical objections but also because once the baby clears this hurdle she's still statistically at risk; she's more likely to be eligible to whatever other programs the state decides to roll out, like paying parents to have their children exercise or eat properly (I'm sure some clever bureaucrat could make a case for this). In other words, this is a slippery slope.

And of that subset of smoking pregnant women who don't meet the problematic criteria that I've been speaking of; the baby is born healthier, and they go on to lead lives that are less draining on the NHS - they're irretrievably co-mingled with the others, it is impossible and unethical to identify them, and it would make no sense to even try.

I see that you have implied that my diet coke addiction is not actually an addiction because it is not a physical one. You do realize that you're treading on hallowed ground for the woolly-headed?

I like this programme (although it's worth remembering it's not a programme at all but a RCT) because it gives babies a healthier start in life as well as improving the health of the mother.

'mothers who smoke while pregnant' are a subset of 'parents who smoke', who are in turn a subset of 'smokers'. It's probably safe to assume pg smokers are among the most heavily addicted. What other assumptions are you making about them and on what basis?

but also because once the baby clears this hurdle she's still statistically at risk; she's more likely to be eligible to whatever other programs the state decides to roll out

I am really struggling to understand your point here. Are you saying that because some people need help with more than one issue we shouldn't bother helping them with any issue?

All government interventions cost money. This one just gives more power to the recipient in how it is spent. Is this where your 'philosophical objection' comes in?

'mothers who smoke while pregnant' are a subset of 'parents who smoke', who are in turn a subset of 'smokers'. It's probably safe to assume pg smokers are among the most heavily addicted. What other assumptions are you making about them and on what basis?

I would guess that that it's highly correlated with education. I don't know how you measure levels of addiction in any case.

I am really struggling to understand your point here. Are you saying that because some people need help with more than one issue we shouldn't bother helping them with any issue?

I'm suggesting that firstly, the state shouldn't be in the business of punishing/rewarding behavior. Secondly, most "bad behaviors" are not isolated - using precisely the same reasoning you could pay a family not only to quit smoking but also exercise, lose weight, attend parenting classes, read to their children, whatever.

All government interventions cost money. This one just gives more power to the recipient in how it is spent. Is this where your 'philosophical objection' comes in?

Reasonable intervention targets: children, prisoners, vulnerable elderly people. Why are we "intervening" on law-abiding adults?

I'm suggesting that firstly, the state shouldn't be in the business of punishing/rewarding behavior.

Well, with all the savings on a criminal justice system, the cost of smokers to the NHS won't be an issue.

You keep ignoring that children are one of the targets of this particular intervention, just at a time when they are biologically dependent on their mother. The intervention isn't because there is a greater risk for the mother, it's the risk to the child.

You keep talking about children being statistically at risk, but aren't sharing the statistics you're using. Given the size of the cohort, it's relevant.

And yes, I'm asking what substance you're addicted to, unless it is the behaviour of drinking diet coke to which you are addicted, and which has become the focus of your life. If so, seek psychiatric help.

I think 'addiction' is used rather freely to which diminishes actual addictions. Or do you count yourself as one of the woolly-headed?

Jassy, I've been civil and you're increasingly rude so this is my final response to you.

There's a person housing the fetus i.e. the mother, and she's a law-abiding adult having free will.

I don't need to google every comment I make, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that children who are born to mothers who smoke while pregnant are more likely to be "at risk" by any number of bureaucratic yardsticks.

If you like. I've questioned the logic of your position and asked who you were describing as 'woolly-headed' (such a civil term). You in turn have been relentlessly hostile and dismissive and ducked questions. Pointing out the flaws in the logic of your statements around state intervention is hardly rude; however I apologise if it came across that way.

No one is suggesting that you google every statement you make. But when you say things are statistically likely or unlikely, it's not unreasonable for people to ask what statistics you're referring to. Because statistics aren't the same as 'I feel like this should be true' or 'I think this is a common sense position'. Assumptions aren't proof; they are statements that require proof before they can be considered factual.

I've just realised that it was perhaps my suggestion of psychiatric help that you took as rude. It was meant entirely sincerely. If you have a behavioural, rather than a chemical addiction, then it's an incredibly serious and difficult thing to deal with and psychiatric intervention would be appropriate.

I don't see mental health, or the treatments related to it, as insults. However I'm aware others use it that way - and can see in retrospect how it may have come across. Please be assured that it wasn't meant that way, it was a genuine suggestion if you have a genuine addiction.

Just came back to this. Lots of really interesting comments to catch up on.

I was thinking about the bodily autonomy thing over the weekend. These are women who have decided to stay pregnant. They want the baby and are therefore going to accept parental responsibility for it which includes being responsible for its health and well being. I'm wondering if there is therefore a potential argument to be made for them having some responsibility to the child in utero if they have made that decision.

It's only my opinion but I think that there's a wider issue here than just giving money away!
People with addictive personalities struggle greatly and sometimes their environment is their worst enemy.
Some people turn to addictions in life when things are difficult for them some people have friends, family and acquaintances who are also addicted to something and they enable other people around them to get 'hooked' on whatever the substance is, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, drugs or other substance mis-use.
And lets face it there's a lot of people profiting from the sales of all of the above, some of illegal and much of it, is legal and can be acquired cheaply for most people. Governments make millions in tax from alcohol and tobacco. They can put age restrictions or environment usage of both but they DO NOT tackle the real reasons for use, and they certainly don't tackle the social reasons that cause many people to become addicted.
Some of us with-out addictive personalities and some of us who try to manage our situations and stressful times with other strategies, might not be able to truly understand why some people feel the need to use tobacco, alcohol or drugs as a crutch or feel the need to 'use' because of peer pressure etc.
Of course unborn babies must be a priority and every effort should be made to encourage the Mother to stop smoking, using alcohol or drugs, but their partners and close family and friends need educating too.
Ideally the education should start at the earliest age possible with very young children and this should be re-in-forced with school lessons, ditched the ( never used again algebra) and have more social skills lessons.
Some people don't like the graphic videos and campaigns showing the results of addiction and mis-use but if they are put in an education programme with age appropriate material, the message would start much earlier in a child's life.
I think that most of us would benefit from learning how to manage our stressful situations better and also help with pressure from peers or our environment.
We need to 'de-cool' drugs, alcohol and tobacco but we need to offer alternative strategies to children from a very early age.
Of course there needs to be an urgent campaign to encourage pregnant mums to quit but taking the tobacco away doesn't always take the deeper issues away and this needs long term strategies.And some empathy with Mums who are struggling with addictions.

I think it's great to smoke during pregnancy, y'know get them started early! Does the body good ;)