Is it wrong to judge pregnant women/people who willingly smoke around pregnant women?

partyguinness

Loveinapril wrote: »

I judge the pregnant women who congregate outside the entrance to the Rotunda smoking while I am attending appointments. I am pregnant on my second child and have a health condition that means more frequent visits to the hospital than normal. It infuriates me to have to walk through 10-15 people (usually all visibly pregnant women in dressing gowns) smoking at the door when I am attending appointments. Fair enough if they are choosing to put themselves and their babies at risk but there is no consideration for other pregnant women/ babies.

I have seen that when I am getting the bus to the airport. Nice last image to have of Dublin if you are a tourist- all the chav mothers and mothers to be in the dressing gowns smoking on the footpath.

I imagine the powers that be would love to do something about it but would rather not risk a riot.

Sheeps

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m having a fair bit of difficulty understanding this bit. Do you mean we shouldn’t condemn people who smoke around pregnant women?

Are you suggesting we shouldn’t condemn women who smoke while pregnant?

Of course we should, on both counts. It’s long been established that the chemicals ingested have negative effects on the development of the foetus.

To clarify, I think people who knowningly expose pregnant women to passive smoking are morally equivalent to those who smoke whilst pregnant, however the extreme feminism angle was that it was about a womans choice. These people thought it was repulsive that people would smoke around pregnant women, but if a woman who's choice it was to smoke will pregnant were to do so, that would be ok.

Springfields

is_that_so wrote: »

Had a flatmate once, who was in the same boat. The doctor got her down to 7 a day on the same grounds. Her kids turned out fine. People will judge regardless but the only ones who should have any input are family and medical professionals.

And I was sharing a ward in a maternity hosputal with a young girl who just had her baby who screamed incessantly from 6 hours after birth until she was discharged 2 days later... when a relative asked a nurse why the baby was so cross and agitated the nurse replied : nicotine withdrawal ! The mum wasn't there to hear it ..she was outside smoking... why would you risk it ?? And I know how difficult it is to give up...but I did so the minute I found I was expecting..I'll never forget that poor screaming baby...so yes I'll judge.

meeeeh

Springfields wrote: »

And I know how difficult it is to give up...but I did so the minute I found I was expecting..

If I judged by myself it's easy to stop smoking and only weak willed individuals find it hard.

Or maybe we shouldn't make assumptions that everyone is the same as ourselves.

SoundsRight

They should be given on-the-spot fines, similar to drink drivers.

El_Duderino 09

It's a parenting choice. I know a couple who have no books in the house. The child loves school and we bought him a book for his birthday which he reads every night. I think it would be better to get the child some books but that's up to the parents.

People have the free will and freedom to express their will to smoke or not during pregnancy. That doesn't mean both choices have equally good outcomes. But I don't know if I want to go around telling other parents what to do. Sounds very intrusive into people's personal lives. I dont think the government should really be that deep into people's personal life without really good reasons.

iamwhoiam

Springfields wrote: »

And I was sharing a ward in a maternity hosputal with a young girl who just had her baby who screamed incessantly from 6 hours after birth until she was discharged 2 days later... when a relative asked a nurse why the baby was so cross and agitated the nurse replied : nicotine withdrawal ! The mum wasn't there to hear it ..she was outside smoking... why would you risk it ?? And I know how difficult it is to give up...but I did so the minute I found I was expecting..I'll never forget that poor screaming baby...so yes I'll judge.

In all my years nursing and many of them in maternity I never heard a baby scream from nicotine withdrawal
It was more likely from narcotics causing neonatal abstinence syndrome

partyguinness

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a parenting choice. I dont think the government should really be that deep into people's personal life without really good reasons.

Why not?

If the health and welfare of an unborn child is not a 'really good reason' then what is a really good reason. Bear in mind the unborn child does not get any choice in the matter.

joe40

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a parenting choice. I know a couple who have no books in the house. The child loves school and we bought him a book for his birthday which he reads every night. I think it would be better to get the child some books but that's up to the parents.

People have the free will and freedom to express their will to smoke or not during pregnancy. That doesn't mean both choices have equally good outcomes. But I don't know if I want to go around telling other parents what to do. Sounds very intrusive into people's personal lives. I dont think the government should really be that deep into people's personal life without really good reasons.

But where do you draw the line, one person "neglect" is another's personal "parental right" In my opinion smoking or drinking during pregnancy is definitely harmful to a third person.
For me personal freedom and responsibility mean you have the right to do as you choose so long as those choices or actions are not harmfully impacting a third person.

You can drink as much as you want (personal choice) but don't expect society to tolerate you driving when drunk.

partyguinness

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In all my years nursing and many of them in maternity I never heard a baby scream from nicotine withdrawal
It was more likely from narcotics causing neonatal abstinence syndrome

Semantics aside is that not the same thing?

iamwhoiam

partyguinness wrote: »

Semantics aside is that not the same thing?

No it isnt .

partyguinness

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No it isnt .

What's the difference?

One eyed Jack

Sheeps wrote: »

To clarify, I think people who knowningly expose pregnant women to passive smoking are morally equivalent to those who smoke whilst pregnant, however the extreme feminism angle was that it was about a womans choice. These people thought it was repulsive that people would smoke around pregnant women, but if a woman who's choice it was to smoke will pregnant were to do so, that would be ok.

That’s kinda what I was getting from it alright, I just wasn’t sure.

It does show though that some people will go to any lengths to signal their virtues, even when it’s patently obvious the harm that is caused.

El_Duderino 09

joe40 wrote: »

But where do you draw the line, one person "neglect" is another's personal "parental right" In my opinion smoking or drinking during pregnancy is definitely harmful to a third person.
For me personal freedom and responsibility mean you have the right to do as you choose so long as those choices or actions are not harmfully impacting a third person.

You can drink as much as you want (personal choice) but don't expect society to tolerate you driving when drunk.

Yeah I see that. I think it's reaching too far into people's personal lives. Freedom includes freedom to make sun optimal decisions.

I think there are loads of other areas to worry about. Emotional neglect leads to lack.or empathy and criminality. Should we control how parents show affection? Benign neglect is a massive problem with parenting.

I think the current situation is grand. Make the information easily available so everyone knows it's harmful to smoke while pregnant and leave it up to people to choose whether to add mojenir not.

El_Duderino 09

joe40 wrote: »

But where do you draw the line, one person "neglect" is another's personal "parental right" In my opinion smoking or drinking during pregnancy is definitely harmful to a third person.
For me personal freedom and responsibility mean you have the right to do as you choose so long as those choices or actions are not harmfully impacting a third person.

You can drink as much as you want (personal choice) but don't expect society to tolerate you driving when drunk.

Yeah I see that. I think it's reaching too far into people's personal lives. Freedom includes freedom to make sun optimal decisions.

I think there are loads of other areas to worry about. Emotional neglect leads to lack.or empathy and criminality. Should we control how parents show affection? Benign neglect is a massive problem with parenting.

I think the current situation is grand. Make the information easily available so everyone knows it's harmful to smoke while pregnant and leave it up to people to choose whether to smoke or not

Wombatman

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s kinda what I was getting from it alright, I just wasn’t sure.

It does show though that some people will go to any lengths to signal their virtues, even when it’s patently obvious the harm that is caused.

Should we imprison pregnant women who smoke? Tie them up till they give birth? Everyone knows it causes harm but if you think you condemning women will suddenly stop them smoking you are either naive or stupid. So what's your solution except telling the pregnant women who smoke how despicable you find them?

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Should we imprison pregnant women who smoke? Tie them up till they give birth? Everyone knows it causes harm but if you think you condemning women will suddenly stop them smoking you are either naive or stupid. So what's your solution except telling the pregnant women who smoke how despicable you find them?

No I don’t think condemnation will make anyone suddenly stop smoking, it hasn’t worked for me, but what it has done is made me acknowledge that smoking is not only unhealthy for myself, it’s unhealthy for my child and anyone else who happens to be around me while I’m smoking. So I’ve taken appropriate care and precautions so as not to inflict that harm upon other people. I’ve changed both my attitude and my behaviour because I take other people into consideration.

That generally takes time to sink in, so so I expect anyone to suddenly change their attitudes and behaviours? No I don’t, but I would expect that they would eventually see the damage they’re doing to other people for their own selfish reasons.

joe40

meeeeh wrote: »

Should we imprison pregnant women who smoke? Tie them up till they give birth? Everyone knows it causes harm but if you think you condemning women will suddenly stop them smoking you are either naive or stupid. So what's your solution except telling the pregnant women who smoke how despicable you find them?

Are you saying that a pregnant woman that is choosing to take a child to full term, has no responsibility for actions that will harm the child.

I fully support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, if she wishes.

But if the choice is to take the baby to term then that will be a separate individual, and you do not have the right to carry out behaviour that will damage another individual.

Obviously smoking in moderation is one thing, but for a pregnant woman or anyone to wilfully engage in something that will harm another individual then that is despicable.

I would have sympathy in cases of real addiction, but to just say feck I'm going to have my nights out and smoke away regardless is just morally wrong.

By the way the vast, vast majority of pregnant women do not do that, they do everything in their power to ensure as healthy a pregnancy as possible.

But if a woman is pregnant, still going out partying every weekend, smoking 20 a day with no regard to the harm it is doing... yeah I will Judge.

Feisar

Zorya wrote: »

Ummmmmmm, I'm just gonna let that pass. Boards sometimes seems to me like the secret headquarters of some anti-natalist cult. Sorry, but I do not subscribe to your newsletter.

It's hardly fair to snip the line, it removes the context of what I was saying.

iamwhoiam

partyguinness wrote: »

What's the difference?

Are you asking me what the difference is between nicotine and narcotics ? Or what is your actual point ?
Babies born to narcotic addicted mothers have withdrawal symptoms including tremors , screaming , poor feeding , seizures etc
Babies born to smokers don't nor do they scream for two days in my experience

Wombatman

The father who smokes constantly around the wee baby getting off scot free here. Probably doing more damage.

meeeeh

joe40 wrote: »

Are you saying that a pregnant woman that is choosing to take a child to full term, has no responsibility for actions that will harm the child.

I fully support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, if she wishes.

But if the choice is to take the baby to term then that will be a separate individual, and you do not have the right to carry out behaviour that will damage another individual.

Obviously smoking in moderation is one thing, but for a pregnant woman or anyone to wilfully engage in something that will harm another individual then that is despicable.

I would have sympathy in cases of real addiction, but to just say feck I'm going to have my nights out and smoke away regardless is just morally wrong.

By the way the vast, vast majority of pregnant women do not do that, they do everything in their power to ensure as healthy a pregnancy as possible.

But if a woman is pregnant, still going out partying every weekend, smoking 20 a day with no regard to the harm it is doing... yeah I will Judge.

Wast majority of women are also overweight which is also harmful for child. Majority of women in Ireland also don't breastfeed which is also harmful. So where do you draw the line? You can judge all you want but what difference o you think you will make. More likely damage because they will start hiding the habit instead of getting help.

joe40

Wombatman wrote: »

The father who smokes constantly around the wee baby getting off scot free here. Probably doing more damage.

Equally wrong in my opinion, absolutely

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I don’t think condemnation will make anyone suddenly stop smoking, it hasn’t worked for me, but what it has done is made me acknowledge that smoking is not only unhealthy for myself, it’s unhealthy for my child and anyone else who happens to be around me while I’m smoking. So I’ve taken appropriate care and precautions so as not to inflict that harm upon other people. I’ve changed both my attitude and my behaviour because I take other people into consideration.

That generally takes time to sink in, so so I expect anyone to suddenly change their attitudes and behaviours? No I don’t, but I would expect that they would eventually see the damage they’re doing to other people for their own selfish reasons.

You mean you were not able to quit smoking despite knowing it's harmful but others who are not able to do what you are not able to do are selfish.

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

You mean you were not able to quit smoking despite knowing it's harmful but others who are not able to do what you are not able to do are selfish.

Am I pregnant?

Or what point are you trying to make?

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Am I pregnant?

Or what point are you trying to make?

That quitting smoking is not easy for some. You can't quit yet you expect others to just magically quit completely just because they are pregnant.

You are still smoking and advertising the habit which is harmful for everyone. It's likely you will cost more in healthcare and take away services from others and so on but it only bothers you when others do it.

Springfields

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In all my years nursing and many of them in maternity I never heard a baby scream from nicotine withdrawal
It was more likely from narcotics causing neonatal abstinence syndrome

So I'm making it up ? It was a midwife who said it so she could be wrong I guess ...

DEFTLEFTHAND

I remember Clapton saying that he found it easier to come off heroin than to stop smoking. He likened it to being told to stop eating.

It's a horrendous addiction, very few addicts can just stop at the drop of a hat.

iamwhoiam

Springfields wrote: »

So I'm making it up ? It was a midwife who said it so she could be wrong I guess ...

No never said you made it up . Maybe she said narcotics and not nicotine . Or maybe she was simply wrong
Either way she was breaching patients privacy in my opinion

joe40

meeeeh wrote: »

Wast majority of women are also overweight which is also harmful for child. Majority of women in Ireland also don't breastfeed which is also harmful. So where do you draw the line? You can judge all you want but what difference o you think you will make. More likely damage because they will start hiding the habit instead of getting help.

Absolutely no difference, I know that, I was just giving an honest answer.

All the things you mention are valid points, and health promotion is a difficult task. You are trying to balance individual rights with rights of others.

For me a pregnant woman and anyone around her should not do things which will harm the child to a significant extent, or incur a significant risk. It is just a moral issue even apart from legal or societal opinion.

It is probably the term "significant risk" that is important and this may differ for different people.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I think anyone drinking through pregnancy, smoking through pregnancy or taking non prescribed drugs through pregnancy are utter scumbags. No amount of photos and gushing about “mama to a perfect prince” when the child is born with wet brain, makes up for the selfish and disgusting choices made throughout the pregnancy. They get so offended when other people notice too!

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

That quitting smoking is not easy for some. You can't quit yet you expect others to just magically quit completely just because they are pregnant.

You are still smoking and advertising the habit which is harmful for everyone. It's likely you will cost more in healthcare and take away services from others and so on but it only bothers you when others do it.

Ahh right, ok you took me up completely wrong. I haven’t tried to quit, simply because I don’t want to quit, or rather I don’t want to quit badly enough that I would actually quit and stick to it. I don’t expect others to magically quit, and it’s not “just because” they’re pregnant either. Being pregnant is a big deal. I have the luxury by virtue of my biology of never having to be concerned with the prospect of being pregnant.

It’s true I’m still smoking and advertising the habit which is harmful for everyone, and I’m not proud of the fact, so I try to be more conscious and considerate of other people, which is why I don’t smoke around other people, nor would I smoke if I were pregnant. Now do you see the difference?

I’ll likely cost as much in healthcare and take away services as those pregnant women who choose to smoke, so if you’re going to point the finger at me, why wouldn’t you also point the finger at pregnant women who smoke and are costing as much in healthcare and their children will cost far more in healthcare and take away services from other people? It only bothers you when it’s other people too, which is precisely the point the OP was making.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

meeeeh wrote: »

That quitting smoking is not easy for some. You can't quit yet you expect others to just magically quit completely just because they are pregnant.

Or, here’s an outlandish idea, if they’re unwilling or unable to put the health of a newborn baby above their addiction, they’re not fit to be a parent.
Personal responsibility how are ye

Sheeps

Wombatman wrote: »

The father who smokes constantly around the wee baby getting off scot free here. Probably doing more damage.

In my original post I specifically made reference to those who expose children, or pregnant mothers to second hand smoke, so this includes them.

Foweva Awone

Brandon Massive Word wrote: »

I think anyone drinking through pregnancy, smoking through pregnancy or taking non prescribed drugs through pregnancy are utter scumbags. No amount of photos and gushing about “mama to a perfect prince” when the child is born with wet brain, makes up for the selfish and disgusting choices made throughout the pregnancy. They get so offended when other people notice too!

I don't think babies can be born with wet brain, maybe you're thinking of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? That's quite different.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I don't think babies can be born with wet brain, maybe you're thinking of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? That's quite different.

Well whatever it is from their selfish mothers pouring alcohol down their throat

3DataModem

Sheeps wrote: »

Do you think it's acceptable to scorn people who smoke during or around a pregnancy?

Your poll said "judge" but your comment here says "scorn"... two different things.

We certainly should be judging those... that capacity to judge someone doing something wrong is part of what makes us human. However, how we react to that is also important. Publicly scorning someone is - as posted above - not a very productive thing to do.

Sheeps

3DataModem wrote: »

Your poll said "judge" but your comment here says "scorn"... two different things.

We certainly should be judging those... that capacity to judge someone doing something wrong is part of what makes us human. However, how we react to that is also important. Publicly scorning someone is - as posted above - not a very productive thing to do.

There were a multitude of questions asked to encourage all variety of debate around the issue. The poll however is a separate question to the ones asked in the OP.

Zorya

Feisar wrote: »

It's hardly fair to snip the line, it removes the context of what I was saying.

Apologies, that was not my intention.

Zorya

Feisar wrote: »

God I nearly typed "as an expecting father"! The shame!

Regarding your precious cargo comment, realistically it's only precious to the parents and immediate family. At 7.6 billion and counting, individual heard members aren't precious.

Okay, but still, I have to disagree with the idea that individual herd members are not precious.
That they are is at the very basis of the idea of society.
Otherwise we should just revert to tribal warring clans, not giving a damn what happens to others.
Humans are not a herd, either. That is a term associated with animals.
The very reason we have laws and taxes and public health services and central government and education etc is that we believe individuals are all valuable and worth giving a fighting chance to.
It is not only the parents concerns really, when it comes to children. For example a child raised very poorly may go on to be violent or careless and wound innocent people, a child with fetal alcohol syndrome may require significant societal support for which other members of society pay, and so on. We are all connected.

ceadaoin.

joe40 wrote: »

Absolutely no difference, I know that, I was just giving an honest answer.

All the things you mention are valid points, and health promotion is a difficult task. You are trying to balance individual rights with rights of others.

For me a pregnant woman and anyone around her should not do things which will harm the child to a significant extent, or incur a significant risk. It is just a moral issue even apart from legal or societal opinion.

It is probably the term "significant risk" that is important and this may differ for different people.

The biggest cause of foetal injuries and death is car accidents. That's probably more of a significant risk to babies. Do you similarly judge pregnant women who use cars?

I think pregnant women should be given non judgmental support to quit smoking. It's an addiction after all, it's very hard to just stop. Lecturing and judging them will only result in them not seeking help

Subcomandante Marcos

I think women who smoke while pregnant and people who smoke in confined spaces with children or pregnant women (houses, cars, etc) are utter trash. It's borderline child abuse and extremely selfish, moronic behaviour.

If you give a single **** about the child's health you'd stop doing it. People are just assholes.

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

Wast majority of women are also overweight which is also harmful for child. Majority of women in Ireland also don't breastfeed which is also harmful. So where do you draw the line? You can judge all you want but what difference o you think you will make. More likely damage because they will start hiding the habit instead of getting help.

They already do it in secret.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47200606

You can judge it bad behaviour and Poor parenting because it is. That's all there is to it.

joe40

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The biggest cause of foetal injuries and death is car accidents. That's probably more of a significant risk to babies. Do you similarly judge pregnant women who use cars?

I think pregnant women should be given non judgmental support to quit smoking. It's an addiction after all, it's very hard to just stop. Lecturing and judging them will only result in them not seeking help

No, but it is not a fair comparison.

Are you saying a pregnant woman, and the people around her, have no moral obligation to the health and well being of their child pre natal

aloneforever99

It strikes me as very selfish.

I'm very much pro-choice, but if you do choose to continue with a pregnancy, I think you have an obligation to give up smoking and drastically cut down your drinking (like, a small glass of wine a week maybe).

El_Duderino 09

aloneforever99 wrote: »

It strikes me as very selfish.

I'm very much pro-choice, but if you do choose to continue with a pregnancy, I think you have an obligation to give up smoking and drastically cut down your drinking (like, a small glass of wine a week maybe).

I'd say it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.

aloneforever99

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd say it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.

Well, morals are completely personal. To my own moral standard, choosing to go through with a pregnancy and then immediately endangering the foetus is wrong.

Parenthood is, by all accounts, a lifelong series of sacrifices. If you can't make this one right at the beginning, it says something about the kind of parent you will be.

joe40

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd say it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.

I disagree, I think it is morally obligatory to not expose your child to unnecessary health risks, at any stage whether before birth or after.

I'm not saying it is always easy or that I'm not guilty myself at times but the obligation is still there.

That goes beyond smoking during pregnancy. As another poster said having a child involves lifelong sacrifices that we are obliged to make.

That is why I'm pro choice.
Don't have the child unless you are willing to be a parent. That doesn't mean perfection at all times but does involve a lot of effort

Igotadose

norabattie wrote: »

20 years ago when I got pregnant , one of the top doctors in Cork told me to cut down , but not to give up as it would cause more stress on the baby and me. So I smoked through both my pregnancies. There was less stigma back then too I guess.
Anyway my son was 8 lb 14 and my daughter was 7 lb 15.
Both nearly 6 foot tall now, healthy as horses with no side effects. Was I lucky - maybe.
But I don't think anyone has a right to judge in my opinion.

Wow Ireland has bad doctors. That doctor's sharing a myth. Anecdotes aren't data - your kids were fortunate. Most aren't. We the taxpayers foot the bill for these decisions - the extra time spent in hospital as an underweight baby costs.

Here's the Mayo clinic (actual doctors that do actual research) https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/smoking-and-pregnancy/art-20047021

Summary quote: "If you smoke, quitting is the best way to give your baby a healthy start."