Women should be prevented from drug taking in pregnancy

[Caterpillarsleftfoot]

I have just come back from a holiday with my nephew's who were exposed to drugs in utero (adopted). I'm also a school teacher who has taught drug and alcohol exposed children.

Seeing the challenges they face made me think why on earth it is allowed.

If you hurt your child every day when they are 6 months, 2 years, 5 years old then they are removed from your care. Why are you allowed to hurt an unborn baby? If a woman is known to take drugs or daily alcohol, then why is she not taken into a protective custody in a hospital/ secure unit for the remainder of the pregnancy to prevent her harming the child?

Because you aren't looking at the bigger picture and how it would open up a can of worms to making abortion illegal as well as the slippery slope of how far does it go? Because some people wouldn't want to stop at drugs and alcohol.

I would support preventing anyone from taking illegal drugs at any point, if you wanted to campaign on that instead. That would have more of a positive impact on more people.

So it’s ok to make a personal choice to possibly (very likely in my case) to get pregnant and pass on a lifelong disability to a child but not to make a personal choice to intake drug and alcohol that could lead to very similar disabilities?

Or they'd take it even further and forcibly sterilise some women.

Absolutely unworkable and would just lead to women concealing their pregnancies and not seeking any medical treatment.

Not the same but when I was pregnant with my second they had introduced carbon monoxide testing at every single antenatal appointment to pick up smoking. I did the tests at the first 2 appointment which came back clear and then refused to do the others. I have never smoked and exerted my right to refuse the test. By doing two I felt I had shown that I had nothing to hide but didn't want to engage in pointless tests at every other appointment.

But you couldn't just have this in place in the case of drug addicts, you'd have to remove autonomy for all pregnant women, because women may make decisions which aren't in the babies best interest. Some women continue taking prescribed medication when pregnant that can harm their baby, what about them? Do you remove women's rights to have a say in the screenings, the vaccinations or any other procedures you go through during pregnancy, so you have no control over your own body for 9 months? You see how this wouldn't work? Would you arrest women and hold them against their will during their pregnancy if they take drugs, what about the mother who doesn't accept her flu jab, is she going to be held too as not accepting the flu jab could be viewed as risking to the baby. You could go on...

Do you force contraceptive devices upon drug users or if they have had a child removed previously to prevent the situation in the first place? It's a very slippery slope...! There's a reason this isn't already a thing!

This all sounds very Brave New World!

In Singapore they have a few different tax-break-incentives to high income families. Basically trying to encourage rich couples to have more kids. They have a shockingly low birth rate there but are focusing on getting specifically rich couples to have more - as if they make better kids! Very eugenics-y

Ok so work this one through logically. If a woman is found to have taken drugs during pregnancy, your solution would be to lock them up for the remainder of the pregnancy.

But why not force an abortion? At that point they've already done the drugs so baby could already be damaged, so do you lock them up for months and hope for the best or do you force an abortion on the basis that the baby is possibly damaged and then force the woman to have long term contraception, or maybe even sterilisation to prevent the possibility of them possibly damaging another baby.

Do you see how your way of thinking could lead to some pretty awful things for women?

It's not a practical solution, nor is it as straightforward as saying that all pregnant women who take drugs, drink or smoke are scum. Addiction is very complex, and we want women to feel able to discuss their issues with a midwife without worrying that she'll be locked up - there's lots of support out there, but women need to feel safe to ask for it (which many don't, they worry that social services will take away their baby).

It's very sad, and very difficult.

It's because women have human rights. You can't lock people up just because they take bad decisions.

People would also be more likely to seek abortions if you do this, just to get out of the 'protective custody'.

Exactly.

Some women would also keep their pregnancies secret
How would the already struggling NHS fund it?
Where would all these women go?
Where would the other children of these women go in an already overwhelmed foster care system?

It isn't a well thought out opinion, it's just emotive without any logic what so ever.

Where do you draw the line?

some Women’s quality of life and mental health is dependent on medication with potential negative or unproven effects on the baby.
Doctors generally have to weigh the impact of no medication and the potential harm to the unborn child. Different doctors have been known to make different judgement calls in the same case. Legislation re drugs and alcohol will make doctors overly cautious and is easily misused to criminalise women.

how about potentially dangerous sports?

Women working in jobs with certain risks?

what about smoking?

where do you draw the line between unlikely to cause harm (a glass of wine during the pregnancy) and criminal behaviour / behaviour that can be justified to lock women up in addiction units?

how about women that didn’t even know they were pregnant?

and how do you propose we catch the women harming their child with alcohol and or drugs?
Many of them could be functioning alcoholics. Are you proposing to invade all women’s privacy to “catch” those?

and wouldn’t it be better to have addiction recovery clinics for all addicts that want and need help? Even when they’re not pregnant?

I understand where you’re coming from. But this isn’t the solution. And it would lead to a loss of freedom for all women. And an increase of state sanctioned policing of female bodies and health!

I mean most people don't exactly let it be known that they use drugs. So basically what you are saying is that women who do have addiction issues and try to access services should be penalised? I know if I had an issue and knew that speaking to my doctor or any addiction services would end up with me being essentially sectioned for 9 months I just wouldn't tell anyone. Women should be supported not punished ffs.

Okay, let’s implement your suggestion…. Oh look at that, now we have pregnant women who actively avoid medical or official contact whilst they’re pregnant for fear of getting incarcerated.

slow hand clap

What about drugs as in medications which aren’t suitable to be taken during pregnancy?

Some medications that women need aren’t suitable for pregnancy. Should she stop them? Suffer for 9 months and start to get well again?

Like a PP said, we either have bodily autonomy or we don’t

"Those who say you can't pick and choose body autonomy or where to draw the line. Of course you can."
No, you can't. You either have bodily autonomy, or you don't. If you're going to 'draw a line', then bodily autonomy ceases to exist, and what the woman then has is 'privilege' to do some things and not others. Is that really how you want to love, like some sort of owned sub-human? I don't.

I note you have not, despite being repeatedly asked, offered any idea on how you would enforce this being "taken into a protective custody", other than harrumphing about such women should not have custody of their already-born children. So you're just having a rant. And advocating for women who are pregnant and don't meet your approval to be prisoners.

Honestly, you sound as if you would have been totally in favour of the 'protective custody' of the Magdalene Laundries. Give your head a fucking wobble.

I am genuinely so shocked that people are so pro women and anti protection of a child. I absolutely cannot wrap my head around the idea that do many people are ok with knowing a woman is hurting a baby but allowing it to continue.

But people aren't saying it's okay.
It's obviously not okay, it's morally wrong to do something that will damage a foetus/unborn child.

However, legally the unborn child has no rights until it is born.

And women must retain bodily autonomy. To remove it would be a slippery slope to much worse.

And tbh, putting it into practise just simply wouldn't work. Pregnant women in this position would likely just hide their pregnancy, it would go underground more and the outcomes be far worse for the child when born.

And goodness knows where you're going to find the room to house these women, all with addiction and health issues. Have you seen the state of our care system for those needing support with addiction and abuse, let alone the state of the nhs for health care.

I give this thread 20 minutes...

Are you proposing that women who use drugs in pregnancy are charged with a (new) criminal offence? Because I don't think that would work, given that terminations are legal.
The key lies in educating people about the dangers of drug use in pregnancy, providing better care and support for drug users (in and outside of pregnancy) and tougher (much tougher) sentences for dealers.

I have so many questions about your brilliant idea!

I'm sad that you haven't managed to answer other people's questions about the logistics of this plan so far - it would be worth you thinking these through. I really want to know where we are going to put all these awful women, who is going to look after them, and who will pay for it.

Here are some more questions for you to ignore! What is a "severely diminished way of life"? And what does "hurts her child" mean in this context? Physical harm? Psychological harm? Potential harm? Who will decide if it is harm? And does it only matter if a woman does it?

And why do you have compassion for the foetus but not the mother in what can almost certainly only be an awful and distressing situation for them?

And would you have wanted to spend those three pregnancies shackled to a bed in a secure unit, on the off chance you were a secret alky? After all, middle class women can be problem drinkers too.

Or is it just poor women you want locking up just in case?

Interesting article posted upthread about the effect if alcohol intake on sperm quality. I didn't know that. I did know about the effect of increasing paternal age on the likelihood of abnormalities in the baby. Perhaps all non teetotal men and all men over the age of 40 ought to be castrated or at least vasectomised, just in case.

I agree with you that it's baffling how more measures aren't taken to stop women from doing this. I would say because literal force is not allowed that women should be told if they use drugs or drink to excess that the baby will just be removed as soon it's born no question asked. If anyone is selfish enough to abuse their bodies and pump crap into their body whilst pregnant with an innocent being that never asked to be conceived in the first place (yes I'm aware that not all pregnancy's are planned) then they don't deserve to be mothers. Blood tests would be the only way to detect this sort of thing I'd assume.

What level of harm would you tolerate, OP? How defective must the environment around the developing baby be? Would you want to stop some people getting pregnant in the first place? Do you believe some people should be forcibly sterilised??

What if the mother is grossly obese? Is she selfishly risking her baby because this has been linked to increased chance of cognitive and developmental problems, stillbirth, miscarriage and more? Maybe she should be imprisoned for nine months so that her diet can be strictly controlled?

What would you limits be and how would you enforce it? Would you force all pregnant women to have a blood test to check for any evidence of things you disapprove of, so that you can imprison the right people at the opportune moment? What so you think that would do to female relationships with medical “care”givers? How much honesty do you think there would be with medical professionals about lifestyle choices? How many more people do you think would attempt to conceal pregnancies and never seek much needed help?

Wouldn’t it be a) more humane and b) easier to offer compassionate care to pregnant women who abuse drugs or alcohol to help them recover so they can take care of themselves and their child? Seeing as the mother is a person in her own right and not just a vessel?

Or would you prefer to just lock ‘em up and then turf them out once they’ve given birth with all the stress of a newborn and watch them relapse while you say “ah but we didn’t let her have any of it during pregnancy so it’s out of my hands now?”