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:
SpiritedQuill · 06/11/2014 08:58

If you start saying that abortion (and forced abortion?) is better than a child living a disabled life then you get into hugely problematic areas of discussion. Many women decide to carry on pregnancies of foetuses who are likely to have health problems or disabilities or refuse screening for Downs and other conditions altogether.

Could a woman be forced to have an abortion because the foetus she is growing may have FAS? What if it was unaffected?

Are the lives of children and adults with FASD or other disabilities, conditions or health problems worth less because they struggle?

So are we saying that it was not criminal for the woman to drink during pregnancy, but it was criminal for her to knowing that she had been drinking, not have an abortion? Hmm

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 09:02

Is there any reason that alcohol levels can't be tested at each maternity appointment?
Surely it is only a matter of time before tests can be developed which show whether excessive alcohol has been consumed over the past week rather than just showing alcohol currently in the bloodstream.
Medical advancement is improving all the time, how long will it be before a test can be discovered which proves fasd?
My own DS has a rare condition which 10 years ago was only diagnosed based on physical characteristics but now has a definitive blood test which can test for the condition. There is no reason to believe that similar medical advancement can't find a test for fasd, surely it's just a matter of time and priority.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 09:06

Spirited; a child being screened for non fault conditions is notvyhe same as a woman harming a baby due to excessive drinking. I don't think any baby should be aborted due to having a disability identified, if is the parents decision what to do. Things like downs (I refused downs testing myself) cannot be prevented but fasd can be prevented and somebody should be held responsible for that harm in the same way that people are held responsible for harming other people deliberately.

Saurus72 · 06/11/2014 09:28

Hmmm. As a feminist and someone who is married to an alcoholic, I don't really see the argument that an end to misogyny and male violence against women (goes without saying this is horrendous and of course must end) as being linked to women drinking whilst pregnant and harming their unborn baby. No-one is holding the glass of wine to their lips and forcing them to drink it. I agree with the need for education regarding nutrition, but there surely is an issue with people having responsibility over their actions?

lougle · 06/11/2014 09:31

I don't think any woman should be forced to have an abortion for any condition. I declined any prenatal screening that would lead specifically to abortion (I.e triple test and amniocentesis or cvs). I accepted monitoring that would give information as to treatment abnormalities may require soon after birth (ie 20 week scan, gtt, growth scans). I have a child with a condition undiagnosed at birth and so far thought to be genetic but unspecified.

FASD is not like other conditions. It isn't a 'freak accident' or an 'unfortunate combination of genes'. It is something that occurs to an otherwise healthy foetus. None of us would say it is ok to feed a baby alcoholic beverages in a bottle after birth.

If these foetuses have no right to life, why does antenatal care give reference to the foetus at all? Why do we cut mothers open to rescue a foetus in distress? Why do we monitor the health of the baby? Why don't we just monitor the health of the mother? Why do we spend thousands upon thousands of pounds in supporting the lives of babies who are born too soon to breathe unaided?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:35

Lougle, I don't think we are talking about forced abortion. But if these midwifely breath tests show the woman is drinking "too much" (which isn't defined as FAS has a number of other factors contributing to its severity) and she is told before 24 weeks that she will be prosecuted if the baby is born with FAS (or even if it isn't but she is risking that), don't you think that might lead her to seek an abortion as that would prevent her being criminalised?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:36

"Why do we cut mothers open to rescue a foetus in distress?"

Because either the mother has consented to it (in a c section or similar) or the mother is past saving on life support, say, and a family member consents to it.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:37

"None of us would say it is ok to feed a baby alcoholic beverages in a bottle after birth. "

Because the baby has the full rights of a person after birth.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:38

"Why do we monitor the health of the baby? Why don't we just monitor the health of the mother? "

The health of the foetus is monitored with the consent of the mother; she is free not to consent.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:39

"Why do we spend thousands upon thousands of pounds in supporting the lives of babies who are born too soon to breathe unaided?"

Once they are born, they have personhood.

basgetti · 06/11/2014 09:42

Is there any reason that alcohol levels can't be tested at each maternity appointment?

It can already be difficult to get vulnerable people to engage in support services available to them. I imagine that being forced to undertake alcohol testing with the aim of deciding whether or not they should be criminalised will only serve to alienate those who need it most from attending appointments and receiving antenatal care.

lougle · 06/11/2014 09:44

Yonic yes I see that some would opt for abortion. But we don't make laws based on the possible responses, do we?

We don't say 'let's not make DV illegal because evidence shows that once DV has been disclosed it is all the more dangerous for the woman.' We don't say 'let's say nothing if a child is being harmed because evidence shows that some parents will kill their child before we can remove them.'

I realise that mothers consent to CS. But the hippocratic oath says 'first do no harm'. A CS harms the mother, but saves the baby. A vaginal birth may kill the baby but do the mother less (physical) harm. I think my point was that it is unfair to see the foetus as irrelevant when it is the foetus who is harmed by alcoholism.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:44

Good point, basgetti.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 09:44

Lougle I had to read that first paragraph of your post three times to be certain that it wasn't something I wrote and you had quoted. The only difference it would seem is that my sons condition has been identified and made certain due to medical advancement.

I 100% agree with everything you have written.

spirited just to confirm: when I am talking about discovery of tests for FASD, I am not referring to testing so that abortions can take place tompreventcthe birth of children with the condition, I am talking about testing after the birth when FASD is suspected so that the mother can be held accountable for the damage she has caused to a child due to her excessive drinking which would have been otherwise healthy.

If medical professionals cause harm to a baby during pregnancy or birth due to medical negligence then people expect the medical professionals to be held accountable. How can you argue that a mother can cause harm due to behaving in a reckless way which she knows is possibly going to cause harm but shouldn't be held responsible?

lougle · 06/11/2014 09:46

As I say, The Offences against the Person Act is still in full force and ascribes rights to the developing foetus. By definition, being included in the Act makes them a 'person'.

OddFodd · 06/11/2014 09:48

But lougle - how do you know? If a child is born with multiple disabilities, only some of them could be down to FAS. Some of them could be like your child (or mine) - something that happened to them in the womb and no one knows why. But I did have a couple of drinks when I was pregnant. Could I be held responsible for DS's disability?

If we introduce compulsory alcohol testing at each MW appt, what then? If a woman is found to have alcohol in her blood, what should happen? Forced abortion? Criminalisation once her child is born?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:48

Miss, I don't believe there are any tests that show the level of alcohol use over a six month period after the fact.

lougle · 06/11/2014 09:51

The central argument, it seems, (and the thing that stops me identifying as a feminist) is that being a woman and having rights, trumps the well being of anyone else.

Nobody, nobody would say this if it was a man carrying the baby. Nobody would say that a man's right to drink is more important than a woman or child's right to safety.

Men overpower women because they are physically more able to. Isn't it the same thing? Women's rights overpowering the foetuses right to health because at that point in time the foetus lacks power.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 09:51

oddfodd if it was discovered that the medics did something negligent during your pregnancy or birth to cause your Child's disability and that they acted knowing that their actions could cause the harm would you expect them to be held accountable?

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 09:53

Miss, I don't believe there are any tests that show the level of alcohol use over a six month period after the fact.

Not presently, but is there any reason to suspect that a test to be certain of FASD won't be developed in the future? Are you expecting medical science to remain static for the future?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 09:58

Lougle, I don't think those are fair comparisons.

This would be an instance where it would be illegal to harm (or potentially harm) a developing foetus but legal to destroy it. By your analogy, that's like saying "let's make DV illegal but not domestic killing"

(NB I do not think abortion is murder)

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:02

Miss, I don't believe there's much impetus at the moment to develop a test re long term levels of alcohol consumption.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:03

"Nobody, nobody would say this if it was a man carrying the baby. "

I profoundly disagree.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:04

If it was proved that an alcoholic man's poor sperm quality led to disability, would he be criminalised, Lougle?

OddFodd · 06/11/2014 10:10

But that's different Miss. They are outside my body and the baby is inside it. If mothers are criminalised, who will benefit?