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.

No you shouldn't ban it. People have the right to make their own decisions and it's no one else's business. Perhaps we should ban pregnant women from eating McDonald's. Perhaps we should ban them ever having even a sniff of alcohol. Perhaps we could also ban everyone from ever frying anything, perhaps we should stop shops selling flour milk and eggs so we can't make batter. We should ban salt while we're at it. I'm sick of this bl*y prohibitive attitude that so many people are adopting these days. It's nothing to do with you. If you want to stop smoking then bloody well stop, but mind your own business with everyone else. This is such a bullying and judgemental society that I sometimes regret bringing my dd into it.

"I would be surprised if the majority of smokers would want their children to smoke,"

absolutely agree with that - I would HATE my children to smoke, and I make sure my DS's know very clearly that it's a dangerous, healthy and unsociable thing to do and that's it's something they should NEVER even try....I tried "just one" (bizarelly while on my own - so it wasn't "peer pressure") that was almost exactly 10yrs ago and I still regret to this day picking up that cigarette (I'd smoke joints before that but had no previous desire to smoke a cigarette).

Interesting seeing the strong opinions on here - specially when they fly in the face of scientific evidence. There is clear evidence that smoking is linked to a range of illnesses - if you choose not to believe that, then up to you, but it's pretty pointless to ignore something just because you don't like the truth of it! I also think the posts which harked back to a wonderful yesteryear when children were all wonderfully healthy and never suffered allergies etc are viewing the past through rose tinted specs! I suffered from eczema as a kid, as did several others in my class. My best friend's parents smoked and she was often off school with a wheezy chest. And as for the acne ..... well you just don't get acne these days like I used to see round my school... so it simply ISN'T the case that everything was fine in the good old days!!! Personally I don't smoke, because I've chosen not to - yes that's CHOSEN, because I know we all have peer pressure/advertising (not any more but certainly when i was a kid and smokes were glamourized everywhere)etc but ultimately buying that first pack of fags is a CHOICE. I can well imagine that if I had chosen to smoke, I'd find it bloody hard to give up. But that's not to say its impossible as gingerninja points out.

This point may have already been made, but surely what is needed is proper ante and postnatal support? Not just seeing a rushed mw for 10 mins every few months, but local antenatal groups that cover more than the basics (and start before 30 weeks), the opportunity to meet with other expectant mothers, access to counselling services... if the answer to pg smokers is pushing a leaflet at them it isn't going to do much good. Ditto re diet, coping with stress, bfing support etc. It's hugely underfunded and we need MORE.

i smoked for a year after stressful break up with ex. Got to the point where i was having a cigarette and then taking my inhaler straight after. I was addicted, yes, but i HAD to give up, I couldn't breathe. It was very difficult, yes, but not impossible. So you can stop if you are forced to for some reason. The new evidence about SIDS is strong enough to really make people sit up and smell the ashtray FFS. I don't give a flying shit if you call me sanctimonious.

banning is certainly problematic in terms of practical enforcement. But not in moral terms.

agree with EffiePerrine [will eff off now]

Yes to better education/publicity though. I was not aware of this research on SIDS and smoking.

Does anyone have the number for Alan Johnson??

PMSL

A lot of people mention that there should be better education, support etc for smokers. What exactly should 'we' (society? the government? NHS/ schools?) be doing? I'm not criticizing anyone here, it's a genuine question. Compared to when I was young, I think there is a huge amount of information and support networks out there in the public domain. When I was young, and cigarette adverts glamourizing smoking were legal, I can see that there were mixed messages being given. But these days? I don't think so! With the internet etc, the media has changed beyond recognition. Surely no one these days can be in any doubt about the dangers of smoking. It reminds me of those situations where a school girl gets pregnant and the parents blame the school, saying there isn't enough sex education. Bollocks! Young people these days have access to a whole host of up-to-date information and support these days, more than ever before.

but there isn't that much advertising against smoking is there? (like the nicoteen monster thing years ago).

smoking will eventually die out, it will just take time.

the hat's good blu

maybe you could put a c.difficile/MRSA detector in it and get two for the price of one. after all, they are community-based infections...

Learning about the dangers of smoking while pregnant is part of the National Curriculum. Is it really a lack of information?

The information is out there alright- but the kids who need it are most likely to be smoking by the age of 14 (when we were given the info) aren't they? It should be started earlier- I already know one child (in a leading Church school, etc etc) who intends to smoke because (quote) 'daddy says its what men do'. He's a bit of a leader by nature even at 7, so has influence (apart from to kids like my Son who used to harass strangers in the street for smnoking even as a toddler - its the HFA / AS thing, but one girl threw her fags away and thanked him.... wonder if she kept to it?)

It also needs to be atrgeted; I have a large pile of leaflets here the MW's have given me to stop smoking. Waste of resources or what?

Children know in theory that smoking is bad for you. It's part of the primary curriculum. They just don't see how it affects them. And telling them that it will increase the chances that a future baby may die of SIDS is as unlikely to influence them as telling them they are increasing their chances of developing cancer. It just isn't immediate to them.

surely though as it's now banned for under 18s that should have some impact

LOL Blu.
Teenagers are the hardest group to affect, yes. But there are things smokers don't know that i think would help matters, eg the amount of Polonium 210 in cigarettes, the amount of radiation you receive with every cigarette [each equivalent to a chest x ray apparently]and now the SIDS smoking/pregnancy risk. I really don't think there is enough info. And the govt ads pussy foot around trying not to offend smokers - why don't they give them some really bloody information?

as far as I'm aware, the dangers of smoking are part of the National Curriculum at Primary level, so I don't think it's a simple question of leaving it too late. I'm a secondary teacher, and there's a huge amount of information out there. Our approach with pupils caught smoking at school is that there is always a letter home, along with some kind of punishment, and also an appointment with the school nurse, who will see pupils on an individual basis as well as running support groups to help pupils give up. All a far cry when I was at school and the smokers would be just put in detention or on litter picking duty, with no support element in place. So I honestly don't think its about young people not knowing the facts and dangers. Peachy makes a good point about the 7 year old who says he'll smoke because its what dad says men do. Ultimately children are influenced a huge deal by their parents. Children aren't daft and they can spot hypocrisy a mile off. It doesn;t matter how much their parents (and the school) warn them of the dangers of smoking. If the parents themselves smoke, the children are more likely to.

of course, both my parents' fathers were hardened smokers and died of smoking-related disease, which led to my parents being fervently anti-smoking and ending up with four kids, all of whom smoked. i think we've all given up now but i reckon we all smoked for a decade or so. it's just incredibly alluring, to do the thign that everyone's telling you not to. and smoking is the cautious option, a smidge of rebellion but not as bad as drink or drugs or all three. because it is correct to say that smoking is less dangerous, in a way, as you are less likely to get in an accident, iykwim?