to be a bit disappointed that the British Medical Association thinks women are basically thick?

[welliemum]

Interesting study in the news here.

In a nutshell, the study suggests that light drinking (up to 2 drinks per week) during pregnancy isn't harmful to children's development.

Dr Kelly, the lead researcher, said, "Our study's findings do raise questions as to whether the current push for policy to recommend complete abstinence during pregnancy is merited and suggest that further research needs to be done."

But no, the BMA disagrees: "The BMA believes the simplest and safest advice is for women not to drink alcohol during pregnancy."

Because we're all thick, right? So thick that we can't count up to 2, apparently.

'They don't think people are thick. They want to promote the safest possible practice '

Because they assume people are too thick or uneducated to know better.

Or lie.

No because they want to save their arses from any future research which contradicts this one and says any alcohol might have a harmful effect. Which, let's face it, is very likely to happen.

Research comes out all the time, often contradictory, so thick and fast it often isn't really possible to follow research guidelines at all.

But the same could be said about all sorts of research.

?

yes

The problem is, that by saying no alcohol whatsoever while at the same time publicly saying it's because no-one knows what a unit is, undermines other safety advice for pregnant women and babies.

Much easier to say "well it's all bollocks isn't is" while ignoring other advice that has a much greater scientific basis (smoking, back-to-sleep, weaning) because the powers-that-be already have admitted they overstate risks in other areas.

But even the OP is mixed up about the difference between units and drinks - and I'm sure she won't be alone.

The medical professionals definitely mentally double the amount drunk by patients.

I had my booking-in appointment with the midwife with DS and she has me how many units of alcohol I drank. I told her zero, as I am teetotal and have been for a long time.

She wrote 4 units per week on my notes.
When I challenged her she shrugged and told me that everyone overestimates their drinking. Of course, I asked her how many definitions of "teetotal" did she think there was.

Of course, she then questioned me about my drug use and blatantly refused to believe me when I told her that I didn't do drugs either. She even clarified the question by telling me what sort of drugs she meant, and that cocaine was a drug!

Mad woman. I did complain.

mabanana is quite right. I wrote "drinks" in my OP when I meant "units". Not good. The 2 are quite different.

I don't think they think that all women are thick, they think that some women are thick. Think of all those people who justify a bottle of red a night because 'its good for the heart'.

They could say "thick people, you are going to think that anything less than a total ban is a license to get plastered. You should not drink any alcohol at all. Clever people, you will realise that a glass of champagne here and there won't make much difference to your pregnancy, but that alcohol, while pleasant on occasion is basically unnecessary and not very good for you - do what you think. Decide amongst yourselves who is thick and who is clever".

I don't think it would really work though.

does any other country besides the UK do this 'units' nonsense?

i actually didn't know what the hell it was when i moved here.

I wasn't having a go Welliemum, just trying to point out how hardly any of have any idea. I've been looking into this professionally recently, so am more aware than I used to be, but I tell you, when I realised those teeny 250ml bottles contained more than the recommended daily allowance for a non-pg woman, well, that was a bit gutting

Hi

Have been reading just recently that metal in wine is a bit of an issue causing early onset alzheimers in grown ups. So where the wine is made may also have a bearing!!! Some countries make wine with(argentina, italy) very low level metal levels. Other places including france spain and other euro countries have high levels.

In the end we all know where to draw the line and when I was pregnant if something made me feel bad i didnt drink/eat it! There is so much frghtening info out there
about what you must not do but I admit to drinking a little during my pregnancies. I was a bit frightened and I found it was a good way to relax a little.

Most mums have an instinct about being careful that the bma cant take into account.
My kids are 7 and 13 and in pretty good shape

expat, most Americans I know don't know about units. A unit is how much alcohol your body can process in an hour, so it is a useful figure, but only if people know how to translate that into real life.

There's a BIG assumption being made on this thread by the way, has anyone noticed?

The assumption is that if a lot of alcohol in pregnancy is very harmful, a little bit of alcohol is possibly harmful, and no alcohol is the healthiest of all.

It's quite plausible, but it's an assumption, not a fact. There's no evidence to support it, and alcohol risk doesn't work in that simplistic way in adults generally.

What if, just what if, a tiny amount of alcohol is beneficial in some way for some pregnant women? What if the apparent positive effect shown in the study I linked to is actually a true effect, not residual confounding?

It's quite possible. We're pretty well adapted to drink alcohol - we have specific enzymes for dealing with it. Study after study has shown a benefit from moderate wine intake in later life, and hard though it is to disentangle that from social factors, it's now established as being a true biological effect.

So all of you who are so eager to tell pregnant women to abstain could be denying some women a health benefit.

And your only justification for doing this is that some people are too thick to be told the facts.

I find this astounding.

there is evidence to support it.

It then depends how many other pieces of eviudence there are to contradict it, how high or low the possible risks are and what you are prepared to accept yourself as an intelligent adult.

'expat, most Americans I know don't know about units. A unit is how much alcohol your body can process in an hour, so it is a useful figure, but only if people know how to translate that into real life.'

I know that now.

But when I first moved here over 7 years ago, I thought, 'What is this? How ridiculous.'

You see, I'd lived in France and other parts of Europe before this, as well as in some Latin American countries and never heard the like.

I just thought, 'How about using common sense rather than this silliness?'

Wellie, this is just like your excellent thread on weaning (well, on risk, really). That was you, wasn't it? If we learned better how to evaluate risk, we'd have fewer mad bastards in white coats doctors telling us what to do. And we'd probably all be healthier because we'd come to comclusions suited to our own circumstances, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all medical advice.

They are not telling you what to do. They are advising.

Such a childish attitude

"Study after study has shown a benefit from moderate wine intake in later life"

The problem is that while some studies show that alcohol can be beneficial in some ways, other studies have shown that the same amount of alcohol is harmful in other ways - and the studies showing that alcohol is beneficial tend to be overly relied upon by people who are drinking too much.

I have also heard that chocolate can combat cardiovascular disease. That doesn't mean that it isn't high in calories, likely to make you put on weight and therefore also bad for the heart. (As is wine, come to think of it).

this research is about the effect on the foetus, not the adult

I generally find the BMA patronising and today was no different. As an intelligent, educated person who is interested in my health and my children's health I want to know facts, not a message simplified for the lowest common denominator. They were exactly the same over co-sleeping. A spokesman was on Woman's Hour admitting they knew there was no problem with planned co-sleeping by non-smoking breastfeeding mothers on firm beds with no loose bedding but that was too complicated a message so we would all be told it was dangerous. Cue a zillion HVs and PILs attacking parents for doing something known to be low risk because of an over-simplified message.

This alcohol one is exactly the same. It's bonkers to patronise so much. It means people disregard advice as they know much of it is exaggerated.

As for over-estimating alcohol use, too bloody true. I was asked about my consumption during a recent admission to hospital. I drink very little. Not even every week. I explained I may have one small glass a fortnight (two units at most), so best to say one unit a week. I was asked if I wanted advice about controlling my drinking! Funnily enough I declined and managed not to punch the nurse in the face.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR AGES.

WE ARE THICK.

WE ONLY UNDERSTAND ON OR OFF. NOTHING IN BETWEEN.

WE MUST BE TOLD

Who me? Childish? [blows raspberry]

We are healthier as patients if we take responsibility for our health. That means evaluating the advice we're given - not treating it as an instruction. I don't think enough people engage with medical professionals this way. I think people take medical advice as an instruction from on high and that doctors should therefore be very careful about what they say. Of course, adult hat on, docs are only half of the equation - as patients we should be taking on responsibility too. But, childish hat on, doctors sometimes prefer that we just do as we're told (sorry, advised) without asking too many questions - it gets us out of their hair more quickly!

How come you hear so much from the BMA that you find it patronising? Where do you hear all this stuff?

I can't think of anything I've heard from the BMA. It doesn't impact o nmy life.