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
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.)
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.)
No comments:
Post a Comment