31 January 2012

Adolescents with FAS in the Justice System


As children with FAS reach adolescence, they are at increased risk for involvement with the justice system. Their poor judgment, impulsiveness, inability to anticipate consequences, and seeming inability to alter their behavior as a result of those consequences appears to make them particularly susceptible to trouble with the law. Streissguth (below) et al.’s (1996) follow-up study of adolescents and adults with FAS /FAE found that approximately 60% had experienced some involvement with the law. Forty percent did not!

Anne Streissguth - Professor - Fetal Drug and Alcohol Unit,
 part of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Teens with FAS/FAE have been charged with offences ranging from vandalism or mischief to more serious offences of theft and assault. They may be easily led and manipulated by more street-wise teens. However, in a recent study in B.C., youth with FAS were no more likely to commit the offence with a group than on their own.

Teens with FAS/FAE are also victims. Their inability to anticipate dangerous situations may put them in the wrong place at the wrong time. They may be too trusting of people, including strangers, whom they consider to be “friends”. Inappropriate social skills may make them the scapegoats in the teen peer group.

For both perpetrators and victims, alcohol and drug use is often the driving influence. It is important to remember that having FAS in and of itself does not cause criminal behaviour. Many other factors combine to result in this outcome. The advice to parents to closely monitor their teen’s activities is the key factor in preventing involvement with the justice system.


29 January 2012

Brain Head vs Knucklehead in Ireland

I may have heard it or read it but when I was creating a document about the future health of Canada, I related that if the 10% of children who have fasd would instead, not have fasd, our country would be smarter in the future- it would be more inventive across a wide variety fields of science and study. You know the "two heads are better than one" theory. Like that. I remember now: When Michael Ignatieff was running for Priminister, one of his main lines of influence was to give every child who finished highschool $5,000 towards a college or university tuition...


I think that if a few cents at the till could easily make this come true, that's OK with me. Lets' transfer this to pregnant, at risk mom's, who are willing to take drug tests with no notice via urine. They make it through, they get $5,000 in gift certicates all related to what mom and baby would now need. It's better than paying over $200,000 per child per lifetime

..ok we're gettin' into it now...


(as I'll remind you again - $40% of FAS young adults or, adults, go to a federal prison - do you have any idea how much it costs per inmate? I have heard as much as $2,000 per day = that's $730,000 dollars for 1 year. You don't go to a federal prison unless your sentence is 2 or more years (In Canada). Parole could be a year or less if you were the inmate who cooperated with programs, kept a good work record and was respectful at all times right on up to a scary parole board who will dictate whether or not you can leave. But we're talkin' about the "model inmate." They do exist. They do get out and may actually never offend again. (It depends on the type of crime.) But through jail or no jail, they need "no-pressure" guidance and, yes, love and still their recidicism risk cannot be predictable of their recidicism risk because an FASD child "does not learn from past bad behaviors." That's a hard existence that adds fear/anxiety to a life of difficulty for the parents, adding in unhappiness and loneliness too for the victim.


It just makes so much more sense - just a lousy, 9-12-months of no using and drinking, but with the new law and it's rewards, it is still entirely possible that reports of and child neglect or abuse, if they found out you have harmed your baby by being a substance abuser, they will take your kid away.

Now reverting to the article: So "Gordon" in the first half of The Irish Times article (below) shows he would agree with respected doctors who view the zero-alcohol alternative as the only way to go. I definitely say that Gordon is a respected doctor. And along comes Peter who claims that male babies have better outcomes if their mothers drink moderately (Moderately - below). Peter, are you nuts?! My best question is: "Why are some scientists so eager to claim that drinking during pregnancy is OK?" Why not just stop for a year?

Please keep in mind that when there is no evidence that drinks hurt babies, well, resort to an FAS baby's mom and then argue the evidence against drinking when pregnant (if she honestly admits it), or try come and visit with me. Anne streisguth (actually, next blog at top)- tommorrow, from the USA who specializes in FASD and terratogens - alcohol being a terratogen - would laugh her own head off if you tried to tell her there is no proof of alcohol hurting babies or as Peter claims, that moderate drinking while pregnant produces all babies in general --- well, that would nearly kill the old girl. 


Alcohol, a terratogen, kills. Terratogen = terrato (Greek) + genes. Literally, to make monsters as thousands of years ago they called babies "monsters" when they saw the full sundrome that includes the well recognized and typical FAS features of the full syndrome. Those babies back then, I today fear the worst for their imagined demise. So the bottom line dictates to me that alcohol hurts your baby on any day. If you can't get through, call an expert. I sure wish I had my organization of "The Safe Pregnancy Vision" I have an arsenal of new, different ways to help. I really need a lot of money to do it and I'm on disability. I can't even really afford the application form here in BC.

Moderately... There is agreement in the scientific community about what defines "moderate drinking." It's no more than 3-4 standard drinks per drinking episode, no more than 9 drinks per week for women and 12-14 for men. Also, moderate drinking means limiting how fast you drink. (Author here - doesn't that still seem way too much alcohol?)


So here's the article:


The Irish Times - Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Experts differ on effects of alcohol in pregnancy


MOTHERS CAN ensure the best start in life for their children by abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy, said the HSE’s national director of family and childcare services.

Gordon Jeyes said he could convince even secondary school principals that this was to the best way to ensure children to fulfil their educational potential and there was statistical evidence to prove it.

“If you want to do one thing in Ireland to raise educational standards, you would want to stop women drinking in pregnancy,” he told a conference organised by Early Childhood Ireland last week.

He stressed he was not just referring to children of women who drink heavily, who suffer from foetal alcohol syndrome, but those of mothers who drink moderately during pregnancy.

Babies of “women who drink moderately in pregnancy have a lower birth weight, development will be held back and they will be behind before they start”, he said.

“The more they fall behind, the more they remain behind. That is where we have got to put money and that will raise standards at Leaving Certificate age.”

His claims were disputed by obstetrician Dr Peter Boylan, a former master of the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street, who still works there. He said he was not aware of any research that suggested moderate drinking during pregnancy would harm a child’s capacity to develop.

“There is no evidence to suggest that a moderate alcohol intake harms a baby in any way,” he said. He added that there was some evidence that the opposite was the case – that women who drink moderately during pregnancy have babies with better outcomes in the long-term.

But he stressed that this may have nothing to do with alcohol and is more likely to be the result of the children being born to middle-class, university-educated women.

“My experience in talking to professional women is that they seem to be more relaxed about drinking during pregnancy,” he said. “There is no evidence that the odd glass of wine does any harm.

“There is a respected group of doctors who say you should not touch alcohol at all during pregnancy. It is a valid point of view, but the problem is that it is not backed up by the evidence.”


(Above paragraph underlined, this is so not true. Take a hike, Peter. A really long, long road.)



27 January 2012

The Neurodevelopmental Consequences of Prenatal Alcohol Exposure: Definition of Terms

In 1996, the Institute of Medicine created a 5-category classification system for individuals exposed to alcohol in utero. This classification system added the terms partial FAS (PFAS), ARBD, and ARND, to describe those children who did not precisely fit the FAS category, but had deficits or disabilities that could be linked to PAE.


Recently, the term fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) has been used to include all categories of PAE, including FAS; however, FASD is not intended to serve as a clinical diagnosis. A diagnosis of FAE, ARND, PFAS, or ARBD does not preclude significant organ damage, often to the brain, equal in severity to the damage seen in the individual with full-blown FAS.


FAS = Full syndrome.
ARND = Neurodevelopmental problems including behavioral and cognitive difficulties.
ARBD = A combination of any of the above but also including problems such as a deformed heart, a gigantic birth mark, short fingers and toes, etc. You get the idea.
PFAS = Less obvious than the full syndrome but in reality, brain developmental issues can easily mimic the full syndrome.


Nobody wants to have a baby with these tags attached to the threads of their life. It's all up to mom. But mom won't make it if she drinks and her falling down drunk husband continues to fall down. Mom needs support here. Seek it out even if it means leaving hubby for a year (I say 1 year because mom needs at least a few months of learning and bonding with the young one whether it has been affected by FASD or not.)


All I can do from my desk is hope you make the right decisions. 9 months can go by fast. To aid you, follow this link every day: 9-month daily pregnancy tracker with photos and graphics. Keep this link at your side and watch your fetus develop without ever seeing it: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6911367971276676027#editor/target=post;postID=3182459621220832023


I admit, after doing this painstakingly long blog, by the end of it I felt I had a baby. So does it work? Yes. Remember always, the fetus asks,"Can you see me now?" or, "Look mama, I have fingers." and whatever you think it is saying at every step along the way.

24 January 2012

Canadian Goverment Please Take Heed


Precursor – long read. I beg, please take the time.
All my comments are in red.
My conclusions and recommendations at the bottom in red.


This is as close to law against pregnant drinking as we are going to get. NO LAW!

Only this…

Mothering and Substance Use:
Approaches to Prevention, Harm
Reduction, and Treatment


In 2009 a national virtual Community of Practice (vCoP) provided the
opportunity for a “virtual discussion” of issues, research, and programming
related to girls’ and women’s substance use in Canada. The goal of the
vCoP was to serve as a mechanism for “gendering” the National Framework
for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and other Drugs and
Substances in Canada. Participants included planners, decision-makers, direct
service providers, educators, NGO leaders, policy analysts, researchers, and
interested women. The project was sponsored by the British Columbia Centre
of Excellence for Women’s Health (BCCEWH) in partnership with the Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) and the Universities of Saskatchewan and
South Australia
         
This discussion guide highlights one of the topics explored in the vCoP. It's
purpose is to stimulate further conversation on addressing the needs of
pregnant women and mothers in substance use prevention,
(Want prevention? Make a law against drinking when pregnant and during breast feeding.)
harm reduction, treatment, service system planning, and policy making.

Background

Mothers and pregnant women with substance use problems face
misinformation about womens substance use and addiction, and harsh
multiple barriers in accessing support and treatment services. Fuelled by
media representations, stigma and judgement are ever-present in womens
support networks, service delivery, and program policies. Although there
are welcoming and mother-centred programs across Canada, there are vast
gaps in the availability and accessibility of these services, depending on the
required level of care, mothering status, and the severity of health and social
problems. (After reading this, I am not surprised that the systems we currently have in place are so under-nourished that to fix these above issues would cost millions and millions of dollars. Yet I maintain that still, today, with more and more help-groups popping up all over Canada, the problem of FASD is not getting better. It’s getting worse. So why on Earth is it that the taxpayers money going to more of what isn’t working than than where it should go - prevention, such as a super-heavy TV, billboard, and magazine ad campaigns and/or the threat of prison or losing the child to child services?)
Due to fears of disclosure and limited data, it is difficult to quantify how many
mothers and pregnant women have substance use problems. According to
the 2001 Canadian Community Health Survey, 12% to 14% of women reported
that they had used alcohol in their last pregnancy. A recent American
survey of pregnant women reported that 19% of women used alcohol in their
first trimester, 7.8% in their second trimester, and 6.2% in their third trimester.
Further, of the women who used alcohol in their first trimester, 8% binge
drank, 21.8% smoked cigarettes, and 4.6% used marijuana. Particularly
concerning was the rapid resumption in binge drinking from 1% in the third
trimester to 10% within three months postpartum.
It is estimated that 18% of mothers engaged with the child welfare system
have alcohol problems, and 14% have other substance use problems. It is
also documented that First Nations mothers in Canada lose custody of their
children more than non-First Nations women; First Nations children are placed
in care at a rate of 1 in 10, whereas non-Aboriginal children are placed in care
at a rate of 1 in 200.

Given the risks of heavy substance use to both womens and childrens health,
including the risk of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, it is imperative that
continuum of gender-informed services be available to mothers and pregnant
women with substance use problems.

Participants in the virtual Community of Practice (vCoP) discussed four topics
related to mothers and pregnant women with substance use problems: 1)
stigma and public discourse, 2) barriers to treatment, 3) a guiding framework
for practice, and 4) examples of Canadian mother-centred programming. An
overview of these four topics is presented here, followed by a list of discussion
questions and a list of weblinks, both which emerged from this vCoP. The
discussion questions are designed to facilitate the application of a genderbased
analysis to addictions prevention, harm reduction, and treatment
programming and policy as they relate to pregnant women and mothers.

(You can discuss and analyze until you are blue in the face – won’t help – there is no formula to be found just as there is no scientific proof that alcoholism is a disease. Both are dead end streets.)

Stigma and public discourse
Background

Mothers and pregnant women with substance use problems face
multiple barriers in accessing support and treatment services. Fuelled by
misinformation about womens substance use and addiction, and harsh
media representations, stigma and judgement are ever-present in women’s
support networks, service delivery, and program policies. Although there
are welcoming and mother-centred programs across Canada, there are vast
gaps in the availability and accessibility of these services, depending on the
required level of care, mothering status, and the severity of health and social
problems.

Due to fears of disclosure and limited data, it is difficult to quantify how many
mothers and pregnant women have substance use problems. According to
the 2001 Canadian Community Health Survey, 12% to 14% of women reported
that they had used alcohol in their last pregnancy. A recent American
survey of pregnant women reported that 19% of women used alcohol in their
first trimester, 7.8% in their second trimester, and 6.2% in their third trimester.
(To me that means a minimum of 19% of newborns will already be brain-damaged.)
Further, of the women who used alcohol in their first trimester, 8% binge
drank, 21.8% smoked cigarettes, and 4.6% used marijuana. Particularly
concerning was the rapid resumption in binge drinking from 1% in the third
trimester to 10% within three months postpartum.
(To me that means a minimum of 18% of newborns will already be brain-damaged.)
It is estimated that 18% of mothers engaged with the child welfare system
have alcohol problems, and 14% have other substance use problems. It is
also documented that First Nations mothers in Canada lose custody of their
children more than non-First Nations women; First Nations children are placed
in care at a rate of 1 in 10, whereas non-Aboriginal children are placed in care
at a rate of 1 in 200.

Given the risks of heavy substance use to both womens and childrens health,
including the risk of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, it is imperative that a
continuum of gender-informed services be available to mothers and pregnant
women with substance use problems.
Participants in the virtual Community of Practice (vCoP) discussed four topics
related to mothers and pregnant women with substance use problems: 1)
stigma and public discourse, 2) barriers to treatment, 3) a guiding framework
for practice, and 4) examples of Canadian mother-centered programming. (#4 scares me a bit because I believe mother-centered programming will flush the idea of laws against pregnant drinking right down the proverbial baby toilet. It is this movement in Canada that is like sandpaper to the fighting unborn fetus. It says, “It’s ok, drink mom drink and kill off my cells.” You won’t care now and after you’ll have plenty of arms holding you and comforting you while the child beside you suffers from FASD.)

Stigma and public discourse

Stigma surrounding women who are pregnant or mothering and using
substances is evident throughout our systems of care and in the public
discourse. Historically, and presently, public discourse has been both blaming
and unsympathetic towards mothers who use substances. Further, mothers
who use substances are deemed solely responsible for their circumstances,
and undeserving of care. Despite national efforts to shift this paradigm
media continue to misrepresent the needs and intentions of mothers
with substance use problems, and propose punitive, over supportive, health2010

(What? Now we can’t even have stigma? I won’t say that addicts are undeserving of care but I will ask, “Just what are the needs and intentions of addicted mothers?” I say hurray for the media. Punitive is the way to go because talking and hugging is not working. Oh yes, there will be a care giver who can give eyewitness testimony that the talk/hug system worked with one client but come on, there are bound to be a few drink/drug quitters. Fact is, the success rate of AA over 1 year is 5% . Curious. That is exactly the number of people who quit alcohol, hard drugs and even smoking, by themselves. So to the few that make it, was it really the help or were they merely spurred into a decision to quit by themselves by taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. I prefer to think the latter because statistically, the latter is fact.)


Harm Reduction Oriented


In the context of mothering and pregnancy, reducing the
harm of substance use often means attending to women’s
basic needs such as nutrition and housing. Harm reduction
approaches take a pragmatic and compassionate approach to
care. Service providers are willing to discuss goals other than
complete abstinence from all substances (in spite of the known
risks), and consider all aspects of harm. (That’s just ridiculous to me) In this approach,
there is recognition of the interconnectedness of many areas of
women’s lives, such as trauma, mental ill health, and substance
use. Accordingly, engagement in treatment begins with
what is most important and possible for the woman.

(This is just bizarre. All across Canada there are discussions and meetings and meetings of the minds and none of it is working. It’s like the alcoholic that attends AA meetings. Don’t be fooled – they drink – somtimes right after meetings. Talking is really cheap. Law is unbendable and permanent. But in Canada, the fetus has no rights at all. Pregnant women know this. As you’ve read in the previous blog, many US States see with their eyes right through meaningless talk and go straight to the penalties. There is no better stigma than breaking the law. After a pregnant mother’s group, how does anyone know that some of them are not going for some booze, marijuana, or cocaine/heroin. No one knows. A criminal charge cannot be denied after a positive blood test. Many babies can be saved this way. Families would be much more likely to step in. Even the professional working mom’s babies families. That’s right: across the boards of rich and poor, wine and cocaine, groups or no groups, Canada’s response to pre-natal drinking sucks and it is killing babys’ chances at anything valuable in life. Not to mention the billions of dollars pumped out for the lives of current FASD children and adults but also for the mindless studies that, for example, measure how much a pregnant woman can drink. NO DRINKS are safe – why are you still studying that you dummies?


Examples of Canadian Mother-Centred
Programs

While a generic range of treatment services are available to mothers,
these services are not always visible or readily accessible. The National
Treatment Strategy offers recommendations to strengthen available substance
use services and support through five tiers of support and treatment. The tiers
are described as:

Tier 5 - Intensive residential treatment

Tier 4 - Structured and specialized outpatient services

Tier 3 - Acute, proactive outreach and harm reduction services

Tier 2 - Brief support and referral by a wide range of professionals

Tier 1 - Community-based and outreach services


To successfully address the needs of mothers and pregnant women with
substance use problems, we need gender-informed programming and
practices that reflect the guiding framework in all 5 tiers of support and
treatment. The following Canadian examples demonstrate the types of
programming and practices needed at each tier of support and treatment.


Tier 5 – Residential Treatment Programs


There are very few Canadian examples of residential treatment programs that
accommodate mothers with their children. However, in an attempt to address
this limitation of services, some jurisdictions are putting in place supportive
housing options, with links to residential treatment, for pregnant women prior
to delivery, and new mothers and their infants postpartum.


Tier 4 – Structured Outpatient Services

Jean Tweed Centre, Pathways to Healthy Families and MK2,


Toronto, ON

(www.jeantweed.com)

The Pathways to Healthy Families project, initiated in 2002, addresses the
need for building capacity within the system to better identify and serve
women who use substances who are pregnant or mothering young children.
It involves the placement of substance use counsellors in satellite sites across
Toronto, including community health centres, resource centres for young
parents, the shelter system, and Aboriginal services. These counsellors provide
education and support services to women and their children, as well as to
agencies. The focus of the support is to connect women with local resources,
advocate on their behalf, (On behalf of what? – Drinking? Getting caught? Playing the “I didn’t know game?) and link them with parenting and medical care.

Arising out of the Pathways to Healthy Families project,
Mothers and Kids Too (MK2) is a specialized outpatient program
that addresses the needs of mothers who are pregnant and/
or who have children under the age of six. MK2 is a seven week
long, three day a week, format that provides both substance
abuse counselling and parenting support. In this model,
women do not have to choose between their family and
treatment. Emphasis is placed on integrating programming for
parents and children, ultimately supporting early childhood
development and engagement of parents.


Tier 3 – Proactive Outreach and Harm
Reduction Services

Pregnancy Outreach Programs (Canada Prenatal
Nutrition Program)

php)

Community-based pregnancy outreach programs (POP)
funded across Canada through the Canada Prenatal Nutrition
Program (CPNP) offer drop-in, multi-faceted, prenatal and
postnatal programming to support the overall health of
mothers and their children. Attending to basic needs such as
nutrition, physical health, and safety, POPs work pragmatically
to meet women where they are at and to reduce the harms of
substance use. In many instances, women with substance use
problems may feel safer accessing services through POPs than
asking specifically for addiction treatment services and risk
losing their children. (Drinking when pregnant is by definition in many of the United States as well as Canadian reports and health professionals, as abuse. How could we allow the unborn to baby stay in that situation?)

There are approximately 350 CPNP projects serving over 2,000
communities across Canada, and over 550 CPNP projects in
Inuit and on-reserve First Nation communities.
(And still FASD is growing. Current community centres and prevention strategies are clearly not very effective.)


Tier 2 – Brief Support and Referral by a Wide Range of Professionals

Brief Intervention by Physicians 

Physicians play an important role in both recognizing and
engaging mothers and pregnant women with substance use
problems, and they play a pivotal role in the prevention of
FASD. Given the social stigma and misunderstanding of
this health problem, it is critical that health care providers are
able to ask about substance use in a supportive and nonjudgemental
way. (There is no misunderstanding of this health problem. People in the know should look at that statement and reverse their thinking. Are you going to assume we as a nation are ignorant? I went on a brief hunger strike where more women signed my petition against drinking when pregnant then men did. See: Post 3 - "FAS Chuldrens Brains are Comprimised + Plus Day 4 Hunger Crazyness" - November 2011 on my sidebar.)

The PRIMA (Pregnancy-Related Issues in the Management
of Addictions) project assists physicians in providing care
for pregnant and postpartum women with substance use
problems through continuing education initiatives and webbased
resources on the effects of various substances and
clinical considerations (www.addictionpregnancy.ca).
Physician education has been offered nationally through
a continuing education course on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder created by MDcme.ca, a consortium of seventeen
Canadian medical schools and the College of Family Physicians
of Canada (www.mdcme.ca). This curriculum is currently being
updated.
Several provinces have also undertaken educational initiatives
with physicians: for example the ActNow BC Healthy Choices
in Pregnancy initiative worked with physicians to implement
provincial guidelines on screening and discussing alcohol
physicianresources.htm); and Ontario’s Best Start has
developed desk references and related tools for physicians


Do you see what’s going on here? The Canadian government is pumping millions of dollars into aftercare. Prevention comes in the form of voluntary participation. Like AA, volunteering into a program does not stop addictive practice. I’n not writing something I don’t know about. I was once there. An addict of any kind can and will use when the pressure is too much. Even with exercise, good eating and places to go (which are all good), this doesn’t stop drinking and drugging.
In my most guarded opinion the difference makers in the reduction of FASD incidence are: 1 - Canada’s government along with the many other organizations must start treating the growing fetus as a person instead of a thing. 2 – Canadians who have groups that share information need to look at Rational Recovery (RR) as an alternative to the 12-step (religious) program. (See my April 2011 "12 AA Secrets" in 2 blogs.) RR for drug users consist of both REBT and AVRT (no religion but personal responsibility) (See my, "Quotes to Live By," near bottom - also April 2011.), both of which I’ve taught with success as I always pass out slips of paper to participants after the courses I’ve taught. I have yet to receive a negative response to my course content. 3 – A multi-tier law must be made to punish child abusers. I have empathy for all addicted women. I don’t have empathy for child abuse especially when the kid is helplessly unprotected in mom’s tummy. Not to forget, permanent brain damage and the leading cause of mental retardation in North America as the Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry MLA and Canadian Liberal Health Critic can attest to. 4 – Taking on a new mind-set about the women who drink when pregnant. Even the excuse, “I didn’t know it would hurt the fetus,” doesn’t wash. It is not to be an acceptable excuse when everyone knows that drugs kill organs in the body. To think the fetus is completely unaffected is a lying excuse created by selfish drunks. This more extreme idea (reality) is the one that some prevention groups just don't seem to get. So they just wait for aftercare. The government of Canada must make the responsible ruling of penalizing the women who abuse their fetus before another aftercare client is born.
Does a woman care to have a binge on day 36 whereby the development of the baby’s facial features begin to take place. This will produce the four distinct facial deformities associated with the full syndrome. You must keep in mind that also the brain is the first organ to begin development and the last organ to end development.
Does a woman care to have a drink on day 39 as the heart is forming – could lead to Alcohol Related Birth Defects (ARBD). In this case a potentially deadly one.
Does a woman care to have a drink on day  44. Your baby’s brain has differentiated into the three main parts possessed by all human brains: the forebrain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain – leading to Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND), the most common birth defect.
Does a woman care to have a drink on day 58. On this day the earliest recordable brain waves will occur – leading once again to ARND.
Does a woman care to have a drink on day 113 whereby the baby grows rapidly, with growth setting the stage for development later this month. Your baby’s weight will increase six times during this fourth month of pregnancy. Even then, the baby will only weigh 6 ounces (168 g), not even half a pound. Drinking at this stage produces underweight babies and other complications – the baby could die.
On day 218 - At this point your baby can register information from all five of its senses.
 Every day to a fetus is an important developmental beginning for one process or another. There is no safe drink. I wish women would think about this and I wish the government would take a stand on this by penalizing pregnant drinkers according to their demeanor. Example: A woman who is warned that she is butchering parts of her baby’s growth sequence should be hospitalized and take AVRT from Rational Recovery and her baby, under hopeless circumstances would be ordered into a foster home or childcare services. On the other hand, a woman who seriously wants to quit (after getting caught or outright admitting the need for real help) should be penalized more lightly – example, reporting for drug testing.
It’s been proven that more programs are not working. FASD incidences are only rising. Only in aftercare do we see progress. Nothing before that. I have a safe pregnancy vision I would gladly share with the government should they decide to help me help pregnant moms.

It is time for the government to step in. They have all the evidence they need for the protection of the fetus (once they accept the fetus as a human instead of a thing). When the fetus says, "Speak for me," we really should do just that honorable MLA's of our great, supposed-to-be-safe country. Now let's listen to the fetus. Come up with a strict, fair plan that may possibly hospitalize the helpless moms and that would also show respect for the honest drinking mother by simple mandatory drug testing. None of my requests are out of the bounds of reality. The Safe Pregnancy Vision is in my book.


Pregnancy and Law USA - Canadian Law Tomorrow


State Responses to Substance Abuse Among Pregnant Women

 

The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy

By Cynthia Dailard and Elizabeth Nash

(Please also review chart at bottom.)


While no state has enacted a law specifically criminalizing drug use during pregnancy, prosecutors have relied on a host of criminal laws already on the books to attack prenatal substance abuse. Women across the nation have been arrested and charged with a wide range of crimes, including possession of a controlled substance, delivering drugs to a minor (through the umbilical cord), corruption of a minor, and child abuse and neglect. Others have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon and manslaughter.

Women who have appealed their convictions to their state supreme court have prevailed in all but one instance. Typically, courts have overturned these convictions on the grounds that a fetus could not be considered a child or person under criminal child abuse statutes, or that the legislature did not intend for an existing criminal statute to apply to a pregnant woman and her fetus. Other courts have found such convictions to be unconstitutional violations of women's rights to due process (because the state applied the law in a way that could not be foreseen by the pregnant woman) and privacy. Only in South Carolina has the state supreme court, in the 1997 case Whitner v. South Carolina, upheld the conviction of a woman charged with criminal child abuse for using cocaine during pregnancy. In that case, the court held that a viable fetus is a "person" under the state's criminal child endangerment statute, and that "maternal acts endangering or likely to endanger the life, comfort, or health of a viable fetus" could constitute child abuse.

Child Welfare Laws

Meanwhile, several states have expanded their child welfare laws to address prenatal drug exposure (treating the issue as a matter of civil rather than criminal law). These laws vary considerably in their scope and approach. Laws in 12 states specify either that a child born exposed to drugs is presumed to be abused or neglected or that positive results from a toxicology test performed on a newborn or signs of prenatal drug exposure in newborns constitute evidence of child abuse or neglect. In these states, such evidence provides grounds for removing the infant from the mother's custody and qualifies as a factor in determining whether to terminate parental rights. Under the South Carolina law, for example, a newborn is presumed to be neglected and "cannot be protected from further harm without being removed from the custody of the mother" if there is a positive drug test on either the mother or the child at birth.

Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court, in its October decision In re Baby Boy Blackshear, found that a newborn testing positive for drug exposure is per se an abused child under the state's civil child abuse law, even though the law makes no mention of prenatal drug exposure. The law defines an "abused child" as one who suffers "physical or mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child's health or welfare." Unlike the lower court, the supreme court said that it need not address whether a fetus is a child under the state's child abuse law, since a "postbirth" drug test indicated that drug exposure, and therefore abuse, had occurred. Accordingly, the state was justified, the court said, in its decision to terminate parental rights. State supreme courts in Connecticut and New York, however, have refused to treat pregnant women who used drugs as presumptively neglectful, while the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a newborn's addiction and symptoms of withdrawal, combined with a mother's failure to provide care, could be considered as a factor in terminating parental rights.

Other states require health care professionals to report or test for prenatal drug exposure—information that the state may use as evidence in child welfare proceedings. Health care professionals in seven states are required to report to the state if a newborn tests positive for drug exposure or if a pregnant woman shows evidence of drug use. In Iowa, Minnesota and Virginia, health care professionals are required to test some or all pregnant women or newborns for prenatal drug exposure. Kentucky law says that provided a woman is given notice, a physician may screen her for drug use and then determine whether to make a report to the state. In Iowa and Kentucky, however, test results may not be used as prosecutorial evidence.

Civil Commitment

Constitutional requirements for civil commitment require clear and convincing evidence that an individual is mentally ill and dangerous to herself or others. Three states have enacted laws specifically authorizing the civil commitment (or detention in a noncriminal setting) of women who use drugs during pregnancy; these statutes are based on the notion that the fetus is an endangered person. Minnesota and South Dakota authorize the emergency admission of pregnant women for mandatory drug treatment, including inpatient treatment, for as long as the duration of a pregnancy. The Wisconsin children's code, as amended in 1998, goes so far as to grant the state's juvenile court "exclusive jurisdiction" over an unborn child when a pregnant woman "habitually lacks self-control" with regard to alcohol or controlled substances. Because the statute defines an "unborn child" as a "human being from the time of fertilization to the time of birth," the state may intervene and detain a woman throughout her pregnancy if she poses a "substantial risk to the physical health" of her fetus.


Laws Pertaining to Pregnant Women Who Use Drugs


State Civil Child Welfare* Reporting Requirements Testing Requirements Civil Commitment Drug Treatment
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona X X
Arkansas X
California X
Colorado X
Connecticut X
Delaware
Florida X X
Georgia X
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois X X X
Indiana X
Iowa X X
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine
Maryland X X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X
Minnesota X X X X X
Mississippi
Missouri X
Montana
Nebraska X
Nevada X
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York X
North Carolina X
North Dakota
Ohio X
Oklahoma X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
South Dakota X X
Tennessee
Texas X X
Utah X
Vermont
Virginia X X X
Washington X
West Virginia
Wisconsin X X X
Wyoming
*In addition, an Oklahoma statute deems an infant as "deprived" if it tests positive for a controlled substance and "is determined to be at risk of future exposure to such substances" (emphasis added). In Iowa, grounds for terminating parental rights include the fact that an "illegal drug is present in a child's body as a direct and foreseeable consequence of the acts or omissions of the person responsible for the care of the child"; this statute, however, does not appear to be directed at pregnant women. A Tennessee state law stipulates that the state may provide treatment services to pregnant women. In South Carolina, women who participate in the state-funded Family Independence Program and give birth to an infant who tests positive for drugs must participate in a drug rehabilitation program approved by the state.