'No alcohol in pregnancy' advised

[Francesca R]

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

Bold=me.

Pregnant women and those trying for a baby should avoid alcohol completely, according to new government advice. [ . . . ] The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says there is no evidence that a couple of units once or twice a week will do any harm to the baby. [ . . . ] The Department of Health said the revision was not based on new scientific evidence but was needed to help ensure that women did not underestimate the risks to their baby.

How do you underestimate "no evidence" of a risk?

Nanny-state, or "Well, it's best to be safe isn't it?" . . . ?

 

[The Painter]

If it wasn’t for alcohol, half these women wouldn’t be pregnant in the first place.

 

[brodski]

thread here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83054

This is not a "nanny state" issue, as it is advice not compulsion.
the reason for the no alcohol limit is a matter of simplicity of message and effective marketing rather than evidence. I don't have a problem with this at all. No one is going to get punished for having a glass of stout whilst pregnant, but the NHS advises against it.

 

[slingblade]

With someone's developing brain? I'm a bleeding heart, I guess. I think better safe than sorry is all right for this. It's only 9 months, for crying out loud. I managed it. Twice. And they're only being advised, aren't they? Is it being made against the law to serve pregnant women?

If this advice wasn't given, the number of FAS babies might rise. Then it's cries of "Oh, you mean you knew? And you didn't warn us, didn't advise us of the risk? Gee, thanks. What purpose do you serve, again?"

I don't think it's exactly nanny-state to warn.

 

[brodski]

And they're only being advised, aren't they? Is it being made against the law to serve pregnant women?

yes they are, and no it isn't.

Women can choose to ignore this advice, but,as you said, the can't then trun round and say "why didn't you tell us". At eh moment the advice is "don't drink too much", which leaves open the argument "oh, I didn't know I was drinking too much", especially as "too much" depends on a number of different factors.

 

[Rolfe]

This surprised me, as I had thought that the advice had been "no alcohol" since at least the 1970s.

I suspect quite a few women may have the odd sip now and again on a special occasion, but it the baseline is suppoed to be "none" then it does make it a lot clearer that any "odd sip" had better be just that.

Rolfe.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"Oh, you mean you knew? And you didn't warn us, didn't advise us of the risk? Gee, thanks. What purpose do you serve, again?"

Of course the point here is that they DON'T know and that there is no evidence that there is any risk to advise them of.

See the bolding in the opening post.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

yes they are, and no it isn't.

Women can choose to ignore this advice, but,as you said, the can't then trun round and say "why didn't you tell us". At eh moment the advice is "don't drink too much", which leaves open the argument "oh, I didn't know I was drinking too much", especially as "too much" depends on a number of different factors.

The existing advice is not "don't drink too much" it is don't drink more than 1 or 2 units once or twice a week. And that remains the advice of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1996

Damn those medical types relying on evidence!

 

[NeilC]

Yeah but what difference will that really make? The facts are that a few drinks a week is fine as proven by millions of normal births. Pretending that you have to abstain 100% doesn't change the facts.

The sort of idiots who end up giving their kids FAS didn't listen to the "1 or 2 drinks" advice just like they won't listen to the "no alcohol" advice.

Anyway the "clear message" was instantly undone when the college of obstetricians came about and said it was BS.

It reminds me of the child charities who make such a big noise about smacking. All that happens with that is that responsible parents are limited and confused about punishing their kids whilst the idiots carry on punching theirs illegally, just like they always did/

 

[strathmeyer]

Yeah but what difference will that really make? The facts are that a few drinks a week is fine as proven by millions of normal births. Pretending that you have to abstain 100% doesn't change the facts.

What about when a woman who has only had two or three drinks during her entire pregnancy and her child has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? What does that prove?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What about when a woman who has only had two or three drinks during her entire pregnancy and her child has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? What does that prove?

Evidence?

The RCOG press release indicates this does not happen:

"However, the prevailing RCOG advice remains - low level consumption of alcohol (1 or 2 units once or twice a week) has not yet been found to be harmful to women or their babies."

 

[brodski]

The existing advice is not "don't drink too much" it is don't drink more than 1 or 2 units once or twice a week. And that remains the advice of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1996

Damn those medical types relying on evidence!

Ok, and now demonstrate that the general public has a good understanding of alcohol units and are all capable of monitoring their drinking intake in that way.
Damn thosegovernment departments for attempting to publecise health messages which actually archive results!

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Bold=me.How do you underestimate "no evidence" of a risk?

Nanny-state, or "Well, it's best to be safe isn't it?" . . . ?

Nanny state, along with "click it or ticket" legislation lately.

Note: my wife had a glass of wine here and there, maybe once week, when pregnant with our daughter, who just graduated from High School with Academic Distinction.

She drank not at all with my son in her womb. He came out with a slight cognitive problem that some neurotherapy helped somewhat.

Obviously, she should have had some wine while he was baking in the oven.

DR

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ok, and now demonstrate that the general public has a good understanding of alcohol units and are all capable of monitoring their drinking intake in that way.
Damn thosegovernment departments for attempting to publecise health messages which actually archive results!

Why don't you demonstrate that consistently lying to people about health issues is likely to result in them making sensible choices?

It is great to see the government going out of their way to target those who drink responsibly with no increase in risk to their child. Far better than wasting those resources on dealing with those whose drinking is actually causing problems.

 

[brodski]

Why don't you demonstrate that consistently lying to people about health issues is likely to result in them making sensible choices?

It is great to see the government going out of their way to target those who drink responsibly with no increase in risk to their child. Far better than wasting those resources on dealing with those whose drinking is actually causing problems.

Show the lie?
They tell women that drinking whilst pregnant can damage the health of their unborn baby- now that may no be the whole truth, but it is not a lie. It is a simple message which can be easily grasped by everyone.
Rolfe has already pointed out the benefit's of this.

Can you demonstrate that this is aimed at those that already drink responsibly whilst pregnant?

 

[Darat]

Given how most of my friends seem to drink I think this is bloody good message to send out - the number who just have "a glass or two of wine" near enough every night and say things like "god I needed that drink" and throw out the "but it's good for you" excuse.

Sorry but my opinion is that there is a huge number of people that are undiagnosed alcoholics in this country and by that I mean they fool themselves that the "glass or two" near enough every night is somehow moderate drinking. It isn't.

Why does anyone even need one drink when they are pregnant - they don't so why take any additional risk that you screw up and instead of that "1 or 2 units once or twice a week" you're actually nearer to 3 or 4 units three or four times a week.

 

[daredelvis]

Speaking as a biologist, I am all for the scare tactics. It is very hard to know what will be harmful for a developing embryo. You won't find many pregnant women signing up for controlled studies on the adverse effects of substance X. Most of what we know about what effect human development is from retrospective studies. Not a totally accurate science. An example is how long it took to realize the adverse effects of very low levels of mercury on developing humans.

Human development is an extremely complex process and many of the critical stages of brain development occur early in the pregnancy. There may only be a few days when development is extremely sensitive to alcohol, and it may be that some women (more importantly, the developing human in some women) are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol.

It is only nine months. If it is a big deal, as a man and a beer lover, I think it is OK for the mother to expect the father to quite drinking for moral support.

Daredelvis

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Show the lie?
They tell women that drinking whilst pregnant can damage the health of their unborn baby- now that may no be the whole truth, but it is not a lie. It is a simple message which can be easily grasped by everyone.
Rolfe has already pointed out the benefit's of this.

Can you demonstrate that this is aimed at those that already drink responsibly whilst pregnant?

The lie is that there is a need to change the current advice when there is absolutely zero evidence that the new advice is any safer than the existing advice.

Given that the amendment to the advice will only affect those who currently follow the advice but will be evil bad parents under the new advice, who do you think it is aimed at?

 

[casebro]

..... An example is how long it took to realize the adverse effects of very low levels of mercury on developing humans.


Daredelvis

Link?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why does anyone even need one drink when they are pregnant - they don't so why take any additional risk that you screw up and instead of that "1 or 2 units once or twice a week" you're actually nearer to 3 or 4 units three or four times a week.

Right so the risk is that people who bother to find out what the guidelines are on how much it is safe to drink (as opposed to those who will happily down a bottle of vodka with not a thought) will be too stupid to calculate the number of units correctly (or more accurately be too stupid to look at the label on the bottle) and are unable to count how often they drink each week?

Personally I would prefer that health advice is based on science, but if you want to join the homeopaths and base medical advice on feelgood factors then that is your choice.

Anyone factored in the mental health impact on mothers who followed the guidelines and ended up with less than perfect babies? Of course there is no evidence they did anything wrong or that their actions in any way contributed to their babies problems, but what message does changing the guidelines send to them?