Mothers alcohol use shown on medical records

[RegularHumanBartender]

I have just stumbled across this on the Sky news homepage and I am horrified. I have no words! Apologies if there is already a thread, I did scan the first page but I couldn't see one.

Talk about reducing women to sacred incubators! I am struggling to form sentences I am so incensed by this. Not sure if this is even the right place to post.

news.sky.com/story/mothers-alcohol-use-could-soon-be-shown-on-childs-medical-record-prompting-privacy-fears-12073153

@EightWellies

Oh FFS 🙄. Have you got any idea what a struggle it is to get Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder diagnosed and how much easier it will be if this is brought in? Early diagnosis and putting in the right supports early are the keys to supporting kids with FASD to live happy, healthy lives. I'm not that bothered about your 'right' to a sneaky shandy tbh.

The evidence suggests that sharing this data has no impact on reducing the levels of harm to the child. So why do it?

Diagnostic difficulties are not addressed by this policy either. So why do it?

And it's a clear breach of GDPR. So why do it?

My experience with persons drinking when they shouldn't for medical reasons btw was that they flat out lied to their doctors about it. Even when that negatively impacted on their own health.

In my view, which research seems to back up too, this type of policy pushes even more women to lie. And that can be far more harmful to both mother and child. So why do it?

Even though I didn't drink or take drugs or eat anything deemed even slightly worrisome during pregnancy, if I had known that anything I tell my healthcare professionals about myself could end up on my child's medical records, I wouldn't have said anything even when that would have endangered myself and ultimately the child. Because the fear of being mistreated as a woman sits deep.

Because where does it stop? I didn't allow myself to bond with my baby in utero (pregnancy after a loss) and used to blame myself for having a more complicated relationship with my middle child because of that. Who's to say that in years to come subsequent behaviour problems wouldn't in all earnestness eventually point to that disruption in the expected mother-child-bond as a wilful rejection of my child and hang a question mark over my fitness as a mother? Worse things have happened in the state's treatment of mothers, after all.

For once, the slippery slope argument is an important one to make. If women are expected to give up their right to medical privacy for the sake of their child - and have their behaviour before it is even born recorded - how far is it from that to arguing they are forbidden from that behaviour in the first place?

Look around you! There are countries where women miscarry and they are sentenced to life for murdering their unborn if the state argues they behaved in a way that may have caused the miscarriage.

There are surrogacy contracts legal in other states that give control over everything the birth mother does to the people commissioning the child.

In human history we have very many instances of treating women as mere vessels for man's seed over many thousands of years.

Taking away our right to patient confidentiality is a big step towards enshrining such treatment in modern law.

Women who are abusing alcohol in pregnancy will just lie.

What's the point??

Reframing the debate, somewhat ...

What real life redress is available to anyone whose medical confidentiality is breached ?

In fact an even wider debate might be what actual rights anyone has to any confidentiality in the UK.

I'm not talking about pretty words that can be cited in smartarse replies on chat forums. I'm talking about instances and examples of serious penalties being applied in cases of breaches.

I don't think people have as many rights as they think.

If there's no comeback against someone spaffing your medical details - especially if it's "for the baby", then there's not much more to be done.

I started the AIBU thread so interested to read this one too. I think this is really concerning; I'm not at all suggesting that midwives shouldn't be asking about alcohol consumption to start a dialogue but surely the most productive way to have this conversation is if the woman can be assured that whatever she says is in confidence? I can't imagine how anyone could think that putting it on the child's medical records would lead to honest disclosures - and so how likely is it that they'd even gather any evidence that would be of any use for diagnosing FAS?

You can’t give a mother confidentiality if it puts a child at risk. It’s not that hard to understand.

That's sounds very much like the type of argument made by anti-abortion activists who place the rights of the child above that of the mother. But women do not lose their rights we all have as individuals when we become mothers. Making that argument is inherently misogynist precisely because it reduces women to vessels.

Your right as an individual no longer exists now you've given birth. The rights of your child are paramount instead.

That's simply not how human rights work. Article 8, UK Human Rights Act guarantees your right to privacy in regard to your medical records. The state is only allowed to interfere with this right if it can show that it is lawful, necessary and proportionate to do so.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned. (From the EHRC page)

The experts discussing this issue throw this proportionality very much into doubt in this case. It might be argued that it may be necessary to share data in the case of an individual woman with substance abuse problems whose newborn presents with acute symptoms. It cannot be argued that it is appropriate to deny all pregnant woman their Article 8 Rights.

If anything every time a mum says I’m worried about xya it be “oh I see you have half a cider when your baby was 3 days post conception” it was obviously that.

I'm not at all suggesting that midwives shouldn't be asking about alcohol consumption to start a dialogue but surely the most productive way to have this conversation is if the woman can be assured that whatever she says is in confidence?

Not just that, but the confidence that in 5 years time the confidence will stand. No use being promised one thing now (to get that data) and then have the rules changed down the line after they've extracted it from you. Especially if there's a few quid in it for Happy Hancock his merry band of US data vultures.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised to learn that data has already been sold. "Anonymised" naturally.

@Hardbackwriter you can’t disclose anything to a professional that poses harm or potential harm to a child and have your confidentiality maintained. That’s just a fact.

Most women understand and respect that when they are pregnant the child’s health and well-being is important too. It’s a balancing act that should, imo, put the child first at all times where possible.

Article 8, UK Human Rights Act guarantees your right to privacy in regard to your medical records.

There is a bill going through parliament at present that negates that.

@CharlieParley we aren’t talking about abortion we are talking about women who are continuing their pregnancies. You need to choose your words more carefully

“ You can’t give a mother confidentiality if it puts a child at risk. It’s not that hard to understand“
This is wrong. There is no child in law until birth; the mother/patient’s right to confidentiality is and remains paramount. This proposed new policy is legally questionable and I think will be challenged. In practice I suspect most women will lie and do as they see fit as they are legally entitled to do with their own bodies. Morality is a different issue.

@EvelynBeatrice you are incorrect. This is why social work departments have pre birth teams.

Exactly. Who wants to get judged or labelled for doing normal things like binge drinking and smoking loads of weed every day around the time of an unplanned

@EvelynBeatrice

“ You can’t give a mother confidentiality if it puts a child at risk. It’s not that hard to understand“ This is wrong. There is no child in law until birth; the mother/patient’s right to confidentiality is and remains paramount. This proposed new policy is legally questionable and I think will be challenged. In practice I suspect most women will lie and do as they see fit as they are legally entitled to do with their own bodies. Morality is a different issue.

That's what I was about to say.

Prior to birth, the only person there legally and morally to be taken account of is the mother.

It won't get any decent data because women will lie - just as they already lie about post natal depression.

A properly designed study would involve an ethics assessment, informed consent, anonymised data and would be able to explain to women how their data would be anonymised.

My pregnancy drinking amounted to half a pint of lager and a glass of champagne (separate occasions). I would lie about this, for sure. The slippery slope issue is a very very real worry - look at some of the states in America bringing manslaughter prosecutions against women for substance abuse in pregnancy and subsequent miscarriages.

[quote FlorenceNightshade]@EvelynBeatrice you are incorrect. This is why social work departments have pre birth teams.[/quote]
But the point of pre-birth teams is to put assessments in place for once the baby is born. They have no powers to lock pregnant women up, Magdalen Laundry style, to prevent them abusing substances. They can only act after birth.

And the women on their books will be the ones with chaotic lifestyles, usually having already had children removed, who are already on social service's radar.

Here's how secure your records are ...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4025367-Ive-just-been-sent-the-full-medical-records-of-another-person

I asked for a report and medical reports under the FOI. I have been emailed a pdf of another person's full medical history instead of my own. The email was unencrypted and the name completely dissimilar to mine.

My cousins kid has fas, it affects him even as an adult. If it was known that his mother was drinking in pregnancy, perhaps they could have supported her to reduce to lower levels (drinking around 2 bottles vodka a week). Nobody makes you have children, but if you choose to they deserve to be protected

@CaraDuneRedux of course they can’t lock women up but they can and do act pre birth. There are specialist midwives and other professionals who work with pregnant women to reduce harm to themselves and in turn their babies.

And new referrals are often from midwives who report women who miss appointments and who give cause for concern.

Women will do what they do, the role of the professionals is to educate and reduce harm where possible. Sadly that doesn’t happen everytime and children are born with health issues.

[quote FlorenceNightshade]@CharlieParley we aren’t talking about abortion we are talking about women who are continuing their pregnancies. You need to choose your words more carefully[/quote]
Here are your words:

Most women understand and respect that when they are pregnant the child’s health and well-being is important too. It’s a balancing act that should, imo, put the child first at all times where possible.

That is the same point of view espoused by anti-abortion activists who place the rights of the child above its mother.

You are wrong in demanding that and you are wrong in assuming that pregnant women should want to place their child's wellbeing above their own. Many of us do. That doesn't mean we should.

@CharlieParley again we are talking about continuing pregnancies. Anti-abortionists are great at twisting rational arguments to fit their agenda.

@FlorenceNightshade

Leaving aside your position on human rights (legal or moral), one problem with your reasoning is that you seem to be assuming that this policy will necessarily result in better care for each individual child, or children overall.

With respect, that is a rather large leap that fails to consider the number of pregnant women likely to be put off disclosing honest information to their healthcare provider that would result in the best care, or from accessing healthcare at all while pregnant (which they are by no means obliged to do - it is usual but optional), or indeed from accessing care once their child is born.

Failure to give the mother confidentiality may therefore be the thing that puts the child at greater risk and this should be properly considered.

I think a longer-sighted and more rounded view of this proposal may be needed.

Would I judge the hell out of a woman who drank to excess in pregnancy? Yes. Would I hold her morally responsible for damage to her child? Yes.

But - and it's a fucking huge but...

You still cannot do this. It is a step towards treating women like incubators on legs, and arguing their rights come second to those of an unborn foetus. It's a huge violation of their right to confidentiality. It's a huge violation of their right to the best medical care for them as the patient. It's a huge violation of the relationship of trust between HCPs and the patient. It's a huge violation of their civil liberties.

It is awful that some children are born with FAS. But legally enshrining the principle that women - all women - should be treated like incubators on legs rather than full human beings with bodily autonomy and a right to privacy is worse.

Fucking hell this is a hard no from me.

A couple of years back they had the idea of testing pregnant women for smoking and I'm pretty sure that didn't get anywhere.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hospitals-should-test-pregnant-women-9434210.amp

The idea seems to be that human rights to privacy, data protection etc etc all go down the pan when you are a woman who is pregnant. Or indeed 'pre pregnant' as we've seen pressed in the USA.

No fuck that and fuck them. We are people not baby vessels.

Agree with those who say women will simply lie and that's an even worse outcome.

A lot of people from anti abortion to 'progresive' pro surrogacy types to yeah yeah the child is more important of course share their data with all and sundry have one thing in common which is that they think women who are incubating should have reduced rights.

Thanks Cara. You said what I was trying to type as a reply to Florence more eloquently. Florence we understand that social workers do work with vulnerable women pre birth to try - rightly- to ensure the best outcomes possible for the unborn baby - but the point is that the mother’s engagement is voluntary and cannot be legally compelled as she has agency over her own body and actions within the parameters of the general law. In the U.K., outside of the restrictions applicable to abortion, there are few or no restrictions on the freedom of action of a woman because she is pregnant. The vast majority of women would I think think that this is right - we are not thank god in a country that locks pregnant women up for miscarriages or being a participant in a violent altercation (as in a recent US state). This means that some women will hurt their unborn babies by making poor choices. However taking those choices away from all women is a worse ill. If human rights mean anything they have to protect the rights of those we don’t like or agree with too.