# No booze through PG



## Cheshire Cheese (Apr 19, 2005)

Found this article today through BBC news, may be of interest to some:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6687761.stm

/links


----------



## maria684 (May 12, 2006)

Hi

I can't really see what the problem is with giving up alcohol for 9 months it's not long and if you really want to give your unborn child the best start no alcohol and smoking shouldn't be too much of a problem to give up.
I have been listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 they were discussing this and there were some should i say elderly ladies on saying there's no risk with drinking in pregnancy  things have moved on since they had their children, they used to encourage you to eat LIVER OMG.
I for one have not and will not touch a drop during my preg.

Feotal Alcohol Syndrome is something in Canada that is very big and lots of research has been done over there.

love Maria xx


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

I seem to be the only one that comes out with, well, if a woman feels calmer,. and less stressed, if she is able to sit down on a Friday night, and have *a* glass of wine. Why not? Shouldnt she be allowed to.

Basically this advice annoys the ?*%££%^ out of me.

Getting in a car is dangerous, if the woman has an accident, she might harm the baby. There was a case of a woman who was eating, choked, and her baby was without air for so long, it died. There are so many dangerous things that can happen, why do they pick on this one; when the Royal College of Obstetricians says one or two units once or twice a week is *NOT* shown to cause any harm.

But its alcohol!!! A pregnant woman can live without it. Yes she can. And caffeine, and the zillion and one other things, but she may well end up so miserable, she wont be doing her baby any good at all.

Lets look beyond pregnancy, at conception,. If I look at my previous postings on eSET, I find we have, the HFEA who concentrate solely on the born child, probably because under the HFEA Act 1990 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900037_en_1.htm
Paragraph 13 subsection 5
(5) A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.
We have other reports that say the same thing. The review of the HFEA act 1990 the HFEA http://www.hfea.gov.uk/AboutHFEA/HFEAPolicy/ReviewoftheHFEAct/2005-05-18%20review%20of%20the%20act%20annex%20A.pdf
Section 2, it mentions that the patient is not the main focus of the legislation
This is also echoed in another government report which felt that the HFEA has made the Welfare of the sperm/egg/embryo (Welfare of the Child principle), its *PARAMOUNT* concern, instead making it, just, one of the things it should think about.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/706.htm paragraph 92

This advice seems to be making the unborn child, the *ONLY* one that matters. The woman who carries the child is unimportant. IMO, if she feels happier and more relaxed, having *one* glass of wine on a Friday night. Why not?

When it comes to how many embryos to transfer, what to eat, what to drink, where to go and socialize, or whatever, it should be the *WOMANS* decision, backed up by *SOUND* medical advice. Not someone ordering women to do something, to protect the unborn child.

And if one reads the papers, it is not just pregnancy and conception, the press feel free to criticize, just about everything women do.

But getting back to the unborn child, if the government is so concerned about protecting the unborn child, why dont they do all the other things, that I think would make sense.

Up till 1881, women were goods and chattels to be passed between Father/brother, if father deceased, and husband. Inheritance laws, are still stuck in a time warp. What do I mean? If I write a will to leave my estate to my husband, that will is watertight, and will stand up in court. BUT.....a pregnant woman cannot make a watertight will, to leave her estate, to her baby. If she were to die, say of a terrible head injury, and her baby is delivered safely, any will she made prior to birth, can be contested in court. Unlikely, but it is a possibility.
Assault laws, I think have been recently updated, (30+ years after the abortion laws were introduced), but it used to be the case, that if a pregnant woman was attacked, and her unborn baby was killed, the attacker could only be charged with harming the woman, *not* the murder of the child.

When I find out about laws, that in the past, mainly affected men, the unborn child is nothing, but a collection of cells. BUT... when I look at laws that primarily affect women, or the public believes primarily affect women; like the abortion laws, or infertility laws; I find the unborn child is everything. Womens choices are constrained by the law. It feels like women are being controlled.

When is the government going to get round to updating all the other laws that affect or could affect the unborn child? Update those laws, and I might just believe, that this advice is not about control of women.

So the above, is why, this advice annoys the ?*%££%^ out of me. It feels like women are being controlled. Whether it is eSET, drinking alcohol, eating cheese, whatever, women are considered too feeble minded to make their own decisions, so in order to protect the unborn child, we have to make a draconian rule that takes away a womans choice.

But having a baby is not just about the baby, its about creating a family, and in families everyone has equal importance; mum, dad, existing child, the new baby to come and so on.
IMO, 
We need to stop making the unborn child the absolute centre of the universe, and give the woman who carries that child, equal importance.
So, the government should stop interfering, and let women make their own decisions,

Lorna
/links


----------



## Jayne (Jan 26, 2003)

I think it's good that the Government provide this type of advice and don't see it as controling at all.  I think it's wise for us to be made aware of any possible risk and then make up our own minds as to whether we take this or refuse it. 

Jayne x


----------



## Caz (Jul 21, 2002)

Wow, Lorna, that was a very impressive post! I'd love to respond to quite a few of the things you've said (some in agreement and some not) but in the interests of keeping the thread on track I'm focussing solely on the issue of drinking in pregnancy.



> But it's alcohol!!! A pregnant woman can live without it. Yes she can. And caffeine, and the zillion and one other things, but she may well end up so miserable, she won't be doing her baby any good at all.


I'm afraid I can't see where there is any medical or scientific basis for saying it won't do a baby any good if her mother is miserable. Granted, there has been evidence to suggest that depression and stress can affect an unborn baby but being a bit teed off because you haven't had your glass of wine or cup of coffee today is a far cry from those more serious issues. You could, perhaps, argue that if you _need_ a glass of wine to wind down that makes you dependent on alcohol which, potenially makes you an alcoholic? Then, maybe that's a different propsition altogether. 
I think most people can find an alternative way to wind down without alcohol if they try hard enough, even if it is for that very short pregnancy period. I speak from the experience of being someone who, for quite a long time, was a moderate to heavy drinker (borderline alcoholic if I am honest) and relied heavily on it to wind down back in the day. Since giving up that lifestyle I have found an effective alternative to help unwind me.



> Getting in a car is dangerous, if the woman has an accident, she might harm the baby. There was a case of a woman who was eating, choked, and her baby was without air for so long, it died. There are so many dangerous things that can happen, why do they pick on this one; when the Royal College of Obstetricians says one or two units once or twice a week is *NOT* shown to cause any harm.


I'm not disputing that there are plenty of things out there that can cause harm that you can't avoid; the difference is that you don't choke or have a car accident intentionally. You do make a conscious decision to have a drink. You can wrap yourself in cotton wool if you like, or you can be sensible and do something about the potential hazards you can avoid and hope that you're not unlucky to suffer any of the ones you can't.



> This advice seems to be making the unborn child, the *ONLY* one that matters. The woman who carries the child is unimportant.


To be totally honest, I believe the welfare of the unborn child should take priority in this instance. We have a choice as to what we put into our bodies but an unborn baby is reliant on its mother to provide everything it needs. He/she cannot distinguish what is good for then and not consume the bad stuff; he/she gets the lot. I'm not saying the baby is the only thing that matters but I do think that, at best, it's quite irresponsible to consume potentially hazardous substances without giving due consideration to their effects, especially when you are capable of making a choice in the matter (for the record, I don't include alcoholics, drug addicts or people with eating disorders etc. here as there tends to be an underlying mental state that affects the perception or self-control in these instances).



> When it comes to ... what to eat, what to drink, where to go and socialize, or whatever, it should be the *WOMAN'S* decision, backed up by *SOUND* medical advice. Not someone ordering women to do something, to "protect" the unborn child.


Yes I agree, however these are just guidelines and nobody is ordering anyone to do anything; you can take the advice or ignore it as you see fit. 
Nobody really knows for certain what harm or good drinking in moderation might do to an unborn child so I suspect the guidelines are issued more in a cover-your-back manner than based on any real scientific facts.

Personally I'm not saying don't drink in pregnancy - I toasted in the new year with a small glass of champers while heavily pregnant so I'd be a hypocrite if I did - just that if you see advice like this, read it and make your own mind up.

C~x


----------



## Jinty (May 6, 2006)

I fall somewhere in between Lorna and Jayne's post to be honest. I think it is controlling of the government because there is no new scientific evidence. The way it was mostly reported yesterday was because _some_ women still drink too much alcohol during pregnancy they've changed the guidelines. This smacks of punishing the whole class for the crimes of one student. What they're saying is we've not managed to get the message across to _everyone_ that only a small amount is acceptable so we'll change the advice and turn society against mothers to do the job for us. In the same way as it's now become totally socially unacceptable to smack children, bottle feed etc. etc. (I'm not expressing an opinon on those two just using an example) by changing the guidelines they know that gradually a woman will become a 'bad mother' if she's seen with a glass of champagne at New Year.
I agree that it's not a big deal to give up alcohol for 9 months but at the same time in the absence of any new scientific evidence of harm this new rule seems v. patriarchal and draconian. 
Jx


----------



## Jayne (Jan 26, 2003)

Hmmm, can appreciate what you're saying, but the advice also states that should a pregnant woman choose to carry on drinking, she should not get drunk and keep to the previous recommendation of one to two units once or twice a week in order to minimise risks to the baby. So the way I see it is that whilst they are saying zero alcohol, they are also still saying that there is a choice.  That negates any controlling factors for me.  

It's an interesting and emotive debate  

Jayne x


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

I feel this information has come about to try and target the pregnant binge drinkers, in this case no amount of campaiging is going to change their attitudes to drink.  In my opinion all this will do is worry the average pregnant lady that may of had the odd glass of wine 1 evening that wouldn't dream of going out and getting drunk or even drinking over the guideline amount.  I'm paranoid enough without the press blowing everything out of proportion.  The same report I saw one evening this week said about zero caffiene and not eating chocolate WHAT!!! maybe if i just lock myself in a room with fruit, veg, chicken and water for the next 6 months I wont need to worry.

This is not meant to offend anyone, if you wish to stop drinking alcohol, consuming caffiene and chocolate by all means that is up to you but if i fancy a cup of latte and a chocolate muffin when out shopping on a saturday thats what I will have. 

Shelley x


----------



## Jayne (Jan 26, 2003)

Mish3434 said:


> maybe if i just lock myself in a room with fruit, veg, chicken and water for the next 6 months I wont need to worry.


Umm, I dunno, chicken can be a bit dodgy ya know  Best just stick to water I think, and make sure it's not bottled in plastic!  

It's true though isn't it, nothing seems to be safe these days  Suppose we just need to make our own choices and reduce risks as best we can 

Jayne x


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

dont worry Jayne, I'll just make sure i cook it properly   where do you buy glass bottle water then that isn't flavoured??  Must stop drinking the tap water i suppose   .

You are right everything these days seems to come with a government health warning, I just think its important that we use our common sense and make choices that are not only practical but that also fit in with our lives

Shelley x


----------



## Katy H (Aug 22, 2006)

There was a really good article in the Sunday Times on this: see here for link.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article1845274.ece

After reading it I ended up really cross with the Department of Health over this - for issuing advice that was not based on medical evidence or research; for making large numbers of sensible, well-behaved pregnant women feel guilty, and wasting taxpayers' money. I should add that I am not suggesting for one minute that we should all go out and get drunk - far from it.

The most important point to get across is that there is no new research or medical evidence to suggest alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has not changed its advice, which states that "one to two units once or twice a week is not harmful to baby or mother." The change of policy is therefore down to the government and not the medical profession. The government didn't even consult the RCOG over this!

Apparently 9% of pregnant women drink too much. That leaves 91% (10 out of every 11) who either drink nothing or within safe limits. As the article states, "the delinquency of a few pregnant women should not mean that the rest of us ought to be treated like a nation of ninnies".

It continues by saying "Most women are extremely careful of their unborn babies. To make a recommendation that will be followed only by those who don't need advice anyway, and ignored by those who do ... is the worst sort of old-fashioned socialist engineering - insulting, intrusive and worse than useless."

Interestingly enough, my midwife asked a couple of days ago if I had seen the stuff in the news. She told me to ignore the new guidance and stick with the existing advice. When I "confessed" that I did have one small glass of wine last week, on my wedding anniversary, she said there was no need to feel so guilty.

Glad to get all that off my chest!!!
Katy x


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Well Katy, it is now OK for you to celebrate your wedding anniversary with a small glass of wine.

Mothers-to-be 'can drink alcohol' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7039249.stm

Lorna


----------



## kitten1 (Jan 1, 2007)

I have to say that I believe, from what I have gleaned over the years, fetal alcohol syndrome comes about if the mother to be drinks approx a bottle of whiskey etc a day for the duration of the pregnancy. I may be wrong, and if I am, so be it. I am not a heavy drinker and have never been. If anything, the thought of dealing with a hangover and being preggers is too much for me to cope with!!     BUT, I have had a few drinks during my pg, when I felt like it. For example, a bottle of beer with a curry or a glass of wine with DH with a meal. What I do object to is the looks I get if I choose to go to the pub with DH for a change of scenery. You'd think I'd dragged dog poo in with me!!   

I am a grown woman. I make my own choices in this life. We have the government telling us we should do this or that and Im sick of it! Since when have they been the experts on my body?? 

Sorry but Im heartily sick of people interfering with my choices. The government are quick to reduce funding for IF tx and equally quick to critise those of us who are pg. As far as Im concerned, they should go and deal with more pressing matters such as crime!! 

Maybe the government should look at their own house before critising ours.


----------



## Jinty (May 6, 2006)

Hear hear Kitty!! Couldn't agree more! I have no issue with the government issuing health guidelines when there is new scientific evidence to back it up but there never was in this case. Nothing had changed from a medical perspective they just chose to issue a directive to make society turn on a pregnant woman if she so much as sniffed a glass of wine while pregnant! Can't imagine why! 
I have had maybe 2.5 glasses of wine if you add all my sips together, through the whole of my pregnancy and as the latest statements say, that's completley fine!


----------

