In my life I have to write everything down because my memory is terrible. It’s a part of my syndrome, Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder, and I want to make a difference because I’m not getting any younger. On May 8th, I’m 50.
It’s an FASD disorder. One I can’t fix. But I am intending to fix it for all future pregnant moms-to-be because I am the one who voted myself in to give informed consent about the consequences of abstinence vs FASD in my forum. Not in the aftercare industry forums. See “The Very Beginning of FASD & The Suicide of Michael Dorris,” (blog 6, April 2011).
Absent, a ton of commercials or sources of information out there that are thrust in front of public eyes on this criminal issue. I say criminal because knowingly drinking while pregnant these days is child abuse at its worst. Something is wrong with the FASD information engine. I’ll tell you why.
For example, I hear and see a lot about Down Syndrome. I think that’s great but where do we see the stimulus for stopping FASD? We don’t, not really. They are both very important, yet the 100% preventable one, FASD, has about as much prevention zeal as a seal. Sure, classrooms are being hit pretty hard with FASD news but are two 15 year-old lovers going to think about FASD when they are all horned up and alone in the park at night with weed and a can of beer? We can’t be sure. My guess is, “Not that likely.” I could go on.
So one day 2 years ago, I went out onto the streets of Vancouver, British Columbia and stopped people with two cards in my hand. Each card had an acronym on it. One had the acronym for Mother’s Against Drunk Driving, or, “MADD”, and the other, the other acronym for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, “FASD.”
After only 120 responses I stopped. My answer was very quickly becoming evident. Out of the 120 responses to the MADD acronym that I displayed first, everyone knew the acronym immediately except 3 foreigners a drunken man and a 14 year-old girl. When I initially approached people I wasn’t sure if they lived in BC or not since we are the most multicultural city in the world and found for what turned out to be a couple of foreign visitors, I could not count them as valid responses. In their language the acronym letters would be different. So now we are automatically down to 117 valid responses.
Yes, the drunken man did count.
Then I showed the very same people the acronym, “FASD.” Very briefly, an even 10 people knew what the FASD acronym meant, although a few had to really think about and ended up guessing with my help (assisted response), but they basically got it. Of these 10, including another 14 year-old girl who had a friend with FASD, 5 of them were professional people working in somewhat related fields. They still count.
So of 117 respondents 10 people knew the FASD acronym and that puts the percentage of that population at 8.5 %. Now that to me was very interesting. Why?
FASD was first discovered and coined in 1973. Actually it was just FAS at that time. One less letter to remember but the incident rate was unknown at the time. Today, the incident rate is somewhat known – or clearly guessable. However, MADD was founded in 1980, 7 years later. In the survey, 94.5% of the respondents knew the MADD acronym.
I had to think why these numbers came up the way they did. I did not consider that one or the other was more important since death and injury from drunk drivers is equally as careless as pregnant mothers who refuse to put the bottle or glass down that would guarantee lifelong brain damage for the newborn. There had to be a difference somewhere.
So after my experience with FASD that I began investigating since 2006, I surmised the one big important difference between the two after I saw the survey results:
Advertising was key. Very simply, MADD makes commercials that people remember, like “MADD Glasses” and “MADD Toe Tags.” On the other hand FASD puts out ads that people forget, like, “I’m Pregnant,” or “Alcohol Myths.” Do you remember the FASD commercials? Do you remember ever seeing one? Do you remember MADD commercials? See? (See next blog for more on this.)
MADD has also accomplished something that I intend to accomplish. That is, getting the lawmakers on my side. As you know, the legal alcohol limit for drinking and driving in British Columbia and other Canadian provinces has gone from .08 to .05. That is not a coincidence. I actually credit MADD because of their beaurocratic pushes on lawmakers.
I am currently working with Doctor Hedy Fry, MLA, and intend on working with her more closely as time goes on. Also, I relate ideas, thoughts and information about my organization’s intentions with Paul Szabo, MLA and also a well-known single father of an FASD child (now grown), and the moderator of FASlink, Mr. Bruce Ritchie, pioneer. We all want laws passed too. The official word from the two MLA’s is that FASD just doesn’t make it to the house of commons. We must remind ourselves at this time, again, that FASD is Canada’s #1 birth defect and that it is 100% preventable.
A unique mention at this point: Drunk drivers and Down Syndrome victims are things people see or hear with their senses and victimology says, “Look, there I see it – case closed.” That of course being tragic accidents or Down Syndrome victim’s basic and visually obvious cues. But FASD is seen in the abstract over a long period of behavior analysis with the only exception being in the full syndrome where facial features clearly point to FASD. Peculiarly, in the latter cases, people still don’t know what syndrome they are seeing.
So in my, in our, organization, my people and myself are going to rewrite FASD prevention retention. We still have more to investigate, more to confirm, and when we get real scientific, you’ll get the visuals and cues right and newborns will experience the successes of the education and stimuli we intend to put out for pregnancy protection. We will not let anyone forget what alcohol does to developing cells inside the fetus. That’s our promise. When the fetus says, “Speak for me,” we intend to do just that.
I like what you have to say about mothers calling their fetuses "my baby" . U R right! When was the last time any of us have heard a pregnant woman say to someone "I'm having a fetus." or a newly pregnant woman (first time) say to someone "I'm growing a blastosis." NO! She will always say the word "baby" no matter what the stage or the circumstances. (Note: even a woman who has been violated - raped -and becomes pregnant will refer to "the thing" she is carrying, or the "baby" she doesn't want. - In the worst case scenario of impregnation. the fetus is IDENTIFIED as a LIVING entity.) - For all of you Pro-Choice-ers out there...hear this!...IT'S NOT THE BABY'S FAULT!!!! so why kill it. Let's read that again. IT'S NOT THE BABY'S FAULT!
ReplyDelete