Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: Foetal Alcohol Syndrome - 'my nephew deserves better than the criminalisation of his mother'

318 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 05/11/2014 16:25

Right now, the Court of Appeal is deciding whether or not a council in the North-West of England can hold the mother of a six-year-old girl born with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome criminally liable under the Offences against Persons Act of 1861.

Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is an umbrella term for a number of diagnoses that result from prenatal exposure to alcohol. This exposure can cause problems with memory, attention, speech and language and behaviour, a weakened immune system, and damage to the liver, kidneys and heart. The long-term consequences include addiction, chronic unemployment, poverty, depression, suicide, and the criminalisation of the child themselves.

It is a horrible condition. I know, because my nephew has FASD. I have seen him struggle with his physical and emotional health. He finds everyday activities difficult, and his behaviour is very challenging. It is heartbreaking, watching him trying to navigate life with intellectual and physical impairments that could have been prevented. He finds school difficult because he cannot cope with unstructured learning, such as break time. He requires a very strict routine with clear instructions and finds choices difficult. He also has physical disabilities and needs a very strict diet – another control on his life that he does not fully understand.

As an aunt, I don't want any woman to drink alcohol whilst pregnant because I worry about the consequences for their children. As a feminist, I am utterly opposed to the criminalisation of women's bodies and any attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom.

Criminalising mothers who give birth to babies with FASD would do nothing to support women, and would make accessing services even more difficult. How many women would inform their midwife of their alcohol consumption if they believe they'll end up in prison? Even if women were to approach their midwife or doctor, there aren't enough programs in place to help them. How many beds are there in rehab facilities that are appropriate for women with substance misuse issues? How many are there that cater for women with other children? I refuse to believe that criminalisation would be followed by investment in mental health services. Already, a vast number of women in prison are there as a consequence of trauma, and criminalising pregnancy would increase that number.

The most frustrating thing is that there are so many other things we could do. Research has shown us how to minimise the effects of FASD. For example, we know that access to a healthy diet has a positive impact, which is why poverty remains a major risk factor. This isn't because women living in poverty are more likely to misuse alcohol – it's because a healthy diet can minimise the effects of alcohol on a developing foetus.

We know how to prevent FASD. It requires a properly funded NHS to provide support for women with substance misuse issues. Access to a midwife and GP who understand addiction and its causes is the most important prevention method. We can't see alcoholism in isolation. Amongst women, it is frequently linked to trauma following male violence – and we need a social care network that understands the reality and consequences of this.

This is why criminalising women is not just nonsensical - it's misogynistic.

Despite the fact that our economy would be destroyed if women withdrew all their labour, society still believes that women have less economic value than men. The control of women's reproduction – from access to birth control to abortion, from prenatal care to maternity leave – is about controlling women's labour. Preventing the "bad" women – the drinkers, the drug takers – from giving birth means that they are free to do low-paying jobs, rather than depending on the welfare state. Of course, criminalising them is much easier than fixing the root of the problem by providing better health and social care, and it suits those who should be stepping up to the plate: the local council, which is refusing to take responsibility for its failure to support a vulnerable woman appropriately during her pregnancy, and our society, which is refusing to take responsibility for the harm caused by misogyny and violence against women.

The only effective way to tackle FASD is to create a culture in which women have equal value to men, where male violence is eradicated, and in which women have access to free healthcare without judgment.

I don't want any child to suffer the way my nephew suffers. I also don't want to see women imprisoned for substance misuse. If we genuinely cared about women with substance misuse issues and children born with FASD, we'd be standing on the barricades demanding better investment in social care, the NHS and education - that's where the support and intervention for pregnant women should be. They won't get this support if they're forced into the criminal justice system.

My nephew deserves better than the criminalisation of his mother. And his mother deserves better too.

OP posts:
TalkinPeace · 07/11/2014 20:49

FWIW
My sister was born premy addicted to heroin.
The first thing they had to do after the section was put her through cold turkey.
All her life has been mangled by the long term medical problems associated with her life in the womb.
The kidney transplant is failing
the mental health issues have become insurmountable
she has not worked in years
she is now too ill to work and is slowly dying in pain

then again her mother died of the cancer that caused the problems on the day she had been due to be born

THe current case will do nothing for children it will do nothing for mothers
it will only enrich lawyers at the cost of the taxpayer

lougle · 07/11/2014 21:07

I'm sorry your sister is suffering. Are you saying that your sister's drug addiction is due to prescribed medication (presumably diamorphine) given to your mother to alleviate cancer pain in pregnancy?

I think that is slightly different.

OddFodd · 07/11/2014 21:13

Thank you Devora. You don't sound like an MRA apologist either!

And I know what you mean about people being 'reassuring' - DS has a hidden disability.

TalkinPeace · 07/11/2014 21:16

lougle
her mother (she's my half sister) died the day she should have been born.
It was effing unlucky that the cancer diagnosis came after the pregnancy diagnosis
my dad had to choose : child or wife - as it is he's ended up effectively with neither

the reason I bring it up is to point out that these situations are desperately sad
they need support
not court action that enriches £5000 a day lawyers

lougle · 07/11/2014 21:26

I'm so sorry that your family has faced that. It sounds unbearably cruel.

I do think that situation is very different from one where the substance ingested is entirely unnecessary, though.

YonicScrewdriver · 07/11/2014 21:32

"And it is true, on MN if men did the same they would be held fully responsible for their actions"

The law would be the same for both - if an HIV positive man, say, knowingly impregnated a woman and she was infected and gave birth to a child with HIV, I don't believe the man would have committed any crime wrt the child.

TalkinPeace · 07/11/2014 21:35

lougle
it is different because back then there were not the tests and screening to spot such things

nowadays the lawyers would have had their pound of flesh as well

remember : the mother and the child are NOT parties in the current case
only buck passing sectors of the taxpayer fund aided government and abetted by fat cat layers are involved

SolidGoldBrass · 07/11/2014 22:15

Another reason to oppose any such law is because it will immediately be used to write off children - and their parents - who suffer from a wide range of problems (once again, the list of things that might be put down to maternal drinking during pregnancy is quite long and not that specific). Because, you know, women are dumb and selfish, and when it's All Their Own Fault what right have they to any precious NHS funding?
If you notice that your toddler is displaying signs of something being Not Quite Right and take him/her to the GP, and the first thing the GP asks is 'How much did you drink while you were pregnant?' and if you say 'Nothing' you are then asked to prove it...

trafficjam · 07/11/2014 22:31

Devora, completely agree.

lougle · 07/11/2014 22:31

It was the first thing DD1's paed asked, 5 years ago. I was grateful to be able to say that I'm habitually teetotal so hadn't consumed any alcohol. I doubt he would have leapt to a FASD dx if I'd confessed to the odd glass of wine, though. It's heavy prolonged drinking that is thought to do the damage.

merrymouse · 07/11/2014 23:48

Assuming the LA win this case, what would that mean practically if for instance aid wife discovers a woman is pregnant and drinking excessively?

Does this case have any practical application beyond setting a precedent for shifting financial responsibility away from the LA?

merrymouse · 07/11/2014 23:49

Sorry, if for instance a midwife

NormaStanleyFletcher · 08/11/2014 07:49

Interesting article here.

www.ijfab.org/blog/not-all-objectification-is-sexual-the-return-of-the-fetal-container/

Darksideofthemoon88 · 08/11/2014 09:08

I've been watching and reading this thread, but haven't yet posted. Devora, I'm really sorry to hear of your DD's experiences and what you as a family have been through. It sounds as though the first months of your DD's life were unbearably cruel, and that's exactly why I think something (I'm not sure what, but enforced contraception might be a bloody good start) has to be done about women who drink to excess/ take drugs during pregnancy. Your DD did nothing to deserve that, and frankly I'm in awe of you for dealing with the consequences of her BM's actions Flowers

AskBasil · 08/11/2014 21:16

Some results of giving the foetus personhood

Jameme · 08/11/2014 21:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lougle · 08/11/2014 22:10

That's horrific reading, but it has nothing to do with the issue of avoidable disability and the responsibility of it.

Greengrow · 08/11/2014 22:27

It is very important that court of appeal rules correctly here. Women until now have been free to take their own decisions. If I want to sky dive in pregnancy I can. I remember when giving birth to my twins at 40 weeks (normally NHS doctors whip them out at 38 weeks) because very comforted by case law including a then recent article by barrister Barbara Hewson which said I can take what risks I choose in labour. The children are mine. If I want to jeopardise their lives that is up to me. I think that's a crucial principle. I am not a baby incubator. I have total charge over those babies in utero. The only thing the courts interfere with is aborting them after the time limits and indeed up to 40 weeks I can abort them if disabled and lawfully do so.

I really hope the Court of Appeal apply the existing law and do not change it to the detriment of women. We own our own bodies.

Devora · 08/11/2014 23:11

Darkside - thank you for being so kind.

AskBasil · 09/11/2014 00:13

Lougle it has everything to do with the discussion, of course it does. The discussion is all about how far we involve the state in the issue of responsibility for avoidable disability and we're coming up against the reality that if you want to punish mothers for damaging their foetuses, then you are going to have to grant the foetus legal personhood independent from the woman carrying that foetus.

The alarming issue in this case is that if it goes through, it establishes the legal personhood of the foetus. Once you've done that, you've opened the floodgates and it will be open season on pregnant women as it is in some places in the USA.

There's an interesting article here I came across today: www.ijfab.org/blog/not-all-objectification-is-sexual-the-return-of-the-fetal-container/

SolidGoldBrass · 10/11/2014 14:10

Laws have to be framed in a way which balances risks and benefits. In the case of foetal personhood, the harm done (reduction of women to fetal containers and removal of their autonomy) would be much worse than the current harm (a minority of babies being born with possibly avoidable problems).

If private car ownership were to be banned, fewer children - and adults - would die in road accidents, and there would be considerable environmental benefits. However, the majority of people (at least in the developed world) firmly believe that the benefits of private car ownership outwiegh the risks. Also, the majority of car owners and drivers are white men, who are accustomed to having complete autonomy and choice and are also the ones who make the rules...

lougle · 10/11/2014 14:55

"Also, the majority of car owners and drivers are white men, who are accustomed to having complete autonomy and choice and are also the ones who make the rules..."

Except for those pesky British laws that apply to all people who drive on roads, whatever their race or sex. Hmm

I can accept an argument that the risk to bodily autonomy is larger than the current proportion of pregnant women who drink heavily in pregnancy, so women shouldn't be routinely monitored for drinking in pregnancy.

I still think there should be provision for prosecuting those who persistently drink heavily, knowing the risk to their foetus, resulting in FASD. I believe that compulsory treatment should be the resulting sentence.

Incidentally, I think that if a man assaults a woman when drunk, they should also have to have treatment, whether that be a drink awareness course or rehab, alongside whatever punishment is seen fit.

trafficjam · 10/11/2014 15:14

Solid, the majority here agree with you. Me included. The autonomy of a woman's body is not something that is being dismissed here (as far as I can recall, haven't re-read, but I can't recall anyone directly saying foetus ahead of mother).
So, if we simply summarise the people here as being sentimental, woman hating, foetus lovers, regardless of the fact that most have actively stated the opposite, do we not stifle the frustrations raised. If we all agree on the integrity of the principle of female autonomy, can we not then move forward and acknowledge the chaos that is happening for many and the damage it does - then maybe we can look for other solutions?
Or at least acknowledge that the reality of this principle we agree on is that a huge number of us are living with one of the outcomes. You don't have to care about that (there are always those who lose, I understand that), but I would ask again that you at least acknowledge and show some empathy.

SolidGoldBrass · 10/11/2014 21:48

I don't have that much empathy for people who want random strangers criminalised and stripped of their identity. It might be understandable that they are angry about the issues in their own families but there are some issues - and this is one - which are not fixable without removing the human rights of a large number of people.

lougle · 10/11/2014 22:03

I disagree. Hugely.

1 in 100 babies are thought to be born with FASD. Some of those will be unfortunate cases where the mother drank a relatively small amount of alcohol or was unaware of her pregnancy at the time.

The cases for which I think prosecution is justified are the ones where prolonged, heavy drinking in spite of warning from health professionals results in FASD. In those cases (even more so in cases where a woman has several babies, all removed due to the mother's condition) I believe that prosecution and the ability to order treatment should be available as options.