To judge this woman?

[moralberyll]

Leaving the local maternity unit today and a heavily pregnant woman who is obviously a patient as she was wearing a dressing gown, slippers and pyjamas was standing right near the doorway smoking a cigarette, there is a big sign up saying 'no smoking on campus'. Aibu to judge her that she is not only putting her own baby at risk but she wants to put other people's baby's at risk from secondhand smoke as well? I would definitely have said something if i were leaving the unit with my newborn baby!

99.9% eh? I'm sure you came to that percentage through rigorous research and not at all by pulling it out of your arse. Citation?

And I may have a 'super allergy'? What medical school did you attend in order to come to that diagnosis of a total stranger? Possibly a different one to my doctor who told me I should avoid passive smoking as it's a trigger.

Tie yourself up in knots, make up statistics and 'super allergies' all you like, but there are people you will harm of you smoke near them. So either don't do it or admit that you just don't give a shit.

Get over yourself Giraffe is all I can possibly answer.

I've never seen anyone in the street choking and vomitting and convulsing because someone walked past them with a cigerette. That must be quite a sight

I don't disbelieve you about the vomiting but it must be extremely rare. I get some people coughing can trigger a vomit reaction but I've never seen a puff of smoke do that to somebody. Surely you should just avoid anyone with a cigarette if it's that sever and if it's only happened the once it must be easy enough to do.

Whatamesshaslunch
Her body her choice? It's not her body though, is it? It's the baby's
Ahh no, even when pregnant a woman is the owner and controller of her body and everything inside. She can do as she pleases

Athomedadglos
Should be illegal to smoke whilst pregnant, enforceable by a fine and mandatory attendance at a stop smoking clinic.
It's child abuse
Like it or not, when you're pregnant your body isn't solely your own.
Lmao guess what daddy, you dont get to dictate what women do with their body, pregnant or not. You dont even get a say if your mrs aborts
Even when pregnant, a womans body is hers to do as she pleases with
You dont get to legislate what women do when pregnant. Plus laws wont stop people smoking. Many things can be bad in pregnancy, should it be illegal for women to eat hams, soft cheese, sushi. All not reccomended in pregnancy.

Fluffypinkpyjamas
Well yes we are actually plantsitter that is EXACTLY what we are when pregnant by choice. We have to keep the baby safe and healthy and smoking, taking drugs, drinking, is NOT doing that. Anyone that cannot give up for 9 months doesn't deserve children.
And the woman is owner and controller of her body, she decides what happens to her body
You obviously have no idea on addiction.
Do you get so smug on women eating soft serve or sushi?

Damn you 3 are disgusting. Essentially your deeming women who are pregnant to have no bodily autonomy or rights to their own life.

squeekums there's a difference between something not being recommended and being actively harmful though.

I contend that, during those months of pregnancy, a woman's body is not solely hers and hers alone. It is also that of the foetus growing inside, and therefore there should be a responsibility to that foetus if the woman is planning to carry to term.

Of course it's her right to choose whether to do so (I'm not Rees-Mogg), but, if the choice is made to continue with the pregnancy then support (and possible sanctions) should be offered to help said mum-to-be have a healthy child.

Failing that, perhaps the NHS should refuse to help the child with asthma related illnesses; if the mother couldn't give a shit to stop smoking why should the NHS pick up the tab?

Failing that, perhaps the NHS should refuse to help the child with asthma related illnesses; if the mother couldn't give a shit to stop smoking why should the NHS pick up the tab?

Ridiculous argument. People aren't judged on whether they did anything to bring in their own illnesses (or that of their children). The child had no choice about whether their mother smoked or not. It would be totally unfair to punish them for someone else's decision.

I contend that, during those months of pregnancy, a woman's body is not solely hers and hers alone. It is also that of the foetus growing inside, and therefore there should be a responsibility to that foetus if the woman is planning to carry to term.

That sounds all very well and good but how does it work in practice when a woman decides to carry on smoking/drinking/another harmful behaviour? Does she get locked up?

At ridiculous glousdad. Why should a child suffer for their parents choices.

The sugggestions on this thread are barbaric. You belong in China.

jordan that's a bit racist isn't it?

Racist? LOL. She told you that you belong in a totalitarian state like China, with your views of how pregnant women should be controlled by law.

Nothing to do with racism at all. And quite correct.

Failing that, perhaps the NHS should refuse to help the child with asthma related illnesses; if the mother couldn't give a shit to stop smoking why should the NHS pick up the tab?

What a nonsensical argument! My child has asthma, I've never smoked in my life!

What's racist about saying China has very poor human rights record, indeed treating its citizens the way you propose pregnant women to be treated?

No she didn't. She said I belong in China. Not a state 'like' China.

jonsnow then the NHS would pick up the bill.

If the mother can't be bothered to quit smoking in the best interests of the child then why should the state pick up the bill?

The NHS will have to make some tough choices over the next decade in order to keep in existence. Decisions like these may well have to be made.

Yes I did say that so? What difference does it make? Go to china and you can be sure women's pregnancies and bodies are being controlled just the way you and others on this thread want

"She said I belong in China. Not a state 'like' China."

Yes, and all of us without English comprehension problems understood what she meant.

If the mother can't be bothered to quit smoking in the best interests of the child then why should the state pick up the bill?

The NHS will have to make some tough choices over the next decade in order to keep in existence. Decisions like these may well have to be made.

The NHS will NEVER refuse to treat children with asthma. It's one of the most ridiculous suggestions I've ever seen on here, which is saying something. I've seen people aregue that people shouldn't be treated for their own smoking related diseases (I don't agree but I understand the argument) but punishing their children for choices they had no control over? Bloody hell.

I thinks she's cleared it up.

Look, semantics matter on these points. Inference only gets you so far and people need to be more careful when making comments.

My views might not be in line with yours, but there's no need to bring race into it. That's just nasty.

"If the mother can't be bothered to quit smoking in the best interests of the child then why should the state pick up the bill?"

1. It's not the baby's fault if mum was smoking, drinking, or sleeping around collecting STDs.

1. NHS doesn't ask people to conform to health ideals as a peer equity to treatment.

Otherwise, it would be: If obese people couldn't be bothered to slim down, why should NHS pick up the bill for their diabetes and joint problems?

If people insist on mountain climbing, skiing, paragliding etc why should NHS pick up the bill when they fall?

Why stop there? Let's go further:

If people self-harm & cut themselves, why should NHS pick up the bill for bandaging, disinfecting their wounds?

"there's no need to bring race into it. That's just nasty."

Nobody brought race into the discussion but you.

Nobody knows what race you are so couldn't have commented on it anyway.

You belong in a Dystopian novel like The Handmaid's Tale. There. Is that better? Do you get it now?

NHS doesn't ask people to conform to health ideals as a peer equity prerequisite to treatment.

Well, in turn;

The NHS already requires obese people to slim down before certain treatments are offered. This is entirely reasonable and will probably be applied to other procedures in the future.

It seems reasonable to require people doing 'extreme' sports such as those to take out specialised health insurance to cover them. I know injuries happen in other sports (rugby, football etc) but these are less 'extreme' in nature and make up part of a general healthy lifestyle. Therefore they should be covered by the NHS.

Self harming / eating disorders are diagnosable mental illnesses and therefore clearly should be treated.

My point still stands - that if the individual can't be bothered to prevent preventable illnesses then why should the state pick up the tab? I include treatment for those who have smoked all their lives etc. The NHS already refuses alcoholics a new liver - is that unreasonable? Do we live in such hedonistic times that all sense of self-responsibility is abrogated?

My point still stands - that if the individual can't be bothered to prevent preventable illnesses then why should the state pick up the tab?

No, the point you were making was that if the pregnant woman continues to smoke, why should the state pick up the tab for her CHILD'S illness. That's totally different.

It's still a preventable illness.

It also gets my goat when social services/teachers/NHS etc get it in the neck when a child is murdered by their parent. They always seem to come under more flack than the murdering bastard who killed the child (I'm not equating smoking with murder before I get flamed for that too).