To think that recording pregnant women's drinking is pointless as well as invasive?

[Hardbackwriter]

If I've understood correctly, NICE have proposed that the mother's consumption of alcohol should be recorded on a child's medical record, to help with any future diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (quoted in this article: www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/sep/16/plans-to-record-pregnant-womens-alcohol-consumption-in-england-criticised) have pointed that this breaches data protection rules, and that "Women do not lose their right to medical confidentiality simply because they are pregnant".

I have sympathy with this view, but I also just fundamentally think that it's quite pointless to record this information as it's surely self-reported? Women who have been drinking heavily are unlikely to admit to it, surely (and maybe even less so if it's going to go on their child's medical record for all time)? Are you not going to miss a lot of cases of FAS if you're ruling them out if the child's record said the mother swore she didn't drink, or did so only moderately? I assume there's a lot of under-reporting already - I've seen people on MN insist they know someone whose child has FAS 'even though she only had a couple of drinks in the whole pregnancy'; I'm guessing in the vast majority of cases the mother is drastically underplaying what she drank. Maybe she's even convinced herself.

I just can't see the point of this, and worry that it'll put off someone who could benefit from help with alcohol dependency in pregnancy seeking help if they know it'll go on the child's record. AIBU?

This just won't work. My DDs (now 11 and 8) are adopted and are birth siblings. Their birth mum drank and smoked cannabis whilst pregnant. She and her DP (my DDs' birth dad) hid her pregnancy with DD1 because her first DD had already been adopted. So she didn't go to any antenatal appointments in order to stay under the radar.

It now appears likely that DD1 has FADS along with her other issues. Her birth mum ended up giving birth on the bathroom floor and she very nearly died.

This will only serve to make mums like this even more inclined to hide their pregnancies.

Surely FASD would be apparent enough that if suspected clinicians would just ask the question.

My nephew has FASD and also my nieces cousin (on SIL'S side), both are adopted so there is little history.

It has been suggested children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder may be incorrectly diagnosed with ADHD, autism or aspergers. 40% of women in uk admit to drinking during pregnancy, there needs to be more research to find out if there is a link so women can be more correctly informed in their decisions and they need data to do this.

How on earth can something not be about the mother when it is literally information relating to her marmitecrackers? By definition it is about her.

It's about what she is doing to another human being so it relates to them. I suppose as well as rather than instead of.

I am related to someone who drank heavily and smoked throughout pregnancy. Her child has severe development issues. She is now pushing to get her child diagnosed with ASD. She is wealthy and middle class and the medical staff seeing her child would have no idea of what her pregnancy was really like. What can be done to help children like this? IDK but something seriously needs to be done.

The most useful thing would be for us to un-fuck our mental health services. That way those addicts who feel willing and able to engage would at least be guaranteed the opportunity to do so.

@OpenlyGayExOlympicFencer

The most useful thing would be for us to un-fuck our mental health services. That way those addicts who feel willing and able to engage would at least be guaranteed the opportunity to do so.

The MH services are the best they ever have been in history of mankind, so when would they be good enough for us to even consider documenting the alcohol information the NHS already asks for in two places (child and mother record) instead of one place we do now (mother only)? Hmmm?

It just sounds like a diversionary tactic if I’m honest. Oh, no you can’t write that down twice because the MH services aren’t quite perfect for addicts yet, you must only write it down once or mothers will lie, not go to appointments, etc etc. They already do this. I see no evidence that writing the information in two records instead of one will increase the noncompliance that already happens. It’s just pure speculation by thinking the worst of pregnant women.

No they aren't. That's just a fucking ludicrous thing to say. Our mental health services in the UK have been absolutely decimated by the Tories. It only sounds like a diversionary tactic to you because you're labouring under the delusion that our mental health services are better than they are.

Still waiting for you to tell us how this is going to help any babies at all, btw.

Still waiting for you to tell us how this is going to help any babies at all, btw.

It’s obvious. The same as a baby with a crack or meth addicted mother, it’s in the child’s record that they’ve been exposed to alcohol and so the child can be assess straightaway and treated for FASD. Instead of waiting until age 2 and wondering Is it FASD or ASD?

you're labouring under the delusion that our mental health services are better than they are.

Hah. I doubt that very much. Despite the Tories cutting funding, the techniques used for MH have advanced greatly the last decade. The quality (not quantity) of the services is better than say, 1990, 1890, 1790, 1690, 1590, 1490, 1390,....shall I go on? They’re better than they have been in history of mankind. You just think there is some perfect MH utopia out there that must be reached before even considering recording children affected by alcohol exposure in the womb. I think you’re the ludicrous one, not me.
It’s a simple matter.
My pregnancies all kinds of exposures were recorded due to the nature of my job. My doctor and my employer drew up a safety plan. My information was shared between more people than any of these women’s information ever would.
Them feeling guilt, shame, wanting to lie- that is on them and I think that number is vanishingly small anyway. Most women want the best for their child and want help during pregnancy. That starts with recording alcohol intake not jist in the woman’s record as already done, but in the child’s record because that is a drug the woman is administering to her baby every time she drinks. It needs to be logged.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Still waiting for you to tell us how this is going to help any babies at all, btw.

It’s obvious. The same as a baby with a crack or meth addicted mother, it’s in the child’s record that they’ve been exposed to alcohol and so the child can be assess straightaway and treated for FASD. Instead of waiting until age 2 and wondering Is it FASD or ASD?

It isn't obvious at all, because you have utterly failed to take into account the potential deterrent account. When people are worried about the potential negative consequences of accessing medical care, they are less likely to do so. I'm going to hope you know that engagement with maternity services means better outcomes. You undermine confidentiality, you put a barrier in the way of disclosure and engagement.

This is why there is no getting round the fact that the low hanging fruit if you care about FAS is ensuring addicts who want help, whether they're pregnant then or before it happens, get the best quality help.

Why is it that the same women who say we should have a “I believe her” default when it comes to rape (harm to the woman) are now saying on this thread that the default should be “She’s lying” when it comes to alcohol harm to their unborn baby? Do you truly think women are that selfish? That they would consistently lie about what they’ve exposed their unborn baby to?
The fact is most women will tell the truth in both situations. It’s not a case where mothers only tell truth about harm done to them and then always lie about harm they do to their own children.

Hah. I doubt that very much. Despite the Tories cutting funding, the techniques used for MH have advanced greatly the last decade. The quality (not quantity) of the services is better than say, 1990, 1890, 1790, 1690, 1590, 1490, 1390,....shall I go on? They’re better than they have been in history of mankind. You just think there is some perfect MH utopia out there that must be reached before even considering recording children affected by alcohol exposure in the womb. I think you’re the ludicrous one, not me.

Fuck me, now you're scraping the barrel. If we thought your claim about confidentiality before showed an utter lack of understanding , this is something else. 1390? What the actual fuck?

The point is, they're shitter than they were in 2010. There has been deliberate and systemic underinvestment in the NHS. This isn't a matter of opinion, either. Your have two choices, which is to agree with me on this point or be wrong.

OpenlyGay
It’s still confidential. The unborn child’s record can only be seen by the Doctor and the mother anyway, just like her own record. There is no new person who can see it except the child when they turn 18. Is a woman seriously going to avoid maternity care because they’re worried what their unborn child might find out 18yrs down the road? That’s a sick assumption

The point is, they're shitter than they were in 2010.

Source please. Since you are so right that shouldn’t be hard to do.

@PlanDeRaccordement

OpenlyGay It’s still confidential. The unborn child’s record can only be seen by the Doctor and the mother anyway, just like her own record. There is no new person who can see it except the child when they turn 18. Is a woman seriously going to avoid maternity care because they’re worried what their unborn child might find out 18yrs down the road? That’s a sick assumption

You seem to struggle with understanding definitions here.

It's not confidential information if it goes on someone else's medical record. That individual then has extensive rights to share that medical record, even though it would then include information about another person. As for sick assumptions, again it's just a fact that when you put barriers in the way of people accessing healthcare, they function as a deterrent.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The point is, they're shitter than they were in 2010.

Source please. Since you are so right that shouldn’t be hard to do.

Because apparently you're so busy thinking about 1390 that you can't research the situation in the last decade yourself, here's some information for you.

Reduction in NHS mental health beds in recent years:

www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5407/rr-0

Increased waiting times to see mental health specialists

www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/mental-health-funding-squeeze-has-lengthened-waiting-times-say-nhs-finance

Over 1500 mental health beds closed since 2011, demand outstripping supply in many areas:

www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/mental-health-bed-shortage-in-nhs/

But do let the chief exec of MIND know that the reduction in mental health beds over the last decade is no big deal because hey, it's better than it was in 1490.