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.

Sue City. Who's going to risk that. We've brought in on ourselves, unintentionally, our society of blame

But the problem is the irresponsible way the media report these medical findings and experiments... there is often a need for a counter point and the BMA probably is there to provide the caveat to whatever out of context headline the newspapers deem fit..

Blame should also be placed at the door of the papers not an exclusive BMA issue...

talk about finding offence were none present,purposefully being obtuse no one said pg women are thick.only you

what a lot of skelped arse faces over nowt

fuss over nowt

agree, sm

I completely agree that the risks (whatever they are and however they work) must vary between individuals. Also that there will never be any guarantees about what is the 100% safe way to go.

For example, here's me. Although I'm pregnant, this is all completely academic because I'm not the world's biggest drinker, and while pregnant the only way I want to drink is occasionally to taste a sip of DH's wine when he's drinking something especially good or interesting. Even 1 unit a week (I do know what a unit is, by the way, despite my OP!)... even 1 unit a week is way more than I would feel comfortable drinking, and no amount of evidence would make me push that limit.

It's a point of principle really. It isn't anyone's fault or anything to be ashamed of that the risks of alcohol in pregnancy can't be accurately quantified. That's just how it is.

What we should demand from authorities is not facts, but transparency. If a the size of a risk is unknown - say so. If there's no evidence of risk - say so. If there is evidence of risk - tell us how big and where the limits are.

Otherwise, as rubberduck pointed out, the existence of just one poorly validated guideline will make all the other (genuine and well thought out) guidelines worthless, because no-one will be able to trust what they're being told.

Agree, Nagapie. Reporting of science/medical research leaves an awful lot to be desired. And that's not the docs' fault.

sooo... here is new research, there is no sign of risk, people.

Next year... here is new research, there is a moderate chance of risk, people.

oh bumhole, I am getting villified and ridiculed in teh press, about to lose my job and am beinmg blamed for the death of small babies.

Pointy, I'm lost. I was following you up til just now...

My point was the same as stewartsmom.

wellie naively said this "What we should demand from authorities is not facts, but transparency. If a the size of a risk is unknown - say so. If there's no evidence of risk - say so. If there is evidence of risk - tell us how big and where the limits are."

That is totally unrealistic ans is never going to happen. Just becuawe one piece of research published today says there is no risk, there is no way a medical organisation is going to publish a statement saying there is no risk.

Research is carried out all the time, research which often gives opposing evidence.

research is fluid and by its nature evolving so actually yes apparently conflicting data will emerge

good evidence based medicine means findings and guidelines are emerging and that practice is informed by this.at any time across the uk there are sites piloting new interventions,new procedures,treatments,drugs which may or may not become routine practice

Pointy - I really liked wellie's thread on risk from earlier this week, so I'm inclined to be gentle, but I do see the problem with the "authorities" point. We pretty much ask to be deceived if we want to also be kept up to date (i.e. on the cutting edge, transparency can be incredibly difficult to achieve). I think Nagapie is on a good track - reporting is often problematic. BMA etc attempt transparency but are foiled. I wouldn't blame academics/researchers if they all went and hid down a well and refused to speak to journalists ever again. And once it's reported, it's pretty hard to separate out 'medical advice' (e.g. the FSIDs stuff about feet-to-foot) from 'medical reporting' (e.g. a recently published study shows boys born to women who drank lightly in pregnancy have better social skills than boys born to abstainers).

I would think that not drinking any alcohol in pregnancy is a no-brainer!?!

I thought that it was impossible to tell how much alcohol could damage your baby because there have been plenty of cases of fetal alcohol syndrome where the mother had very little to drink during her pregnancy and that every embryo has different sensitivity to alcohol (twas on a programme I watched).

I wouldn't say the BMA are patronising just being sensible in saying not to drink. I wouldn't want to risk it.

So in fact, there is no point in researching the effects of alcohol in pregnancy.

Because even if 1000 studies fail to detect a harmful effect from light drinking, the BMA will still advise that the safest thing to do is not to drink, just in case the 1001st study does show harm.

This isn't a puzzle book with the answers at the end. It will always be a question of evaluating risk and evidence. Shades of grey, not black and white. There will never be a definitive answer.

Research is expensive, and if it's not going to inform practical health decisions, it's a waste of time, expertise and money.

I'm glad I don't work in alcohol research!

well, so far there are not 1000 studeis in succession all saying the same thing. It's unlikel;y to happen. So the BMA will not swing from one bit of research to the next.

Sometimes, in some areas, there is overwhelming evidence in one direction. And that's why research continues - if you don't continue you will never know if thre is a definitive answer out there waiting to be found.

so it's not true to say there is no point in alcohol research. It's just that there is nothing overwhelming emerging to date when it comes to drinking small amounts of alcohol

dont know were you are going with this wellie mum.research isn't static there is no definitive answer

this isn't unique to alcohol research

Observational studies are tricky and must always be taken with a pinch of salt. There's a pattern emerging, though, that heavy drinking has clear and awful effects, but studies of light drinking aren't detecting harmful effects, ie, it looks as if the effect of alcohol on fetuses is not linear.

If you want to put figures on that, ie where the safe limits are - that's when it becomes a minefield, but I would say there's not much controversy about the general pattern of it.

In terms of practical decisions at a public health level, it suggests very strongly that a huge amount of resources should be set aside to combat the effects of heavy drinking in pregnancy, but that hounding women for light drinking is not likely to be cost effective and could be very damaging in terms of generating a lack of trust in official advice.

hounding?where whom?cite some references and links please

I mean it quite seriously when I say there's no point in alcohol research.

If the basic stance is that pregnant women shouldn't drink at all, then it's a waste of money trying to elucidate the risk. What would be the point?

Medical research money is very very scarce - no way is there enough to justify investigating things just out of theoretical interest.

And oh yes, "hounding" women will happen. If the advice goes out that pregnant women shouldn't drink, a pregnant woman seen drinking in public will be judged. There is an amazing amount of venom out there reserved for pregnant women who seem to be taking risks.

FGS

We are in a country where many people get regularly sozzled and don't see anything wrong with it. It's not just the so-called "thickos" but what is, IMO, an unhealthy obsession to consume alcohol and people look at you strangely when you tell them that you abstain from, or even dislike the taste of alcohol.

Given the above, I can see why the BMA would want to err on the side of caution. Why is a glass of wine SO important?

no links/references to substantiate the hounding of pg women?.your anecdotal opinion then