Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
TheFamilyJammies · 10/11/2014 22:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lougle · 10/11/2014 23:27

My law isn't saying anything Confused. I am saying that I do feel there is scope to allow for prosecution when there is clear evidence that the mother has been persistently drinking large amounts of alcohol despite clear warning of the dangers and a disability results.

Many, many people do things that are reckless when they're driving and they get away with it. Some people, unfortunately, do something reckless and someone is hurt or killed as a result. Those people get charged with, and if there is sufficient evidence, convicted of, either 'driving without due care and attention', 'dangerous driving' or 'causing death by dangerous driving.' We don't say 'oh well....they're autonomous....'

TheFamilyJammies · 10/11/2014 23:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lougle · 11/11/2014 07:54

I think 'grievous bodily harm' would cover it.

Actually, I have no problem with making it illegal to drink large amounts of alcohol in pregnancy and if I'm honest, I did not consider myself autonomous in pregnancy. I considered myself the mother of a child yet to be born, with all the responsibilities that motherhood brings.

Greengrow · 11/11/2014 09:31

Absolutely not.. I own my body. If I choose to damage my unborn child (subject to the very limited restrictions on abortion) which is not yet a legal person that is no different from my deciding to chop my fingers off or commit suicide. We must not chip away at women's rights like this otherwise we just become baby incubators.

Also to use alcohol as this first test case is even more unfair on mothers. Alcoholism is a disease. Look at George Best. You really really want to stop and cannot. If you are going to have a test case let it be a mother like I am who chose to cycle from the tube station at 40 weeks in the early stages of labour on way back from work. It was a fairly slow cycle ride but entirely within my rights as under current law I can choose what risks I take. Once the baby is born of course things are different and things are also different if the mother is mentally ill.

merrymouse · 11/11/2014 12:20

How would this law work in practice? Would you enforce it before or after the abortion time limit?

What would happen if a woman needed to undergo medical treatment that might harm the foetus? I suppose you could make provisions for this, but the effects of medical treatment and the requirement for medical treatment are often not clear cut.

If a heavy drinker is prepared to continue a pregnancy while clearly endangering their unborn child, would they have the mental facility/physical ability/desire to stop drinking because of the threat of a prison sentence?

SolidGoldBrass · 11/11/2014 13:12

What about women who are not planning a pregnancy/unaware that they are in the early stages of pregnancy, who have a couple of big nights out? If you think they should be prosecuted then you are effectively saying that no woman of childbearing age should drink alcohol and that it should be illegal for her to do so.
You may be one of those people who thinks alcohol is evil anyway, and that no one should consume it, but at present it is legal for adults to drink alcohol - indeed, to drink it to excess as long as they don't drive or commit any other crime while under the influence. So that law must apply equally to all adults and not treat either pregnant women as a separate species or all women as potentially pregnant.

lougle · 11/11/2014 13:13

I don't think prison is the answer. Compulsory treatment, impatient if necessary, could be.

SolidGoldBrass · 11/11/2014 15:20

But compulsory treatment, as well as being dodgy in terms of human rights, is useless. Most court-mandated treatment programmes are based on the bullshit and often harmful 12-step method (which has the highest failure rate of any kind of addiction treatment).
People cannot be forced to stop drinking or taking drugs by any method other than incarceration (even then, given the state of most prisons, it's not foolproof).

As I have said, there is no workable answer to this - education and support may help some people, but it won't hurt everyone. So the bottom line has to be: tough shit. Sometimes things happen that shouldn't. All the incarceration, punishment and social horror in the world doesn't stop a small minority of parents abusing their children. Taking all children into care at birth in case their parents are abusive might save lives, but (again|) the human rights cost would be far too high.

Greengrow · 11/11/2014 15:27

Yes, my right to damage my baby in utero should be fought over to ensure I continue to have the right to do that - my property, my baby, my body, mu choice.

Of course most mothers put a lot of effort into not harming their baby but it must be their choice and what some regard as good - like feet up all pregnancy and put on 4 stone or jogging every day and vigorous exercise/sky diving or whatever else we need to retain these freedoms.

Is it an appeal case with 3 judges and what are their sexes? Older male judges tend to regard women as owned property who are kept by men and will usually be anti abortion.

merrymouse · 12/11/2014 06:54

I don't think the 12 step method is bull-shit at all.

However, there is no way on earth that you can force somebody to do it, whether you are a partner, parent, child or judge.

confuddledDOTcom · 12/11/2014 16:12

I can just see what would happen, bar staff refusing to serve pregnant women (that could be awkward... "Um... I'm not actually pregnant!"), women being attacked for drinking openly because of the GBH to their baby.

I don't totally cut out alcohol when pregnant and a senior midwife who looked after me and my babies in and out of hospital told me there is no need to. My alcohol tolerance is rubbish though in pregnancy so I drink a pint or a glass of wine occasionally. It's not about the alcohol, it's like normally I like coke, I could drink it until it came out my ears but sometimes when I'm out I'll ask for an orange and lemon or pint or cider or hot chocolate or an interesting looking cocktail. I like the flavours and I make a choice to drink something different. I don't drink to get drunk, I drink because I like that drink, I find lager refreshing when it's hot. I would not take kindly to be attacked or refused a drink for that one odd drink.

I already object to this logo as it makes it look like it's illegal to drink.

People have used the what if you know you have a disease you'd pass on and others have said it's not certain. My friend has a gene that she will pass onto a son and he will die before he's an adult a slow, painful, horrible death. She watched her brother die from it too, her mother is the mutant so no one knew it was an issue then. She has blood tests the moment she knows she's pregnant and if it's a boy she has the choice of an abortion before most people have had their first scan. Her geneticist who's looked after her her whole life (she's a manifesting carrier) said he's met one couple who kept their son, most people know to test because they watched the death of a loved one. Would you say that one couple harmed their son?

Guest post: Foetal Alcohol Syndrome - 'my nephew deserves better than the criminalisation of his mother'
Greengrow · 12/11/2014 19:13

Also not all of those with addictions can go on 12 step methods. Sometimes their addiction is so strong they just cannot give up the addictive substance and it is unfair to blame them.

I want the law to remain that I own, control and decide what to do with any baby growing inside me even that means I choose to kill or maim it. Once it is born that is a different matter.

Tzibeleh · 04/12/2014 11:14

Result

Of course this will go to endless appeal.

If more money is needed to care for these children, then that money should be forthcoming without criminalising the mothers.

gita7007 · 04/12/2014 22:16

Im a feminist and I was embarrassed by the article.

It seemed hysterical, illogical and inconsistent.

How can legislation designed to deter selfish actions causing terrible inflictions on innocent kids be mysoginistic?

The whole thing resembles a 3rd rate parody.

Soozart · 05/12/2014 10:38

My 50 year old sister has it and is afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and Churg Strauss Syndrome which is a rare condition affecting the immune system. Last year she endured knee replacement and recently a hip repacement.She is tiny, but despite all this tries to keep working as a domestic in a care home.I always knew that my parents' dependence on alcohol had affected her as my brother and I are both healthy, but didn't know what it was called until much later. I am angry at my mother for subjecting my sister to a difficult life in constant pain.

gita7007 · 05/12/2014 16:05

Im a feminist and I was embarrassed by the article.

It seemed hysterical, illogical and inconsistent.

How can legislation designed to deter selfish actions causing terrible inflictions on innocent kids be mysoginistic?

The whole thing resembles a 3rd rate parody.

gita7007 · 05/12/2014 16:09

Lougle,
I probably will never have children - but if I ever did I think I would have the exact same view as you. I hope I would anyway.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page