Interesting and disturbing article about foetal alcohol syndrome.

[Callisto]

I found this article in the Sunday Torygraph yesterday, thought you'd all be interested: here.

Why oh why do they always use examples of children whose mothers where alcoholic and drinkingly serious amounts when pregnant in stories like this.
It is common sense that those babies would be harmed in some way.
It's just another way to make mothers who have the odd glass of wine panic and feel terrible about it.

How awful

My cousin aged 30 announced her pregnancy a few weeks ago, shes hardly what i would call 'mummy material'.

After her announcement she went on to say how she had managed to not drink for 5 weeks since finding out she was pregnant, which we were all surprised about, but then she went on to say how 'because she hadn't drank for 5 weeks when she went out on Saturday night she had 7 half pints and a couple of voddies

I just got up and walked out of the house and i don't even think she knew why i was upset.

bit shocked that gp said up to four units a week was ok. bloody hell. Very upsetting story. obviously needs to be much more awareness raised - warning signs in pubs might be a good idea. Sounds ridiculous but maybe necessary if your cousin is anything to go by burstingbubbles.

there is an enormous difference between 4 bottles of wine a day and 4 units of alcohol in a week

I think the message has to be clear rather than uncertain and obfuscated

it always feels as though women who say they drank little but still sadly had children born with FAS actually drank more than they think

but women need to know

I think it would be simpler to say the same as for smoking don't drink but it doesn't make a jot of difference to those most at risk

they say women worry about soft cheeses well I'm sure binge drinkers don't worry about soft cheeses either

four units a week is too much though. one of the women in the article drank that amount, unless you think she underestimated what she drank. i wouldn't feel comfortable drinking that amount, as it says in the article, babies have different degrees of susceptibility.

this is the info they give where I come from...

i should also say the FAS is a HUGE problem there.

I have probably had weeks in this pregnancy where I've had 3 units, probably not as many as 4. But not every week - and I'd go for weeks between them without drinking at all. If 4 is too many then I've probably been pushing it.

Message withdrawn

These articles always for extremes I find, regardless of topic.

I agree that those most at risk will not be helped by aying don't do it at all anyway. It's like smoking - complete no no when pregnant. Doesn't stop people doing it though.

I think it is shocking that people don't know that drinking alcohol in pregnancy is a risk to the baby...I was pregnant in 1983 and knew this

but the message has to be relevant and convincing to change people's behaviour and the message is confusing

But do people really not know? The information is there.

As I said people know about not smoking in pregnancy, but they still do it!

in this article a little boy is highlighted whose mother drank 4 bottles a day, tragic but she is an extreme example of a heavy drinker

the second example is of someone who drank an amount like 4 units when and how often during pregnancy isn't clear but she is at another extreme in that her child was affected at a low level

a campaign needs to be clear in the information and who it is aimed at to be successful

my ds was small-for-dates and born light - 5lbs 4oz but perfectly healthy. every single mid-wife i came across in hospital and since has asked whether I smoked or drank during the pregnancy. I did neither - I haven't smoked for five years and didn't dare take any alcohol for fear of FAS. given that the medical profession were so ready to blame me for having a "small" baby - i'm glad I didn't follow its advice on alcohol consumption

Do you think women are confused about what constitutes a unit?

I agree w/babyonboard.

SweetyDarling - definitely (or I am). It's only while pregnant that I've actually given it any thought. Before I just drank 'a glass of wine', when having a glass of wine when pg I was much more aware of how big the glasses were and how strong the wine was!

A sideline issue in the article, but 61% of women don't cut down at all?!? Maybe I live a sheltered life but SURELY that can't be true? Are they counting in that women who don't drink at all to begin with (and therefore can't cut down)?

Ah but again, it's quoting statistics without qualifying them. 61% of which mothers? It gives no indication of who they questioned, could have been a group of alcoholics for all we know.

Whilst this is indeed a frightening article, there seem to be some discrepancies about the way that the data is presented - and don't forget that anecdote is not the same as evidence, so one person's (albeit tragic) story does not justify mass hysteria or self-flagelation.
The first thing I noticed was this quote:
"The brutal fact is that his head is an unusual shape because he was so drunk while in the womb that he lay most of the time with his head on his mother's pelvis." Now, please excuse me if I'm being ignorant about this, but presumably drunkenness in the foetus does not mean that the amniotic fluid ceases to have buoyancy - does alcohol counteract the laws of physics? And surely babies are supposed to end up with their heads cradled by the mother's pelvis? I was under the impression that the unusual formation of the skull in babies born with FAS was down to chromosomal changes caused by ingestion of alcohol in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

Furthermore, the figures as they are presented don't add up (but then nothing does at the moment, and my maths may be shakier than usual). The article says that 28 babies are born every week with the most severe form of FASD: that's 1456 annually. If, as the article claims, 7500 babies are born with FASD, and 3 in every thousand of these have the most severe symptons then that figure looks like being more like 225 annually.
I may have misunderstood all of this, and I'd be glad to have someone tell me how I've misunderstood it, but when journalists use phrases such as 'It is believed that up to three in every 1,000 babies suffer from the most severe form of the syndrome, which leads to brain damage and severe learning difficulties' i find myself asking by who, and on what grounds. Also, given the fact that the article states that there isn't enough evidence about the effects of alcohol within the medical profession itself, I'd very much like to know how the doctors and medical opinions quoted in the study are so sure of their diagnosis.

Yes, there are undoubtedly risks from exposing embryos and foetuses to alcohol, but writing about these risks in such a hysterical, moralistic and reactionary manner doesn't make the situation any clearer. If anything, it just strengthens the atmosphere of control and dependency fostered by our warning-rich society.

I absolutely agree.

i certainly agree with you the article and stats are flawed. but i still think there is a lot of confusion, especially in younger mothers, about how much, if any, alcohol is ok in pregnancy, and much clearer info is needed across the board.

exactly but I have noticed this before in press releases etc from the FAS charities..they have good intentions but don't have a clear message backed with well presented research..or they do but their pr person doesn't present it properly

which is a shame for everyone

I don't object to the message, and the need for educaton, but I certainly object to sensationalist articles like this one.

It would be nice if there was some consistency rather than some 'experts' saying one thing and others saying another. Plus, this kind of thing seems to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence, more than other aspects of pg-related dangers, or it seems to to me, but could be wrong.