Actress Rachel Weisz says drinking during pregnancy is fine - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 03:31 PM
 
Periwinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
MITB can you please clarify what any of your posts have had to do with drinking while pregnant. I am TOTALLY lost. I feel like we're saying "A" (or "B") and you're saying "frankfurters". i,e., it's not an opposing argument, rather just things that are on your mind.
Periwinkle is offline  
#122 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 04:49 PM
 
Niamh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
MITB can you please clarify what any of your posts have had to do with drinking while pregnant. I am TOTALLY lost. I feel like we're saying "A" (or "B") and you're saying "frankfurters". i,e., it's not an opposing argument, rather just things that are on your mind.
Ditto. It would be nice to stop this side chatter and get back to the scheduled program. I'm bowing out because, after all, schools' choice of subject matter vis-a-vis indiginous populations and Europe has nothing to do with FAS.

Homesteading, unschooling mama of three.
Niamh is offline  
#123 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 04:57 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
American history in the schools teaches about all of the europeans. Rarely do they say anything about inigenous populations.
so it's ok for you to lump all european cultures together, or are you unaware of the different cultures there

cause your post isn't the least bit applicable :
Arduinna is offline  
#124 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 04:58 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
American history in the schools teaches about all of the europeans. Rarely do they say anything about inigenous populations.
I wanted to say this because I think its important. Its called American history for a reason. Even though the NA people were here before the colonization of North America, for most of us that was the beginning of this country -- thus why there is more focus on the immigration of Europeans. I went to a white, christian school in the 70s and 80s and they did teach us about the North American Indians and their tribes. In highschool, there was definitely a more realistic view taught but I think emotionally and cognitively we will more prepared to handle it.
OnTheFence is offline  
#125 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 06:27 PM
 
cancat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Mia View Post
Opiates are not considered teratogenic?
Morphine is not considered teratogenic - one of my ovaries "died" when I was 16 weeks pregnant and that was what I was given in the hospital (as well as a general anesthetic for the actual surgery) as one of the few "safe" pain relievers. The problem comes when a baby is born to a mother addicted to morphine (or heroin) - baby is born addicted as well, and must detox, though there aren't any "permanent" effects on the baby's heart, nervous system, etc. (as there are with crack babies).

Not that I'm advocating it for headaches or anything! :
cancat is offline  
#126 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 07:13 PM
 
jstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: portland
Posts: 2,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
that's what i've heard too (that the opiate-derivative painkillers are not teratogenic and they are one of the safer painkillers.) heroin obviously is a street drug and is going to be mixed with who knows what. and ALL the opiates are highly addictive and can cause dependency problems in mother and baby.

i was just saying doc's prescribe vicodin because they consider it 'safe' i was given a bottle of vicodin after my birth. i didn't take it but it would have been ok. i was *wishing* i had one when i had migraines earlier in this pregnancy
jstar is offline  
#127 of 147 Old 11-16-2006, 08:43 PM
 
talk de jour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Certain folks never cease to amuse.

babyf.gif

talk de jour is offline  
#128 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 01:52 AM
 
Mamma Mia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cancat View Post
Morphine is not considered teratogenic - one of my ovaries "died" when I was 16 weeks pregnant and that was what I was given in the hospital (as well as a general anesthetic for the actual surgery) as one of the few "safe" pain relievers. The problem comes when a baby is born to a mother addicted to morphine (or heroin) - baby is born addicted as well, and must detox, though there aren't any "permanent" effects on the baby's heart, nervous system, etc. (as there are with crack babies).

Not that I'm advocating it for headaches or anything! :
I posted a link earlir where morphine was listed as a known or possible teratogen. FYI. That doesn't mean that I think it should never be used during pregnancy, I am simply saying that it is something that carries risks. It's just culturally acceptable to do as long as your doctor hands it to you.
Mamma Mia is offline  
#129 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 01:53 AM
 
Mamma Mia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstar View Post
that's what i've heard too (that the opiate-derivative painkillers are not teratogenic and they are one of the safer painkillers.) heroin obviously is a street drug and is going to be mixed with who knows what. and ALL the opiates are highly addictive and can cause dependency problems in mother and baby.

i was just saying doc's prescribe vicodin because they consider it 'safe' i was given a bottle of vicodin after my birth. i didn't take it but it would have been ok. i was *wishing* i had one when i had migraines earlier in this pregnancy
AFAIK, Vicodin is also not considered "safe" for breastfeeding.
Mamma Mia is offline  
#130 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 10:23 AM
dis
 
dis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 359
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
5. The lack of cities could also have a lot to do with the fact that the biodiversity of domesticable animals and plants in N. America was insufficient to support large-scale agriculture, which is pretty much required in order to build cities. For more info on this, read "Guns Germs & Steel". Or even better... "Collapse".
And, in fact, there was at least one large city built by Native Americans - Cahokia. You can go see it if you live near St. Louis. At its height it is believed there were tens of thousands of people living there.

It's certainly worth visiting, if you can.
dis is offline  
#131 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 12:06 PM
 
dnr3301's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mylittlevowels View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
I posted tons of links showing the harm of just one serving of alcohol and the thread went to jail.

I can't believe ppl think it's about controlling womens bodies.....no one cares about their babies anymore?

Posters jump on the whole, "Well Europeans drink all the time!" Yeah, and what did that lead to? A legacy of genocide and wars and kids shooting up their classmates.....
nak
I knew you would weigh in on this one eventually, MITB
and the last thread about drinking and pregnancy ended oh so well.

R~mama to 3

dnr3301 is offline  
#132 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 01:15 PM
 
jstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: portland
Posts: 2,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Mia View Post
AFAIK, Vicodin is also not considered "safe" for breastfeeding.
hence the reason i didn't take it. but if i had a csection i certainly would have taken that 'risk'
jstar is offline  
#133 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 05:33 PM
 
Mamma Mia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstar View Post
hence the reason i didn't take it. but if i had a csection i certainly would have taken that 'risk'
It seemed like your post and the post above it were claiming that Vicodin and other opiates are safe for pregnancy and breastfeeding. Your post said you didn't take it, but if you did "it would have been okay." You then go on to say in the next post that if you ahd a c/s you would have taken it, despite the fact that it isn't recommended to BFing moms.

The point that I was trying to make, which you seem to have completely overlooked, is that doctors have the power to get our children taken away for small amounts of substances that are consumed in safe doses, while they prescribe much heavier substances and imply or outright tell patients that they are safe. I showed with my links that opiates are not safe and should not be handed out willy nilly. As with anything, there is a risk:benefit analysis we have to make as parents, and that is fine.

In fact it is essentially my point. We are subjected to so much fear mongering about alcohol during pregnancy and have so little info about what doctors presrcribe, that we are rarely able to make that risk:benefit analysis.

Small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy are fine. I don't doubt that small amounts of opiates during pregnancy are fine too. Fetuses are tough little creatures, and scaremongering mamas about stuff is not cool. Real information is what we need.

And I agree that it is totally patronizing to say, "We won't show you the studies, we will just make a blanket statement that no alcohol is safe because we can't trust you to make good decisions based on information, not to mention that we can't trust you to stop drinking after just one." That is not cool.
Mamma Mia is offline  
#134 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 05:47 PM
 
joensally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Mia View Post

And I agree that it is totally patronizing to say, "We won't show you the studies, we will just make a blanket statement that no alcohol is safe because we can't trust you to make good decisions based on information, not to mention that we can't trust you to stop drinking after just one." That is not cool.
Have you every dug around on www.motherisk.org? There's some info there.

I'm not clear on what you're saying - since no one can (will?) quantify the risk, or define safe versus unsafe levels or time periods, the risk must not exist? Yet we have proof that the risk does exist given the incidence of FASD (which I believe is under/misdiagnosed due to a variety of factors).

And I think I'm hearing that we can somewhat arbitrarily decide that one drink a week is safe versus two drinks every second day etc etc. I think that that "common sense" assessment would vary substantively based on the social norms experienced by the person asserting a particular level of safety over another.

So in the absence of defined data we should just decide based on what feels good or what we see around us?

Mom to a teenager and a middle schooler.

joensally is offline  
#135 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 06:02 PM
 
Arwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twitter, RMB, PDX
Posts: 16,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Off the motherrisk website:
Quote:
MYTH: "One drink in pregnancy is enough to harm the unborn baby."
FACT: A safe amount of alcohol in pregnancy is not known. It is very unlikely, though, that a single drink before you knew you were pregnant could damage your unborn baby.
What I'm saying is that in the absence of defined data, we should say "drinking during pregnancy is probably not a good idea. We know that too much or drinking at the wrong times carries a definite risk of harming the baby. There may be damage with any amount at any time, but we cannot say for certain whether or how much. And because we can't say for certain, all women should be given the information they need to make an informed choice on the issue and avoid or lightly consume alcohol as they feel comfortable."

I'm saying in the absence of defined data, we should avoid using this as another tool to create motherguilt or to deny women control over their own bodies, agency over their own lives. I'm saying that in the absence of concrete data, where we draw the line for acceptable and unacceptable risk is arbitrary and cultural. Actually, where we draw the line is ALWAYS at least partially artibtrary and cultural, as evidenced by the contrast between how we treat alcohol exposure and how we treat murcury or pesticide exposure.

That's what I'm saying.
Arwyn is offline  
#136 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 06:13 PM
 
Mamma Mia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am a little surprised that you believe the UK Ministry of Health guidelines are considered arbitrary.


And yeah that to Arwyn.
Mamma Mia is offline  
#137 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 06:28 PM
 
roisin84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just anecdotal evidence of course, but most of the women I know drank *small amounts* of alcohol *occasionally* during pregnancy and breastfeeding - in fact my mother had half a guinness most nights when she was breastfeeding - and everyone's children are fine. I think if small amounts of alcohol were that harmful we'd see an epidemic of FAS in Europe, which we don't seem to have.
roisin84 is offline  
#138 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 06:47 PM
 
joensally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Mia View Post
I am a little surprised that you believe the UK Ministry of Health guidelines are considered arbitrary.
So all the people in this thread have been referencing UK MoH when they've said they think ## amount at ## frequency is safe?

It's interesting that that's UK MoH's position. The UK must be much less interested in controlling women's bodies .

(no snark)

I'm enjoying exploring this issue and gaining understanding as to how others build their conclusions, while exploring my own conclusions. The other thing that's amusing to me (about me) is that I'm usually the bra burner .

I'm probably blending the positions of various posters, but:
a) institutions/society/doctors wish to control women's bodies, and there is some diffuse cultural phenomenon that seeks to instill mother guilt as part of this larger agenda
b) certain pain meds and other meds are widely deemed safe by doctors for use in pregnant women, and there is quantifiable evidence of their teratogenic impact for most of them
c) some foods and chemicals (mercury) are proven to have the potential of causing harm to a developing foetus and are widely advised against ingestion (although the incidence of harm rates vary widely, but both have articulated safe ingestion levels)
d) alcohol is proven to have the potential of causing harm to a developing foetus and is widely advised not to ingest, or to ingest in limited quantities (on a sliding scale)

So, the meds shouldn't be used, although they'd typically be prescribed to relieve some discomfort/pain of the mother or some feared outcome for baby (?). But go ahead and have a few beers?

Mom to a teenager and a middle schooler.

joensally is offline  
#139 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 07:01 PM
 
Arwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twitter, RMB, PDX
Posts: 16,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think your conclusion is what anyone here is advocating, J. The conclusion I would state is that women should be given FULL information on ALL the things that are known to be risks, especially when handed to her by someone in a position of power (like a doctor), and then they should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I also disagree with the assertion that contaminents like murcury and POPs "have articulated safe ingestion levels" any more than alcohol. In the US, we say "eh, a little bit of murcury is probably fine" and "good lord no alcohol!". In the UK they say "eh, a little bit of murcury or alcohol is probably fine." The science says that there are no known safe limits for either. What we have for both are recommendations (often conflicting) based on best guesses, other people's risk ratio analyses, and what is best from a public policy standpoint that doesn't necessarily take either the woman nor the fetus's health into account (the FDA has a higher fish allowance recommendation than many scientific or environmentalist groups are comfortable with, because they don't want to contribute to a crash in the fishing industry).

Personally, I do my best to avoid murcury and POPs in general (avoiding alcohol isn't exactly something I have to work at), but I will consume some when the benefits outweigh the risks for me, just as I will consume some alcohol when the benefits outweigh the risks for me. I don't use pain medications because they're easy enough to avoid, just like alcohol, but if the benefit ratio were to change, I might be willing to. The point isn't that we should have an "anything goes" attitude about any of these risks, but that we should be advocating for good information and the right to make personal decisions. Different people will make different decisions based on their individual circumstances and their particular comfort levels. What's so wrong with that?
Arwyn is offline  
#140 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 07:56 PM
 
casia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
for not exploding. I agree with most everything, and appreciate the humor.

In defense of doctors (justbecause I adore mine!) I am sure they have to warn people in general, because everyone is different. A glass of wine to you might be 3 oz., to someone else might be 12 oz. A blanket "be careful" is all that's intended. An occasional drink to me might be 1-2 glasses of wine a week, to a close friend of mine it would be 6-7 cocktails 4 nights a week.

My mom smoked--heavily--with me, and my two brothers. We're ok. Sometimes I wonder how! I would NEVER in a million years approve of this, I am embarrassed about her behavior quite frankly, but it goes to show that everyone, and every pregnancy is different. Just take precautions and use good ol' fashioned common sense.

Thumbs up for concentrating on diet. If anything, this is a point that's not raised enough.

I am 6 weeks now, and the only thing I'm disappointed about is feeling like I will have to be a "closet drinker" with my 3-4 glasses of wine a month! Ha ha, I picture myself in my living room, blinds drawn...no way will I get flamed by strangers in a restaurant.

Sheesh, people should really mind their own business.

casia is offline  
#141 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 08:15 PM
 
joensally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arwyn View Post
I don't think your conclusion is what anyone here is advocating, J. The conclusion I would state is that women should be given FULL information on ALL the things that are known to be risks, especially when handed to her by someone in a position of power (like a doctor), and then they should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I also disagree with the assertion that contaminents like murcury and POPs "have articulated safe ingestion levels" any more than alcohol. In the US, we say "eh, a little bit of murcury is probably fine" and "good lord no alcohol!". In the UK they say "eh, a little bit of murcury or alcohol is probably fine." The science says that there are no known safe limits for either. What we have for both are recommendations (often conflicting) based on best guesses, other people's risk ratio analyses, and what is best from a public policy standpoint that doesn't necessarily take either the woman nor the fetus's health into account (the FDA has a higher fish allowance recommendation than many scientific or environmentalist groups are comfortable with, because they don't want to contribute to a crash in the fishing industry).

Personally, I do my best to avoid murcury and POPs in general (avoiding alcohol isn't exactly something I have to work at), but I will consume some when the benefits outweigh the risks for me, just as I will consume some alcohol when the benefits outweigh the risks for me. I don't use pain medications because they're easy enough to avoid, just like alcohol, but if the benefit ratio were to change, I might be willing to. The point isn't that we should have an "anything goes" attitude about any of these risks, but that we should be advocating for good information and the right to make personal decisions. Different people will make different decisions based on their individual circumstances and their particular comfort levels. What's so wrong with that?
Interesting. On the motherisk site (from Canada), I read about the number of doctors who are actually okaying "moderate" alcohol consumption. So maybe this is another example of context. In Canada, I was broadly told that moderation was okay, but when I went and dug for info myself, as opposed to just listening to my doc, media etc, I couldn't find anything that told me what the safe level was, so I abstained. Similar to my consumption of tuna - I found so many different "safe" levels, I just minimized my intake. To my way of thinking, I could invest 9 months of not drinking, not eating tuna, not taking meds, not eating processed meat or soft cheese. To me it seems like the beginning of the rationale I employed for choices I made about birthing and raising my kids - drug free birth, no eye drops, nursing on demand, organic where feasible, no circ etc etc. To me, it just felt cavalier to choose to drink when I had no reasonable method to analyze the risk (and as I said before, I tend to be risk averse). I do recognize that this decision is more straight forward for me because I'm not particularly wont to drink anyway.

I'm not opposing people's right to make a decision for themselves, but inquiring as to the process that leads to believing any particular choice is a wise one. I also have a bias because I work managing services for children who have disabilities, and in many cases it is the tax system and charitable donations who pay some/many/most/all of the costs of supporting children with disabilities. The "burden" of an individual choice then shifts from the individual, or becomes shared. (and I'm not saying that the choice should be taken from the individual, just that the choice may not be "free" and that should be recognized)

I wholeheartedly concur that reliable information needs to be available upon which people can make decisions. I guess what I was thought I heard was decisions being made in the absence of information.

(this post feels like a rehash of what I've previously said, so I apogize for any redundancy).

This is interesting - the "subject" is alcohol in pregnancy, but it's taken on some interesting ethical explorations.

Mom to a teenager and a middle schooler.

joensally is offline  
#142 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 09:26 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by roisin84 View Post
Just anecdotal evidence of course, but most of the women I know drank *small amounts* of alcohol *occasionally* during pregnancy and breastfeeding - in fact my mother had half a guinness most nights when she was breastfeeding - and everyone's children are fine. I think if small amounts of alcohol were that harmful we'd see an epidemic of FAS in Europe, which we don't seem to have.
Dont seem to have. Uh huh. I have to roll my eyes at that. So no one in your family(or European Countries) has ADD, ADHD, any learning disabilities, and issues with eye site or hearing, and no dismorphic features at all because often issues related to FAS and FAE are there and they are not labeled as FAE or FAS because of the stigma attached. I am not buying everyone's children are fine.
OnTheFence is offline  
#143 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 09:33 PM
 
geek_the_girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Mia View Post
She's right. I am so sick of all the drama around this issue. Nothing brings out the rabid in people like drinking during pregnancy. Expect this thread to degenerate into 38903453 pages of passionate arguments and mama judgments.

This is about controlling women's bodies, not about protecting babies from FAS. Even the people who don't think they're doing this are falling into the trap.

Mark my words, this is not an issue that debates well anywhere, let alone amongst parents on the interweb.

There is no way im going to read through all of the posts but I just wanted to say that agree wholeheartedly with you Mama Mia!
geek_the_girl is offline  
#144 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 09:34 PM
 
geek_the_girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey maybe ill start a MJ during preganancy thread..Those always go swimmingly too!
geek_the_girl is offline  
#145 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 09:36 PM
 
Arwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twitter, RMB, PDX
Posts: 16,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dire predictions to the contrary, the thread has not exploded nor turned particularly ugly at 144 posts in. Let's keep it that way.
Arwyn is offline  
#146 of 147 Old 11-17-2006, 09:41 PM
 
OnTheFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I want to say I dont understand the notion that doctors here are the ones trying to control women's bodies by telling them not to consume alcohol during pregnancy.

For one in most pregnancy books today, there is not one that says to abstain completely from alcohol while pregnant. In fact they will tell you that having a few drinks during pregnancy is perfectly safe and is unlikely to harm your baby. I cant count the number of times I have personally written to these publishers of books and magazines about this issue. (especially those of us who have children who have FAS or FAE)

I have yet to meet an OB, even the one I currently have and love, say to completely abstain from drinking alcohol. In fact I have heard her say to patients who have drank in pregnancy before they knew it she "doubted it caused any harm to your unborn baby". Now I do have a sister who works in genetics, and the two doctors she works for will clearly tell you that women should not consume any alcohol while pregnant -- that no amount is proven safe and its like playing craps -- sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. However these are the doctors your child sees AFTER the child is born and has something wrong with them. Its not OBs pushing for no drinking during in pregnancy, its the men and women who are living this, studying this, researching this, and treating children with a spectrum of disorders linked to alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
OnTheFence is offline  
#147 of 147 Old 11-24-2006, 02:13 PM
 
jstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: portland
Posts: 2,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Mia View Post
It seemed like your post and the post above it were claiming that Vicodin and other opiates are safe for pregnancy and breastfeeding. Your post said you didn't take it, but if you did "it would have been okay." You then go on to say in the next post that if you ahd a c/s you would have taken it, despite the fact that it isn't recommended to BFing moms.
.
yeah let me rephrase that and explain my personal beliefs more.

i know how vicodin makes me feel when i take it. and i am sure a baby would feel the same effects through breastmilk. it isn't that i think it is perfectly 'safe' or 'unsafe' i think there is a risk-benefit analysis. if i felt like i needed the painkiller i would weigh the risk and take it (and if i had a csection i would consider it 'safe enough' to take because i doubt i could handle the pain without drugs and i wouldn't want to sacrifce breastfeeding for that reason). i might reconsider if my baby was having breathing problems or seemed 'fragile' in some way because it would seem less safe to me to take a drug that makes you even sleepier. my newborn happened to seem really robust and i think it would have been fine. he had no problems breathing and screamed vigorously and was very alert during his waking times.

my belief on everything else in this thread is that a list of 'known and potential teratogens' tells me *nothing*. i want the list of KNOWN teratogens to be separate from the list of potential teratogens. too many things are a potential teratogen. and in those cases it is like one person may have extreme exposure and their baby is fine whereas the next person takes it once and their child has effects. i want to know definiatively 'if you take these substances you have a higher chance of ending up with a flipperbaby'

there are too many things on that list of potential teratogens. ozone. i breathe ozone every day. benzene. i breathe benzene every day. there is nothing i can do to control that. and if i studied that list too much i would be completely paranoid and would find it hard to believe that any baby is EVER born ok. i need the real information separated out.

i personally believe small amounts of alcohol are ok during pregnancy. there is too much anecdotal evidence that i have seen personally of people drinking and their babies are ok. and i feel like you have to be drinking some sizeable amounts of vodka (or something) for it to become teratogenic. that is just my personal intuition about the whole thing and i'm not saying anyone else has to believe that. i think it is like 'pickling the baby' when you drink a lot. i think many many cases of FAS probably have mothers who underreported their drinking. it doesn't seem logical to me that one or 2 drinks could result in FAS. so i think there must be other contributing factors to that disorder that we haven't figured out yet if there *really* are babies who exhibit those symptoms and their mothers did not actually drink more than once or twice. it seems to me that something else has to be going on there. and it is too difficult to 'isolate' all the potential things that can affect a foetus in the real world. air pollution, water pollution, dioxin in the food chain.

everyone has to go with their own comfort level. there are too many risk factors and if you end up with a child with speech delays even if you had the most pristine pregnancy ever you have to be ok with it. and if you end up with a child with speech delays and you think it could have been that glass of wine...you have to be ok with that as well. because there is no way to know for sure what caused the speech delays in either case. you have to be responsible for your own behavior so if you aren't comfortable drinking...don't do it. if you are...go for it. each to their own.



as for babies being taken away for small substances in your blood that doctor's dont prescribe....is that really true? i think if you test postive for pot at the birth they put you on a list but it doesn't mean they will take your baby away. if your baby is showing severe signs of meth withdrawal maybe it is a different story. i'm sure they review each case separately.
jstar is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off