Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
McFox · 05/11/2014 22:10

Absolutely fantastic post.

wanttosinglikemarycoughlan · 05/11/2014 22:26

OddFodd
I was demonstrating why they need no fault compensation, to fund specialist services because they are not often available within mainstream services, or understood
and because FASD is 100% preventable (before I get jumped on I know alcoholism is an illness but pregnancy can be prevented)

Floggingmolly · 05/11/2014 22:27

I'm with lougle.

TtipParty · 05/11/2014 22:28

Let's go all out on support and prevention first. If that fails it might be time to look at alternatives.

NormaStanleyFletcher · 05/11/2014 22:28

Fantastic post Louise.

Where does it end? How about considering women as pre-pregnant from their first period to menopause and asking that they don't drink or smoke during that time? It has been suggested...

www.theguardian.com/society/2006/sep/04/health.medicineandhealth1

Missunreasonable · 05/11/2014 22:33

But we don't go all out in support and prevention when an alcoholic causes harm to another individual due to being under the influence.
For instance: drink drivers who are alcoholics don't get let off their actions when they knock somebody over whilst drunk because there is a lack of support service availability. Why are babies who didn't choose to be conceived not viewed as worthy of the same protection from alcoholism?

FreckledLeopard · 05/11/2014 22:39

I don't agree with criminalising mothers. It's a slippery slope IMO. Where would the line be drawn? What if a pregnant mother ate unpasteurised cheese and the baby was damaged? What about smoking? Eating pate?

Should we criminalise mothers who don't breastfeed - should their children have compensation for loss of possible IQ points if they're formula fed?

As much as I abhor the actions of those who drink/smoke/take drugs whilst pregnant, the answer is not to criminalise the mothers. Doing so would set a very dangerous precedent.

lougle · 05/11/2014 22:44

"Where does it end? How about considering women as pre-pregnant from their first period to menopause and asking that they don't drink or smoke during that time? It has been suggested..."

Or perhaps we should ask "where does it start?"

Will we decriminalise any act that is shown to be a consequence of alcoholism? Rape if the man was under the influence at the time? Perhaps some DV if known to be an alcoholic? No, because it isn't a woman's fault that she was in the vicinity of a drinker who couldn't hold their drink. Why then, should the baby take the punishment of being born unto an alcoholic?

I repeat, I am not saying that a woman who is an alcoholic and finds herself to be unexpectedly pregnant should be prosecuted. I do think, though, that if a woman can be shown to have deliberately or recklessly become pregnant during a period of untreated alcoholism, there is a case for saying that she is responsible for the disability that results.

As a woman, I support women for wanting rights equal to their male counterparts. Why though, do some women want all of the rights with none of the responsibilities?

wanttosinglikemarycoughlan · 05/11/2014 22:51

I really think that after the first FASD child, or before/during pregnancy they need support to stop drinking
If that fails I would like to see incentives to prevent further pregnancies
It must be harrowing to lose baby after baby and its tragic for the child. I was in tears this morning watching the young woman on 'this morning' she is so vulnerable

SixImpossible · 05/11/2014 23:16

If a drug addicted parent leaves methadone in reach of a child and they are brain damaged, they may be held responsible for that brain damage in law. Why is it different if the baby is inside the parent at the time?

Many of you would day because the baby only has a right to life once it is able to be independently born. Some may say it goes further and that until the baby is born it has no right to life.

It is different, not because of any right to life, but because the foetus is not recognised in law as a person. At the time substance abuse is causing damage, the foetus cannot survive independent of the mother. Therefore the foetus cannot be abused, any more than you could be charged with a criminal act for abusing your own liver through alcoholism.

If the foetus is given the status of a person, who can be abused and must, therefore, be protected from abuse, what happens to abortion? If harming a foetus by alcoholism is criminal, how can killing it be legitimate?

And what happens to the woman who accidentally becomes pregnant while on Roaccutane, or some other teratogenic medication? "I didn't mean to do it" is not an accepatable defence.

Or the woman whose child is born damaged by toxoplasmosis, or listeria, or rubella? Shall we punish her for having a cat/living in a country with different guidelines/looking after her other children or being a teacher?

Or the woman who miscarries after a fall from a bike or a horse? Did she commit manslaughter on her baby by knowingly participating in an risky activity?

This case may be about getting funding for children who desperately need extra help, but it has the potential to open up a huge can of worms. Giving foetuses rights over their bodies will destroy women's rights over theirs'.

basgetti · 05/11/2014 23:29

Excellent post. I don't agree with any law that would give an unborn foetus 'personhood' or criminalise the behaviour of pregnant women. There is a case in America where a depressed pregnant woman tried to kill herself. Her unborn baby didn't survive and she is facing ongoing criminal charges including murder. Laws that were originally meant to give status to a foetus in the event of the mother being assaulted or killed by another party have been hijacked to punish vulnerable women. It is a very slippery slope.

Missunreasonable · 05/11/2014 23:29

If the foetus is given the status of a person, who can be abused and must, therefore, be protected from abuse, what happens to abortion?

We already have legal limits on abortions. A woman cannot have an abortion after 26 weeks without very good medical reason because it is recognised that the foetus could indeed survive if born at this time (and even earlier with medical advancement). The legal restrictions on abortion protect the foetus and there've no reason that we can't have laws to help protect the foetus from fasd either.
If a woman broke the law and had an illegal term ovation after 26 weeks she could be charged, that doesn't minimise the autonomy she has over her body but it does protect the child from uneccesary harm. If we don't believe that foetuses should be protected then there should be no time limit on abortions.

sanfairyanne · 06/11/2014 02:35

24 weeks

but what are you saying about under 24 week abortions? if drinking alcohol in the first two trimesters of pregnancy becomes a crime, then killing the fetus must surely also be a crime?

sanfairyanne · 06/11/2014 02:37

m.livescience.com/17971-drinking-pregnancy-worst-trimester.html

drinking in third trimester just affects baby's length according to this study
it is first and second trimester drinking that cause most damage (according to this, am no expert)

lougle · 06/11/2014 07:05

I understand your point. It is a good one. However, the causal link between eating soft cheese and pate is relatively tenuous. The risk is actually very small, but women are advised of it, because it is easily avoidable and if the baby is affected the damage caused is so significant.

Smoking is known to cause lung problems in babies who are affected, and society frowns on smoking in pregnancy, but children rarely end up disabled for life because their mother smoked during pregnancy (I've excluded premature birth resulting in disability because it is too difficult to separate the strands of causality).

Roaccutane is inherently teratogenic, so women of child bearing age are asked to sign a form confirming that they are taking two types of contraception before they are prescribed it, even if they currently abstain or are virgins. It is responsible to avoid pregnancy if you are taking a substance which will harm a developing baby.

I think it's worth remembering that although practice is much looser, legally there is no such thing as abortion on demand. A woman has to be deemed to qualify for an abortion by fitting a criteria, by two doctors. It is illegal for a woman to have an unofficial abortion and it is illegal to cause abortion in a pregnant woman unless you are a registered medical practitioner and that woman has got the consent of two medical practitioners.

It's also worth noting that The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is still in force and states:

"58. Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude for life . . ."

So it isn't as clear cut as 'a foetus isn't a person'.

The distinction here, is that the drinking isn't done with the intent of killing the foetus. It is a consequence of the addiction that the foetus is affected.

It is complicated but I do think there needs to be some protection for developing foetuses against known and predictable harm. FASD has devastating consequences and it is avoidable.

70hours · 06/11/2014 07:05

Hmmmm - difficult one - esp as FASD can also be confused with ASD and ADHD - what happens if people are wrongly accused.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 07:09

The trimester part is a side issue as different time limits could apply to drinking, the issue is about preventing unnecessary cruelty to a child. I personally feel that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is less cruel than forcing a child to live its entire life with problems caused by damage which was preventable. At least an aborted foetus doesn't have to spend many decades suffering and struggling. The law needs to protect children from conception to adulthood.
We wouldn't ignore a child suffering severe neglect due to parental alcoholism and I see no justification for allowing a child to be born with lifelong problems due to parental alcoholism and not trying to do sonething about it and holding somebody accountable.

70hours · 06/11/2014 07:13

I think the other problem there missunreasonable is who will it help criminalising the mother ? a genuine question -

Maplessglobe · 06/11/2014 07:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maplessglobe · 06/11/2014 07:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lougle · 06/11/2014 07:41

There are characteristic features though. I know a child with FASD. The physical features are there.

I don't think it is hard and fast -there is a lot that isn't known about why heavy drinking sometimes doesn't result in FASD and why other times relatively moderate drinking does.

Purpleflamingos · 06/11/2014 07:46

Excellent points. I fully agree. I was talking about this last night with DH and his friend and they were aghast that this depth of controlling measure against their wives could be enforced.

Maplessglobe · 06/11/2014 07:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 08:04

Agree with Louise.

And if mothers drinking in pregnancy are criminalised, what are the criteria? If the baby is born and FAS is later diagnosed? Spot checks on blood alcohol levels? A certain number of drinks spread over the pregnancy?

It isn't the same as saying an alcoholic commuting drink driving shouldn't be criminalised. Drink driving is currently a crime. A new law would have to be written about this and what would it say? "A woman taking any action that might risk the long term health of the foetus post birth will be guilty of foetal damage"?

70hours · 06/11/2014 08:10

Mmmm - as well - with drink driving you test blood alcohol and get a reading immediately and there is a LIMIT. - with FASD it is based in the mothers own ad hoc admissions - or someone making a judgment on what mother did based on evidence after the fact - not the same really