Page 16 | To think WHO are trying to commit organisational suicide? They’ve said that women of childbearing age should not drink alcohol AT ALL.

EmmetEmma · 17/06/2021 18:21

It’s a 33 page document - with one subordinate clause about preventing drinking in women of childbearing age - nothing in the actions. Reading it, it seems that drinking is used interchangeably with ‘harmful episodes of alcohol consumption’. I agree it’s badly worded, I agree that it seems on the face of it skewed against women because it specifically discusses FAS, without specifically discussing any male issues linked to drinking. I don’t disagree with the idea of preventing harmful episodes of alcohol consumption in anyone through education - although I would through legislation. Alcohol is specifically mentioned as a risk factor on violence against women in the 2019 RESPECT framework to end violence against women, produced by WHO. They absolutely do accept that unacceptable male behaviour can be fuelled by alcohol.

I disagree that WHO should be disbanded, I disagree that other harmful behaviour linked to alcoholism are exclusively male - although it might be predominantly the case. I disagree that men are responsible for FAS, I disagree that it’s not appropriate to focus public health messages and actions on specific demographics and I don’t see this as Gilead like behaviour.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

looptheloopinahulahoop · 17/06/2021 18:28

How many babies suffer from FAS because their mums drank shortly before they knew they were pregnant. I suspect very few if any at all. Most women stop or cur down considerably in pregnancy.

FAS is only caused by excessive drinking and there are likely to be other societal problems too. Otherwise, most babies would have it, and they don't.

This is completely over the top and unnecessary and far more damage is caused to children post-birth by parents of either sex drinking and not looking after them properly, than it is by naughty women drinking in the two weeks they are pregnant and didn't know.

RocheLobe · 17/06/2021 18:31

“ I disagree that it’s not appropriate to focus public health messages and actions on specific demographics”

Neither do I, it’s part of my job. But either you think they have chosen an appropriate demographic, or you think that they don’t mean it. If the former, then I disagree, and it’s potentially harmful from a public health messaging POV to choose an inappropriately wide demographic to target. If the latter, then it’s equally harmful to say one thing when you mean another from a public health messaging POV.

Best case scenario they profusely apologise and clarify their meaning.

EmmetEmma · 17/06/2021 18:46

@RocheLobe my point about the demographics is about the health requirements but also the ease of getting the message across (i.e having available information at smear clinics etc). Of course it’s ridiculous to prevent all women of reproductive age to stop drinking. But I do agree that it might be appropriate to advise women of reproductive age who want to conceive to reduce their alcohol intake - and to target that message at women of reproductive age, regardless of whether they are currently pregnant or not.

Did you read that whole paper and come to the conclusion that WHO want all countries to legislate to prevent the majority of women from drinking? I didn’t.

EmmetEmma · 17/06/2021 18:50

I do see what you mean about either I agree (which I don’t) or they mis-worded. I think it’s the latter, and it will be re-worded. I don’t want all of WHO disbanded, or someone, sacked for clumsy wording, and I don’t think it hails the end of women’s rights. I think focusing health education on the risks of FAS on WRA is appropriate.

TrifleCat · 17/06/2021 18:51

Blessed be the fruit !

RocheLobe · 17/06/2021 18:58

Legislate? No. But if they don’t mean “prevention of drinking among pregnant women and women of childbearing age” (which is undeniable in meaning) then they shouldn’t say it

Original poster

RickiTarr · 17/06/2021 19:13

@TrifleCat

Blessed be the fruit !

Under His eye.

OP posts:

EmmetEmma · 17/06/2021 19:13

Do you think they’ve committed organisational suicide by including that badly worded subordinate clause? That they are inherently misogynistic?

They are clearly pissed off that not enough is being done to reduce the harmful impact of alcohol because it’s not politically beneficial and commercial considerations are being given what they consider undue weight.

dripdroplollipop · 17/06/2021 19:14

I think I'll carry on as I am.
As a potential 'pregnant person' the WHO won't be able to tell if I'm male or female anyway

MarshaBradyo · 17/06/2021 19:14

I think they should revise wording - what to I’m not sure.

But no not the rest disbanding etc

They do need to learn from it however

aloris · 17/06/2021 19:40

I just want to point out that if "we" (the WHO) are going to begin discriminating against women for reasons of pregnancy outcomes, then preventing women from drinking alcohol is only one of many ways women's freedom could be limited for the benefit of their theoretical future children. For example, there are many medications to ameliorate health conditions that are contra-indicated during pregnancy, including cholesterol-lowering medications and mood-regulating medications.

ChardonnaysPetDragon · 17/06/2021 20:02

The more I think about this the angrier it makes me.

There are some meds that can harm a foetus, maybe women of childbearing age mustn't take medicine in case it harms an eventual pregnancy.

Some sports? Let's ban those for incubators women.

What else?

idiots, that's what the WHO are.

ChardonnaysPetDragon · 17/06/2021 20:03

Oh sorry, someone put that across much better just above me.

Anyway, the sentiment still stands.

Original poster

RickiTarr · 17/06/2021 20:42

Lots of posters have put it brilliantly, you included.

OP posts:

notsogreenthumb · 17/06/2021 20:45

@SallySycamore

I presume what they're trying to say is "women who could become pregnant" shouldn't drink, but that isn't what they've written.

They haven't thought about women who are single, or having protected sex, or gay, or infertile etc.

I agree with this. It's been poorly worded and they've totally omitted the ill effects excessive alcohol can have on men too..

Cyanchicken · 17/06/2021 21:15

Maybe I'll just identify as a male to get away with it!

looptheloopinahulahoop · 17/06/2021 21:33

I presume what they're trying to say is "women who could become pregnant" shouldn't drink, but that isn't what they've written

What they need to write is "if you want to have a baby, it is a good idea to cut down your drinking". That would be fine and perfectly acceptable and could apply to men and women.

twoshedsjackson · 17/06/2021 22:02

When this topic was discussed on Woman's Hour this morning, several callers pointed out the adverse effects which alcohol can have on sperm quality, and at least one caller rang in to say that she and her partner were happily successful with their IVF after he had cut out the alcohol; sauce for the goose........
If men of potential fathering age were to forswear the demon drink, they would not only have to desist from puberty onwards, but to the end of their lives.
Personally, I don't drink from choice, and I know only too well the havoc wrought by drinking to excess, but adults should be allowed to make an adult choice.

FortunesFave · 17/06/2021 22:08

@looptheloopinahulahoop

How many babies suffer from FAS because their mums drank shortly before they knew they were pregnant. I suspect very few if any at all. Most women stop or cur down considerably in pregnancy.

FAS is only caused by excessive drinking and there are likely to be other societal problems too. Otherwise, most babies would have it, and they don't.

This is completely over the top and unnecessary and far more damage is caused to children post-birth by parents of either sex drinking and not looking after them properly, than it is by naughty women drinking in the two weeks they are pregnant and didn't know.

FAS is quite common in low socio economic areas actually. 7000 babies are born with it in the UK every year.

NiceGerbil · 17/06/2021 22:08

Lots of strawmen on here, interesting.

This is a draft document from a massive global generally respected org (some might dispute that but I believe globally they are seen that way in general).

In work in general anything written that is for consumption by the public/ decision makers in my industry goes around and around. Loads of eyes over it. I find the idea that

What they wrote isn't what they mean
It's slipped through by accident
It wasn't reviewed thoroughly or by many people

Are clutching at straws imo. No way has this document not been through multiple phases. Deciding what to include. In what order. How to make it most readable, persuasive etc.
Then multiple rounds of writing, editing etc etc.

There's no way it was just written not reviewed. No way.

Schoolchoicesucks · 17/06/2021 22:10

Crikey. I'm 43, with absolutely no intention of giving birth again. But perhaps I had better give up alcohol for the next few years just in case...

Nah.

NiceGerbil · 17/06/2021 22:20

I googled to see which news orgs had reported on this.

I don't think it's in the guardian or on the BBC.

Somehow that didn't surprise me.

NiceGerbil · 17/06/2021 22:21

I'm 47 and definitely don't want any more children but obviously I'm not eligible for a drink yet.

Original poster

RickiTarr · 17/06/2021 22:47

FAS is quite common in low socio economic areas actually. 7000 babies are born with it in the UK every year.

TBF that fact doesn’t really contradict the point from @looptheloopinahulahoop that you quoted and were responding to.

It’s quite believable that excessive drinking would correlate at least moderately with poverty.

It’s also quite true that peri-conception drinking is the relevant thing.

OP posts: