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?

I get where you are coming from, but legally and ethically it's highly dubious to lock pregnant women away for the sake of their unborn baby. If you agree with bodily autonomy, and abortion, you can't then promote this. Women in that situation need comprehensive care and support to help their addiction, and improve their living situations/get them away from partners etc.

But how would you police it?

Blood tests will show up drug use yes, so if it’s a positive, is the woman supposed to be locked up for the rest of her pregnancy to ensure no more drugs?

It just isn’t physically possible

I'm picturing OP greeting all the pregnant women in her detainment centre...

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?

This is one of the most batshit things I've read on here, and that's saying something.

A secure unit, that pregnant women are presumably physically forced into (by police?) and then locked in. How do you know which women? Are you forcing them to submit to a blood test, holding them down for that? At every antenatal appointment you're pinning women down to enforce this? Or maybe just get the police to cart off every woman who declines the test?

And you can't see any potential issues with that? Aside from human rights (which you've dismissed), there's the fact that this would absolutely discourage pregnant women who'd come under this from seeking any medical care at all throughout their pregnancy. That definitely seems best for the baby. Women would simply not call their local midwife service and book appointments, no one official would know they're pregnant. Maybe the police could randomly check any pregnant women they see on the street to make sure they've submitted to their mandatory drug tests?

And what would happen to any existing children she might have?

So... there has been a suggestion by mental health professionals that my stepdaughter has been negatively influenced by her so-called 'mother' secretly drinking a lot of alcohol in pregnancy... a form of FASD. I'm with you so far as agreeing it is awful.

But, but... we cannot live in a world where we lock pregnant women up. That is just terrifying and immoral. As others have pointed out, it is unenforceable in practicality and could lead to all sorts of other losses of freedoms for women.

I believe the answer lies in focusing more resources and support on women to avoid drink and drugs. Not in punitive measures.

What?!

So it's personal choice to knowingly create a child with disability/reduced quality of life if its genetic. Bit if it's due to alcohol or drugs you want the woman imprisoned for nine months?

I think people might take you more seriously if your argument had some internal logic.

With a bit of digging I’ve found a few examples of programs which have aimed at this issue

• Project Prevention, in the US, where drug addicted women are offered money (about £200) to go on long term contraception or in some cases be sterilised

• Pause, a UK program where women are given help with addiction but on condition that they go on long term contraception (implant/IUD)

Both have been criticised for pressuring women with drug problems to give up contraceptive autonomy. However they seem rather more acceptable than the OP’s solution.

I think that test can also indicate problems with your environment or air quality. It's not just for smoking.

I agree.

first question:

1. what is the threshold? Will future mummies worry about having to disclose one single glass of wine during pregnancy and therefore lie to their midwives, doctors etc?
2. will addicted mothers (however we define addiction) refuse to seek help because they’re afraid to be locked up? Separated from their previous children etc?
3. how will we catch these addicted mothers? Complete surveillance of all child bearing women?
4. how will addiction be defined? Is this just about illegal drugs or alcohol or also about medication? There are a lot of conditions (especially mental health related) where doctors need to decide whether a mother should continue her medication even though it could potentially hurt the baby. Legislation could make doctors overly cautious, we have seen this again and again with anti-abortion legislation.
5. Seems like a small step from addiction to other potentially dangerous activities. Will women be blamed for falling from their bikes and potentially causing a miscarriage? Slipping on ice? Jogging? Will miscarriage become criminalised because authorities need to ascertain that addiction and or “dangerous behaviour” weren’t contributing factors?
6. what about early pregnancy? Or undetected pregnancy? Will we punish women that didn’t even know they were pregnant?
7. why stop with alcohol? Nutrition and weight can cause a plethora of short and long term issues as well. Monitoring pregnant women’s (or all women’s, seeing as they could be pregnant) food intake?

I understand why this idea might appeal to somebody’s emotions. But this is a door I do not want to open. It would lead to a huge loss of women’s freedom, bodily autonomy and privacy. all women, btw.

Not “just” those with addiction issues.

It isn't baffling at all. It comes down to bodily autonomy.

The same woman could abort her ''innocent being'' up until 24 weeks of her pregnancy.

So does she have bodily autonomy or not?

So if your locking women up for 9 months what are you going to do with the other children she may be caring for? Who will pay her mortgage or rent when she can't work. Also how much alcohol I'd too much, the practicalities are impossible.

OP, honestly how would you police this ? Lock women up until they give birth, how about women like me who are over weight and who had gestational diabetes? I appreciate your distress but apart from going handmaids tale about it, it is completely unworkable.

I hope you are not an English teacher, @Caterpillarsleftfoot .

We have this thing called human rights.

Once you advocate locking up pregnant women for doing the wrong thing, how long before all pregnant women have to go to a centre to behave in the correct manner and to eat, drink, exercise etc in the right way?

There are so many issues with your proposal it's unreal. How long would it be before men decided pregnant women can't have pain meds or sugar or whatever, while your point is to control addiction it wouldn't be long before a loop hole is opened and that is a slippery slope. It's down to women to decide what to put in their bodies.

Not everything can or should be legislated. Law and ethics aren't the same thing. You can condemn something morally, yet still understand why law against it would be a terrible idea.

It is awful and it must be really hard for people like midwives etc having to ask the questions and not really have the power to say anything. I noticed it in hospital when having my second baby. The midwife went round the ward asking each woman a series of questions to fill out consent forms etc and one of them was about smoking. The girl in the bed beside me proudly said how she had cut down a bit recently and I was horrified. Just shows what a sheltered life I have lived probably but it does just seem so unfair for the poor little person inside their body who gets no say in the matter. She then proceeded to go in and out to smoke for the whole night, was vaping in the ward and I’m 99% sure she was smoking out the window during the night when they said the doors were locked 😞

You are unbelievably naive.

HOW would you enforce it? It's nothing like taking the baby away after birth - you're taking away the woman's freedom. So you're suggesting what - sectioning them?

Why stop there. Maybe have all checkout operators demand an official card from women showing a negative pregnancy status in the last month if they have something in their trolley that could be a listeria risk. Also no meat, they might not cook it properly.

This is batshit.

No one is happy that pregnant women are taking drugs, but no one is anti protection of 'children' or foetuses

You are being delibrately goady and trying to wind people up with your emotive language

well, why not pee on a stick while at the checkout?
and then pee on a stick to be able to open the wine glass cupboard
and then pee on a stick to be able to open the wine bottle....

I mean we have to be sure!

No one is happy that pregnant women are taking drugs, but no one is anti protection of 'children' or foetuses

From a legal perspective no one is happy anyone is taking drugs. Turns out it’s a tricky one to put back in the box.

I was on a number of different medications during an extremely pre-planned pregnancy.

One I was registered onto the manufacturer's research project to look at safety in pregnancy as unknown at the time. Two of the others were drugs that have clinical uses but are also widely abused recreationally or by addicts.

It was deemed perfectly safe to go ahead with a pregnancy, but yes, DD would be born opiate dependent.

DH also has a autosomal dominant genetic issue that can be life-threatening to extremely mild.

In the end, DD was perfectly healthy, weaned off the opiates in 48 hours, didn't inherit DH's condition - she does have ADHD and dyslexia but so do over 50% of her cousins and I am told it is almost certainly genetics and not antenatal meds at fault. She's also high IQ and talented musically.

Should I have been banned from having her OP?

I agree with you