WHO have started making recommendations for 'women of reproductive age'

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

I don't expect many on this board to care about ecigs and this thread isn't about them but about the wording they have chosen to use in their report, due to be debated in October:

The evidence is sufficient to caution children and adolescents, pregnant women, and women of reproductive age about ENDS use because of the potential for fetal and adolescent nicotine exposure to have long-term consequences for brain development.

I'm used to seeing this pre-pregnant shit from right-wing US comentators but am shocked that the WHO are now making recommendations specifically for 'women of reproductive age'. The rot is setting in and it's pissing me right off. Anybody else?

Ah but blistory it's not in your interest to inhale nicotine, surely, is it? So what's the problem?

Ditto drinking alcohol, frankly.
I have always thought blue cheese mings so that's fine, best avoided.
Coffee and other caffeinated beverages - well they're bad for you anyway. Or are they good for you? Well the jury's out so you're not missing much.
Ski-ing and horseriding, hang-gliding, long distance running and roller-skating are so unfeminine so you won't miss those. In fact most exercise is out really, but meh exercise is rubbish.
Bagged salads are a waste of money.
Also you need to make sure that your weight, blood pressure, mental health and general health are all within optimum ranges at all times between 10 and 50.

That all seems perfectly reasonable to me

Bloody keyboard (or crap typing?) 'Framework Convention Alliance'

So the WHO advice should read -

We would caution that ecigs may have a detrimental effect on the quality of eggs, sperm and a growing foetus and anyone wishing to reproduce would do well to be aware of the possible danger and harm that may result from the use of such devices.

Funny how sex doesn't need to be mentioned when you just think a wee bit more clearly.

Oh that's much better Blistory

You could put something about anyone engaging in sex that could result in pregnancy blah etc

Just for the less organised amongst us

It may do, but they aren't saying about the damage to sperm and eggs, they're talking about damage to a foetus.

You are aware that damaged sperm are one of the many causes of some really very nasty congenital problems aren't you? It's not just women who are responsible for being all tip top and ship shape in the gametes department? They aren't talking about damage to a foetus unless that foetus already exists, in which case, they would only be addressing pregnant women, not pre-pregnant ones.

note to self.... don't start fussing dogs when typing posts, the thread moves on, and you look like a dickhead

OMFG what are you doing near a dog chaos? If you are a woman between the age of 10 and 50 I need you to step away from the dog right now it could bite you or give you listeria or look at you funny and have a terrible effect on your imaginary foetus.

Come now, you know it makes sense...

Blistory: para 13a (quoted above) is signposting evidence to the public health authorities of the states party to the treaty.

The discussion of the messages to the public is at para 36a, which refers only to "pregnant women, non-smokers and youth"

Actually ROARING here now!

I know. It's ok though, I don't pick up their poo or anything.... oh god, there's another thread!

Nope. Frankly, the job of the WHO is health. If there's a substance around which may cause problems, their job is to inform. Its up to each woman to decide how to behave on the basis of that knowledge and the likelihood that it may actually be an issue for them. This caution allows for informed choice - which seems to me entirely consistent with a feminist perspective. It's not like they're saying women of reproductive age should be banned from using the bloody things.

(If nicotine also damages sperm they should have said that too, of course - the statement in the OP was specifically about brain development)

I really want there to be a Thing warning pre-father men about the damage cycling, hot baths, bad diet, recklessness etc etc does to their sperm. "Now, boys, make sure you have a cold shower every day, take gentle exercise BUT NOTHING FUN THAT MIGHT GET YOU KNEED IN THE BOLLOCKS and eat lots of spinach, because you might want to have a family one day, mmmkay? Oh, and don't go driving too fast because you might get killed on the roads when your partner was, unbeknownst to you, pregnant, and that would be a crime because you'd be leaving an unborn baby fatherless."

Errol do you also want to be reminded of potential risks when visiting the cheese counter or the supermarket wine shelf, regardless of whether you intend to become pregnant or not?

This is insidious wording! If something is bad for people then say so. If something is harmful in pregnancy then say so. Don't single out women and advise them as if they are all just potential incubators.

Auntie thanks for your posts I will have a proper look in the morning when I'm back on the laptop.

If some new food-related risk was found I'd rather know about it than not.

Also, considering other issues we've been discussing recently, what about the whole "not all women are people with wombs and vaginas" issues so giving health advice to women based on the potential contents of their womb is TERF and WHO should actually be advising "ciswomen of reproductive age", shouldn't they? So considering lots of women with penises and no uteruses are being discriminated against by that advice, I look forward to all those noncistransgenderpeniswomen turning aside from being angy at bigotted cisfeministvaginafetishists and, instead, storming the WHO HQ - which is lagely run by men. Mind those flying pigs.

At the moment, we know that smoking, eating paté, soft cheese, drinking to excess etc etc are bad things to do during pregnancy. We also know that strangers feel it is within their remit to police what pregnant women do. A woman smoking while pregnant will have complete strangers tutting at her or even making comments. That's not ok, but is at least understandable.

A woman smoking an ecig while pregnant will probably now (after the WHO's document is widely disseminated) have the same thing happen. However, the WHO hasn't only said that women who are actually pregnant or actively TTC should avoid using ecigs, but that all women of reproductive age should as well. So any woman between say, 15 and 55, shouldn't be allowed to use ecigs whether pregnant, TTC, infertile, sterilised, never ever wanting children because they might conceive.

In the US, there have already been rumblings about women being in a continual state of pre-pregnancy, and should therefore avoid doing some activities which, when not pregnant are pretty normal. The WHO releasing this kind of statement could be seen as validating the extreme views of people who really couldn't give a stuff about women except insofar as they can police what they do at all times.

Not using ecigs while pregnant would seem sensible advice for women, not using ecigs between the ages of 15 and 55 when female seems officious and prescriptive. Especially when seen against the contrast of men not being seen as being in a continual state of sperm production, which would at least be closer to the truth.

Strangers feel its within their remit to police what women do full stop.

And i totally agree Capt. A man could feasibly impregnate several women in close succession. And if his sperm is sub standard (sorry for my crap phrasing) then he could cause more feotuses with abnormalities than a woman who can only carry one or possibly two children at a time.

The SG paper gives prominence to the establishment of the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in women who smoke, and I don't remember the the exec summary mentioning gametes (from either sex) at all. Can someone signpost me to the bit I missed? Thanks.

It really does hark back to the walking incubator analogy. And its not just WHO but I had the misfortune to listen to a relative say he eould not hire a woman because she just wants to work for a bit and then go have babies. Its not the first time I have heard this opinion, and have even read it on MN. I do think its linked to the perceived unnaturalness of childless women by choice.

Rex iirc, there has just recently been a survey done which backs that up. Both women and men are less likely to employ female candidates of child bearing age, due to fears about them popping out babies every 5 minutes.

I want to go back to work someday and I fear they will not look beyond my age and the fact that I am female. We tell our girls that they can achieve anything but its really not true. They can achieve what they are allowed to achieve.

I am shocked at the threat in AIBU now about a lesbian being forced by her GP to use contraception in order to take acne medicine. This is just the same sort of thing, in my opinion. Putting the rights of not-even-conceived foetuses before the rights of existing adult women.

I saw that Poofus, I was even more shocked at the suggestion of one poster who said that she should just knuckle down because she might be raped.....

Well quite! So might we all, at any time, but that doesn't mean I'm going to rush out and have the coil fitted just in case.