Drinking drugs and smoking whilst being pregnant?

[pennygirl26]

I know someone who is due her baby in Dec. She only found out a few weeks ago she is pregnant.

She had very openly continued to smoke cigarettes and joints,but has been drinking also saying its not anything worse than what she's done in the past 6 months. She's also still taking coke every now and again. What can I do about this? I feel sick every time I see her. The other night I caught her buying a half bottle. It's just so dicgusting I don't know who to go to as I don't want her to know its me.

I also don’t understand what you mean by the law not having ‘a legal basis’. The fact that a law is passed is the legal basis.

They would stay in the facility under monitoring for the duration of the pregnancy. So a short period in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with Sesame here. Either women are moral agents capable of making informed decisions about their bodies just as men are, or they aren't. Foetuses are not independent people. They exist only by the life support of the mother. The moment that life support is gone, right-to-life types have no further interest in the actual life of a living being. So fuck that.

Indeed. And we can see elements of that on this thread, policy suggestions aimed at policing and punishing women that potentially cause their children to suffer but this isn't even considered.

Because systems are only ever as perfect as the imperfect humans running them, there will be fuck ups. There always are. And fear of negative consequences, rational or otherwise, leads people to shy away from medical care. If you actually give even the slightest fuck about foetal welfare, you remove disincentives to accessing antenatal care. Not create new ones.

TulipsTulipsTulips

And I strongly feel you are wrong. You only have to look across the pond to see how the ‘rights’ of unborn children, once established in law, corrode the rights of their mothers. Don’t open that gate; there’s a hydra on the other side.

I also don’t understand what you mean by the law not having ‘a legal basis’. The fact that a law is passed is the legal basis.

Tell that to Boris.

If it is not classed as a baby, what am I harming by drinking? This is utter rubbish. It’s either a person or it isn’t.

So do you think a termination should be allowed up until birthing it or do you understand that it has been determined at a certain point it should not ?

@seaweed

I understand that you feel strongly about it too. I think we will just disagree on this. On a more constructive note, I think this is a good debate to have especially among people with different opinions. I’m definitely interested in hearing different perspectives even if I have a different view.

Either women are moral agents capable of making informed decisions about their bodies just as men are,

Are women making informed decisions then to take substances that risk causing lifelong disabilities for their baby?

They know exactly what they are doing but do it anyway? Wow.

I knew someone very close to my family who done this she admitted she did know she was pregnant in the end, but only went to the hospital at 37 weeks after my DM forced her to go. By this point they kept her in induced her and baby was born she was adamant she was giving the baby away, then she wanted to keep it amazingly social services allowed her too. She had to live in a unit type thing for ages to prove she was capable.
The baby was born withdrawing from cocaine they used a litmus paper in his nappy that turned blue when he urinated to show he had it in his system his head was quite large and looked like he had two skulls on top of another but he's grown up so far ok. Madness though

Although I also wonder if mumsnetters oversimplify how laws can be written and formulated. For example, our law is sophisticated enough to make murder illegal, but to recognise that there are permissible exceptions such as self defence. Equally, I think that a law protecting a foetus from brain damage can be drafted so that abortion rights are unchanged.

So do you think a termination should be allowed up until birthing it or do you understand that it has been determined at a certain point it should not ?

I actually believe the law on abortion is an inconsistent mess. But you make a good point. Having said that, I don’t believe it would make sense to extend that to substance abuse. If the foetus is considered to be a non-person in early pregnancy, but that is when the greatest risk to the foetus from substance abuse occurs, then there’s no sense in these proposed laws. You would be able to harm the foetus at the most risky time, and it would be protected at the safest time.

But in any case, I think your proposal is grotesque, inhumane, against medical ethics and it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. And if it wasn’t, women with substance abuse problems would simply fail to declare their pregnancies. So everyone would lose.

Thanks, Tulip. You are very courteous debate partner for this issue. 😂

Sorry @Passthecherrycoke missed this one

How would the state know which women breeched their 2 units a week

They would have to be been flagged up, I'm not suggesting every pregnant woman be constantly monitored.

Maybe like in the case of the OP a report to SS that is founded, means monitoring
Any signs through blood test that alcohol is an issue , means monitoring
Being off your face on dunk and drugs, means monitoring

means monitoring
Any signs through blood test that alcohol is an issue , means monitoring

But you can refuse a blood test...

I think your proposal is grotesque, inhumane, against medical ethics and it would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

I feel considering we have quite a sophisticated legal system, it's grotesque, Inhumane and puts medical ethics into question that there is nothing to protect against a child being born when their mother has forced upon them such disgraceful treatment, that they will now live with those consequences for their whole life.

*And if it wasn’t, women with substance abuse problems would simply fail to declare their pregnancies. So everyone would lose.

Yes there is a chance of this happening more so than it already does now, there is also a chance it could help some mothers and in turn help some innocents

A law could be written to make it illegal to take hardcore drugs when pregnant.

That law already exists. Class A drugs aren’t legal

Yes there is a chance of this happening more so than it already does now, there is also a chance it could help some mothers and in turn help some innocents

More than properly funded, voluntary support programmes? I’m not convinced by that. I believe this would do considerably more harm than good, on almost every level.

I actually believe the law on abortion is an inconsistent mess

What amendments would you make ?

You would be able to harm the foetus at the most risky time, and it would be protected at the safest time. 

Yes your right, unless it would be caught early, it would be extremely difficult to stop in the early stages. But the prolonged use of drugs and alcohol is not good at any point in the pregnancy, but something still needs considered to protect these soon to be babies.

More than properly funded, voluntary support programmes? I’m not convinced by that. I believe this would do considerably more harm than good, on almost every level.

But some addicts don't want the help, that's the point. It protecting the unborn children if addicts who refuse help and continue to abuse their foetus,

But some addicts don't want the help, that's the point. It protecting the unborn children if addicts who refuse help and continue to abuse their foetus,

Some would desperately like the help, but are afraid to come forward and ask for it. Many do, however, and their children are helped as a result. This would be likely to prevent that good. So yes, you might help a few - a very few - people who had been reported to SS, but think about the many you would placing at greater risk of damage.

What amendments would you make ?

Well, you wouldn’t like them and I probably wouldn’t implement them. I believe a woman should not be obligated to be pregnant, ever. In theory I believe in late-term abortion, because pregnancy should always be a choice. It’s taken me a long time to come to that view and I remain not entirely happy with it, but for me the 24 weeks law is an honourable compromise that makes no ethical sense for either the pro life or pro choice position, and it should not be used as the basis for any other law, because it’s deeply flawed. That said, I don’t think I would actually legislate for late-term abortion, based on all the possible unintended consequences of such a law (considerable risks to the mother, the unfairness of asking HCPs to carry out such procedures, the suffering of the foetus at that stage). But in theory, if I shouldn’t be forced to be pregnant at 8 weeks, it’s not different at 28 weeks.

Some would desperately like the help, but are afraid to come forward and ask for it.
So this will get them help, yes they are afraid to ask for it, thus the damage continue to be done to the foetus. I am in no way blaming the mothers for their situation or have no sympathy , I am simply saying the foetus should be protected,

Many do, however, and their children are helped as a result. This would be likely to prevent that good.
It wouldn't prevent that good as that would already be happening in the same manor, this would be for those refusing help and continuing to damage their foetus. This accepting help would be a different Kettle of fish.

So yes, you might help a few - a very few - people who had been reported to SS, but think about the many you would placing at greater risk of damage.

I disagree due to the points above.

So this will get them help, yes they are afraid to ask for it, thus the damage continue to be done to the foetus.

I don’t think would get them help at all. It might help the foetus. It isn’t going to help the woman to be locked up and forcibly “dried out”. That would be a traumatic experience that wouldn’t address her underlying problems. It would be almost certain to lead to relapse.

It wouldn't prevent that good as that would already be happening in the same manor, this would be for those refusing help and continuing to damage their foetus. This accepting help would be a different Kettle of fish.

The two are inextricably linked. If you are a woman in the early stages of pregnancy with an alcohol or drug dependency issue, and you want to stop, and you want help, you WILL be frightened off asking for help by the knowledge that, if you fail to quit, you will be locked up and your children (if you have any) and new baby will be removed. Of course it will put people off.

And of course, let’s just remind ourselves that coercion does not work. It will never work. You are just exacerbating the problem and putting off the day when the addict reaches out for real help.

ifyoulikepinacolado having Class A drugs with an intent to supply is indeed illegal but actually taking Class A drugs isn’t a crime, or at least I’ve never heard of anyone being charged for snorting/swallowing/injecting drugs!