Dublin mayor wants to test children in in poor areas for fetal alcohol syndrome

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

allibastor wrote: »

enough said.

do you not agree. or are you part of the softly softly group of careers who blame the problems everyone has on someone else, like i have listened to so ,many times from people before in the past.

I am of the very firm belief that the right to produce a child should be that, a right, but from both sides, its not just something to do to fill a tuesday morning.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

Well, it is better to not have smoked throughout the pregnancy, as i am sure you would agree. to be fair, ten is not a huge amount and i will concede that. but still smoking outside, smoke carries on clothes and hair and skin. it is still bad. good on you for not smoking.

secondly, some people should not be allowed to have kids, those who drink and take drugs and smoke like steam trains throughout the pregnancy should not have been granted the ability to have kids. i don't think i will hear much argument that some gob****e who drank everyday from day one through the nine months of pregnancy should be allowed to keep the baby, the same as some junkie who bears a child that is addicted to drugs from the moment it is born.

And yes, i have pulled ciggies from hands before, both from people who smoke in door ways and blow it into my face when passing out, to a small number of pregnant women. i very much doubt someone will do much to me, i am not a small boy.

I'm just glad people like you will never have the power to enforce such policies. I often tell my own patients that they [the child] are harder to keep than to get, however, that does not mean that they should not have kids.

So you not a small boy eh?, so what you are saying is you think you can enforce your will on others because you are bigger than them. As I said thankfully you have no real power.

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

do you not agree. or are you part of the softly softly group of careers who blame the problems everyone has on someone else, like i have listened to so ,many times from people before in the past.

I am of the very firm belief that the right to produce a child should be that, a right, but from both sides, its not just something to do to fill a tuesday morning.

Read your own posts ... they vary from stopping people from having children because of addiction right up to sterilising them.

You do realise people recover from addiction and you under pin your argument with sterilisation suggesting they should never have kids... Double whammy ? you were an addict and now to punish you you're to be sterilised .

If we were to follow your logic my wife and her parents should've have been sterilised as well as about eight members of my family.... never mind any number of classmates, friends etc...

Flawed logic ?

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm just glad people like you will never have the power to enforce such policies. I often tell my own patients that they [the child] are harder to keep than to get, however, that does not mean that they should not have kids.

So you not a small boy eh?, so what you are saying is you think you can enforce your will on others because you are bigger than them. As I said thankfully you have no real power.

to be fair, it is this attitude of trying to be kind to people who always make poor life choices that cause a lot of problems. these people will always have you there to wipe their little bums and say its not your fault. at a time when they cannot look after themselves why should they be allowed to have kids? what good is bringing a child into the world when the parents may not even know it is there, or will not be able to care for it.

and to be fair, are the government not at the moment not trying to have a ban on people smoking in cars with children, did they not ban smoking in pubs and such. do they not ban drugs? is that not them enforcing their will for the benefit of others? at the end of the day i will always stand up for those who cannot do it themselves, be it from an attacker, or a parent who should not have had kids. if you are trying to say that we should just keep going on and letting them make poor life choices and drag some innocent kid with them then thank god it is morons like you you will never have power

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

allibastor wrote: »

Read your own posts ... they vary from stopping people from having children because of addiction right up to sterilising them.

You do realise people recover from addiction and you under pin your argument with sterilisation suggesting they should never have kids... Double whammy ? your were an addict and now to punish you you're to be sterilised .

If we were to follow your logic my wife and here parents should've have been sterilised as well as about eight members of my family.... never mind any number of classmates, friends etc...

Flawed logic ?

ok, maybe a sterilization is a bit far, but as someone who works with addicts, how many times do you see the same people coming back again and again. do you think the life of a child is made better or worse by having these people as their parents ?

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm just glad people like you will never have the power to enforce such policies. I often tell my own patients that they [the child] are harder to keep than to get, however, that does not mean that they should not have kids.

So you not a small boy eh?, so what you are saying is you think you can enforce your will on others because you are bigger than them. As I said thankfully you have no real power.

could i ask you also, from your mod status and the term patient, would i be far wrong is assuming you have some connection to the treatment of people with addiction from a phycological vantage.

if so, what would you find as the main cause for a person who is brought it with addiction. is it that they simply made bad life choices, or does it stem from a background of previous addiction and abuse. as i am sure you know most often then not these types of environments only breed more addicts and abusers. can you honestly say that a person who will be born to this situation will be better off with parent show take responsibility for bringing a life into the world or not.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

to be fair, it is this attitude of trying to be kind to people who always make poor life choices that cause a lot of problems. these people will always have you there to wipe their little bums and say its not your fault. at a time when they cannot look after themselves why should they be allowed to have kids? what good is bringing a child into the world when the parents may not even know it is there, or will not be able to care for it.

and to be fair, are the government not at the moment not trying to have a ban on people smoking in cars with children, did they not ban smoking in pubs and such. do they not ban drugs? is that not them enforcing their will for the benefit of others? at the end of the day i will always stand up for those who cannot do it themselves, be it from an attacker, or a parent who should not have had kids. if you are trying to say that we should just keep going on and letting them make poor life choices and drag some innocent kid with them then thank god it is morons like you you will never have power

So I'm a moron then eh? Nice having to resort to name calling. Plenty of addicts are capable of looking after children, and those who can't I am often involve in reporting than. However, thankfully we aim to facilitate the development of responsibility, not just enforcing someone own thoughts on the matter.

So at least I'm involved in the rehab process and helping to develop responsible policies.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

could i ask you also, from your mod status and the term patient, would i be far wrong is assuming you have some connection to the treatment of people with addiction from a phycological vantage.

if so, what would you find as the main cause for a person who is brought it with addiction. is it that they simply made bad life choices, or does it stem from a background of previous addiction and abuse. as i am sure you know most often then not these types of environments only breed more addicts and abusers. can you honestly say that a person who will be born to this situation will be better off with parent show take responsibility for bringing a life into the world or not.

Addicts are individuals some can take care of children, others need help and support in order to do so, and others need the child to be taken off them. Most fall into the first two categories.

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

So I'm a moron then eh? Nice having to resort to name calling. Plenty of addicts are capable of looking after children, and those who can't I am often involve in reporting than. However, thankfully we aim to facilitate the development of responsibility, not just enforcing someone own thoughts on the matter.

So at least I'm involved in the rehab process and helping to develop responsible policies.

i do not know you well enough to call you an actual moron, but if you think that having a child brought into the world to parents who are clearly not able to make the right choices for the child is acceptable then that is moronic. do you think a child brought up by an addict will not have any problems in later life from seeing and being around drugs.

any by the way, i do not like the insinuation that i enforce my will on others as a bully would. sometimes people make very poor choices, and need to be told to cop on. do the guards, and medical profession not do this on a daily basis.

i would think an educated person would understand the difference between trying to help, and trying to enforce a will that has no benefit to anyone on to a person.

allibastor

allibastor wrote: »

i do not know you well enough to call you an actual moron, but if you think that having a child brought into the world to parents who are clearly not able to make the right choices for the child is acceptable then that is moronic. do you think a child brought up by an addict will not have any problems in later life from seeing and being around drugs.

any by the way, i do not like the insinuation that i enforce my will on others as a bully would. sometimes people make very poor choices, and need to be told to cop on. do the guards, and medical profession not do this on a daily basis.

i would think an educated person would understand the difference between trying to help, and trying to enforce a will that has no benefit to anyone on to a person.

could i ask you, would you put your children in a situation where they were to be cared for by an addict. ?.

it is a serious question. i have children and i would not. i personally feel that no child should be put in that position, they cannot defend or fend for themselves. i do appologise for calling you a moron, but i hate this softly softly approach to dealing with addiction. there needs to be some consequence on the person who is the addict and not everyone around them.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

i do not know you well enough to call you an actual moron, but if you think that having a child brought into the world to parents who are clearly not able to make the right choices for the child is acceptable then that is moronic. do you think a child brought up by an addict will not have any problems in later life from seeing and being around drugs.

any by the way, i do not like the insinuation that i enforce my will on others as a bully would. sometimes people make very poor choices, and need to be told to cop on. do the guards, and medical profession not do this on a daily basis.

i would think an educated person would understand the difference between trying to help, and trying to enforce a will that has no benefit to anyone on to a person.

You are not a medic, or a guard so that is a moot point. I would avoid all blanket generalisations like that. I see some great kids who happen to have a parent who is an addict, I see the opposite too; but it does not apply to everyone.

As a profession I'm not paid to tell people to cop on, every the GPs I work with are not there for that.

If you are pulling smokes out of people hands and think this is ok because you are not a small lad, and because you believe you have the right to do this, you are enforcing you will on others, like it or not.

Sure if it was that simple I would be out of a job next week as I would just have to tell people to cop on.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

could i ask you, would you put your children in a situation where they were to be cared for by an addict. ?.

it is a serious question. i have children and i would not. i personally feel that no child should be put in that position, they cannot defend or fend for themselves. i do appologise for calling you a moron, but i hate this softly softly approach to dealing with addiction. there needs to be some consequence on the person who is the addict and not everyone around them.

I have stated in a few posts that I see kids with parents who are addicts in good physical and psychological health. Believe me if I see abuse or nelgect I address it through the correct channels.

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

You are not a medic, or a guard so that is a moot point. I would avoid all blanket generalisations like that. I see some great kids who happen to have a parent who is an addict, I see the opposite too; but it does not apply to everyone.

As a profession I'm not paid to tell people to cop on, every the GPs I work with are not there for that.

If you are pulling smokes out of people hands and think this is ok because you are not a small lad, and because you believe you have the right to do this, you are enforcing you will on others, like it or not.

Sure if it was that simple I would be out of a job next week as I would just have to tell people to cop on.

yeah, therein lies the problem, you can't tell people to cop on, you just have to tell them its not their fault and all that. so do you just treat them and hope they don't come back into you, and what if they do, do you just repeat the process?

should i as a tax payer then have to keep forking over money to people who make problems like this for themselves. as i started on people who drink and smoke and all that during pregnancy, should i, or any tax payer have to pay for their own lack of control or willingness to put their child before them. if i did enforce my will as you call it, but ended up doing harm to someone, would i not get jailed, or at least in trouble?

why it then acceptable for someone to do it to a child through their own actions.

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

I have stated in a few posts that I see kids with parents who are addicts in good physical and psychological health. Believe me if I see abuse or nelgect I address it through the correct channels.

good man for that, but do you think the child is safe with the addict parent. do you also ever see that the child comes out with no trouble or any skewed morals or anything like that. and yes, before you say it i know many children from "happy" households also come out screwed up, lots of times.

mattjack

allibastor wrote: »

good man for that, but do you think the child is safe with the addict parent. do you also ever see that the child comes out with no trouble or any skewed morals or anything like that. and yes, before you say it i know many children from "happy" households also come out screwed up, lots of times.

Where did you work in addiction ?

allibastor

mattjack wrote: »

Where did you work in addiction ?

don't work in it now, but have done stints with the hanely center and a few places around. why so.

by the way, i am delighted to hear that your family were able to put their problems behind them, but still my point stands that sometimes bringing a life into the world when you as a person are unable to look after them or to look after yourself or make the necessary sacrifices to ensure they have the best possible start still stands. though very much so fair play to ye.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

good man for that, but do you think the child is safe with the addict parent. do you also ever see that the child comes out with no trouble or any skewed morals or anything like that. and yes, before you say it i know many children from "happy" households also come out screwed up, lots of times.

It depends on the parent, generalisations are of no use. DoI know children where a parent is addicted and the child is safe, then yes I do.

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

It depends on the parent, generalisations are of no use. DoI know children where a parent is addicted and the child is safe, then yes I do.

fair enough if that is the case, but is it something that happens regularly. or do you find children come out messed up from the experience.

would you agree also that the child is getting a decent enough start in life, in regards to educational attendance, sporting or other activities. do you feel that they are then shown how to be a socially well adjusted person by living in their environment.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

fair enough if that is the case, but is it something that happens regularly. or do you find children come out messed up from the experience.

would you agree also that the child is getting a decent enough start in life, in regards to educational attendance, sporting or other activities. do you feel that they are then shown how to be a socially well adjusted person by living in their environment.

That is back to generalisations, but yes I see kids that have that type of life, there is of course those who don't, but as you noted yourself this can happen where neither parent is a user. It is easy to see those where social services need to intervene, but plenty fly under the radar without being seen as addicts.

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

That is back to generalisations, but yes I see kids that have that type of life, there is of course those who don't, but as you noted yourself this can happen where neither parent is a user. It is easy to see those where social services need to intervene, but plenty fly under the radar without being seen as addicts.

oh i do agree with you fully, i once knew a woman, had a greta job, earned back in the day 30,00 pounds a year, who was a fully functioning alcoholic. it was not good to see how she treated her kids, she has also in the last decade slowly gotten worse to the point she is now homeless. she was offered help on numerous times but refused to take it or to learn from it.

it is a generalization, but it is not a mis-placed one. Many, many addicts have proven they are not able to deal with "normal" life, and if given the chance they will make poor parents. can you honestly say hand on heart that these kids all have a good up-bringing.

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

oh i do agree with you fully, i once knew a woman, had a greta job, earned back in the day 30,00 pounds a year, who was a fully functioning alcoholic. it was not good to see how she treated her kids, she has also in the last decade slowly gotten worse to the point she is now homeless. she was offered help on numerous times but refused to take it or to learn from it.

it is a generalization, but it is not a mis-placed one. Many, many addicts have proven they are not able to deal with "normal" life, and if given the chance they will make poor parents. can you honestly say hand on heart that these kids all have a good up-bringing.

I can't say that about any social grouping.

allibastor

Odysseus wrote: »

I can't say that about any social grouping.

why not. and to be fair, are they really a social grouping. its not like saying they are all from kerry of something. it is a term used to describe someone who is addicted to something.

and you must have a general idea of roughly how many addicts, or drunks have gone on to produce healthy well adjusted children

Odysseus

allibastor wrote: »

why not. and to be fair, are they really a social grouping. its not like saying they are all from kerry of something. it is a term used to describe someone who is addicted to something.

and you must have a general idea of roughly how many addicts, or drunks have gone on to produce healthy well adjusted children

As it too general a question, yes they are a social group, with sun groups within that.

I would have no interest in try to gather that information, but how would we get it. All we could get is something on those who are connected to public services, I know at my clinic more patient are not involved with social services than those who are.

Lastly what is the criteria for a well adjusted child? One that what highlight addiction as the sole cause of the maladjusted child.

Sea Filly

iguana wrote: »

Wrong. There are different levels of FAS and they are caused by different levels of alcohol consumption. We know for a fact that alcohol consumption can cause problems for the foetus, what we do not know is if there is a safe level to drink at. So if we don't know that it's ok to have a few drinks then of course it should be avoided in pregnancy. Just think about it logically. A four month old foetus is about the size of an onion, a couple of small glasses of wine might be just enough to make the mother feel a little relaxed but that's the entire body weight of the foetus. That's an awful lot for it to deal with.

And it now appears that men who's mother's drank lightly during their testicular production have significantly lower sperm counts than average. They mightn't have behavioural problems as a child but fertility problems as an adult are a pretty big deal to most people. There are other ways to achieve all of the benefits of a couple of glasses of wine. A handful of dried berries for the anti-oxidant effect and 45 minutes of yoga for the increased production of GABA, the neurochemical that makes us feel relaxed when we drink. And unlike a couple of drinks which may end up harming the pregnancy, yoga is known to benefit it in numerous ways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18527381