Should pregnant women be banned from smoking in light of new research?

[hunkermunker]

See here

"Nine out of 10 mothers whose babies suffered cot death smoked during pregnancy, according to a scientific study to be published this week. The study, thought to be one of the most authoritative to date on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), says women who smoke during pregnancy are four times more likely than non-smokers to see their child fall victim to cot death."

Personally, I find it very, very hard to understand why anybody smokes while knowingly pregnant. And yes, I know it's addictive. I speak as an ex-smoker, not somebody who has no idea what it's like to have a love affair with the evil weed.

as per 9.38 post

It is not for comparison purposes. But rather a discussion point about civil liberties and where in fact if a line is to be drawn. why stop at cigarettes ( everyone knows the associated health risks) and not deliberate and flagrant eating of sushi?

what are you talking about? where's the vitriol? i said you made a point in an arsey way. you did. there was no discussion, no 'here's my point', just a list of foods and an exhortation that people should be jailed for eating sushi. i've no idea what you are talking about, i've seen no vitriol. unless you think 'arsey' is particularly vicious...

i think in the context of your posts i considered it to be. yes.

Anybody who manages to eat as much sushi as a smoker eats in a day, everyday, for nine months, would need to have a serious health check, mental or otherwise.

As for comparing the eating of sushi and brie to the effects of smoking, is a little like torpedoing the debate more than the argument of bottlefeeding.

Aitch are you trying to wind people up today?

to myself, rewording:
anybody managing to eat as much sushi in a day, as a smoker smokes sigarettes/tobacco in a day. ... yada yada etc

look, you made that 9.38 post after your other 'pregnant women should be jailed for eating sushi' ones, it's a bit disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

if you did mean it as a comparative, then i found it arsey. there is no reasonable comparison between smoking and eating food. you have to eat food every day, you're always at risk of food poisoning, which is dangerous for the baby so you generally would be cautious if you weren't eating food you've prepared yourself. or not, if you like living dangerously and aren't bothered about making you and your child sick. smoking, you can give it up.

legislating is a different matter. banning smoking would be completely unworkable, and for the record i have said repeatedly that i don't think smoking shoudl be banned. do you want me to trawl through the thread and re-post them?

the point of your post was, you say, 'where do we draw the line?' it might have been interesting for you to have said that rather than the hyperbole of 'jail pregnant women who eat sushi'.

no kittywitch, i am not. but people do seem particularly tetchy. i wonder why?

I haven't read thread so apologies but are we suggesting we want to go down the road of arresting pregnant women who smoke/drink/eat blue cheese? hmm.

I think policing pregnant womens bodies is a slippery slope. Shall we prevent them from having abortions, too, as it's harmful to the foetus?

Smoking is an addiction and should be treated as such rather than these stupid, no brainer bans.

nobody suggests that

Same goes for policing womens' bodies in general.

Let's force all menstruating women and girls to take prenatal vitamins in case they fall pregnant.

Let's ban all women and girls of childbearing age from drinking alcohol in case they are pregnant and don't know it, prevent them from working in certain occupations which may be harmful to the foetus in case they fall pregnant, etc.

have you actually read the thread, expat? you do know that nobody's suggesting any such thing, don't you?

Yes, I have read the thread, Aitch, thank much - my, you are in a mood tonight!

And I find it as subversive as most forms of racism I come across today.

Yes, that is my opinion, leap down my throat then. You lot are doing a fine job of that these days.

[walks away scunnered thinking, 'no wonder aloha and gess left.']

ban smoking, that's what i say. a massive move towards improving public health.

expat - wasnt there a thing a while ago about the plan to put certain vitaimins (folic iirc) into bread because some women do not take the tablets when pg?

you lot? fucks sakes.

but no-one's actually suggesting any of the things you mentioned, i don't understand why that's not relevant.

i think there is folic acid in bread, isn't there? or did it not happen? and there's no fluoride in the water up here to protect people's civil liberty to have shite teeth.

How do those advocating the intervention of the law into pregnant women's decision-making feel about abortion?

I'm genuinely interested, it's a nebulous area it seems to me.

they are, aitch. ban smoking, make it illegal, etc., etc.

wtf?

edam on Sun 14-Oct-07 12:07:36 pretty much sums it up.

i can't believe so many have time to post on here for polishing their halos.

bollocks to this!

i'm well and truly off.

my repeat of the 9.38 ( which in fairness i think was 9.35!) post was in relation to kerala's post. Rather than anything disingenuous Aitch. Indeed i have not been posting as a response to you only, maybe this is where there has been some confusion.

before this a poster named 'itsgrimupnorth' made the same observation (wondering about the correlation).

hence the explanation in the aforementioned post.

Nothing disingenuous. Nothing at all. I think its rude to dismiss my comments about the tone of your posts as me being 'tetchy' with overuse of '' but the continuity in the tone of your posts towards me is noticeable.

mmm, Aitch there were some research when I was little that fluoride caused behavioural issues in children for whatever reason, my mum told me, so cannot substantiate further.

There is added vitamin b6 and iron in most breakfast cereals, and in some breads.

Gosh you lot are feisty tonight

Okay, a few things. First of all, yes smoking with a baby inside you - pretty darn stupid - even more so if you know it's going to harm your baby. But what about the bloody father in all this - if he is fagging away from day one the smoke is still absorbed by mum and baby, and when the baby is born and comes home he comes into that environment proper. Should we basically ban smoking in the home because if we are legislating against pregnant women, fair's fair, we should do the same for the blokes.

Secondly, it's not so much the revenue tobacco raises for the govt that matters, but the fact that SMOKERS DIE YOUNGER saving us all having to pay for their health and social care into old age.

Thirdly, and here's where I don my flameproof knickers, I actually think it's a cultural thing. Either you decide: I will do whatever I can to give my child the best environment I can, or you think 'it'll be fine' and take the chance. It's a judgement call. I think it's probably easier to decide to risk it if you are a single mum, living on benefits in a towerblock with little access to information and support (and that's not to say women like this are dumb, but disadvantaged), as I think your priorities are probably a bit different to us lot of toffee nosed, middle class wotsits (to paraphrase a thread of a few weeks ago).

And now some light relief, which may or may not work see my pic