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

iamwhoiam

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Alcoholism is considered a chronic brain disease https://www.alcohol.org/alcoholism/can-it-be-cured/

To my mind it intersects closely with mental health issues. I would put compulsive gambling (not fancying a flutter now and then), drug abuse and eating disorders in the same category, although I'm not 100% sure on that.

Yes anorexia nervosa and bulimia would be considered a mental health issue .

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

^ There is a chance yes. I never said otherwise. I just say we can not make that assumption for any particular case without better data.

By all means judge people or individuals. Just make sure you check your facts and assumptions before we do it.

Well, that’s completely unrealistic. You’ve never judged someone without having all the facts? Sure, Jan.

With regards to smoking mothers, it’s kinda like a ruling on a civil case. On balance, do you believe that is the one and only cigarette she smoked during the pregnancy? Eh... most likely not.

As for “sure one might be no harm”. The thing is, there is never likely to be a study produced on women who smoked only one cigarette during pregnancy. Trying to find a statistically significant sample size of participants would be an uphill struggle for one.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

You just skip the test appointment. I have a 75 years old father in law who avoids going to the doctor because they will tell him to stop smoking.

It's not that I don't think smoking in pregnancy isn't damaging but I don't believe telling women they are a disgrace or whatever will make one bit of positive difference.

If it was made compulsory, you’d probably have to take the test at the next appointment after the 12 week one if you purposefully avoid it. I’ve never been pregnant. I presume the 12 week appointment is important? Would many women skip out on it to avoid being flagged as a smoker?

Creol1 wrote: »

If smoking during pregnancy is acceptable, is thalidomide use also acceptable? Thalidomide did work for morning sickness, so if we are to accept that mothers have unlimited rights to do what they want regardless of the implications for the baby, thalidomide should be put back on the market.

And as far I know, not very much thalidomide had to be ingested for defects to manifest, which makes you wonder about the ‘just one fag/drink is no harm’ thing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, that’s completely unrealistic. You’ve never judged someone without having all the facts?

Not that I am aware of no. Or at least I have caught myself doing it and then copped myself on.

A good example of this is people parking in disabled locations who get out of their car and look fine. I would catch myself judging and then remind myself "Not all disabilities are visible". I realise I might not have all the facts. So I get over myself and move on.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

With regards to smoking mothers, it’s kinda like a ruling on a civil case. On balance, do you believe that is the one and only cigarette she smoked during the pregnancy? Eh... most likely not.

On balance I believe I simply do not know what an individual does or does not do in general just because I see them doing it or not doing it in a single given moment. I simply don't. And you likely don't either. More than this I am not saying.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As for “sure one might be no harm”. The thing is, there is never likely to be a study produced on women who smoked only one cigarette during pregnancy. Trying to find a statistically significant sample size of participants would be an uphill struggle for one.

Well no - such a study is not required. Just like we do not need studies on women who drink _one_ glass of wine during an entire pregnancy.

What we do need is studies with variable sample sizes and then we get a clearer idea where issues start to arise and where none arise. And certainly if the sample sizes we work with show no issue - then people smoking _less_ than those sample sizes are unlikely to have issues either now are they?

So why would you need a study of women who smoked only 1? If you have a study that shows no issues with a much larger number than 1 - then you can make extrapolations from there.

Alcohol is a great example of this. Studies showing any harm of drinking moderately and infrequently during pregnancy are between rare and non-existent. The strongest statement such studies come out with in general are along the lines of "We do not recommend drinking during pregnancy despite no findings it is harmful". They do not even come out recommending not to - they just do not recommend you do which is a pretty light conclusion really.

I would not recommend smoking during pregnancy and we should certainly judge negatively any women who do so regularly and heavily. If a woman is having a glass of wine and a ciggie of a Friday night throughout her pregnancy however - I certainly am not going to lose any sleep over it. My own heavily pregnant partner had two glasses of wine last night. she will likely have 1 maybe two next Friday too.

aloneforever99

Deleted User wrote: »

Not that I am aware of no. Or at least I have caught myself doing it and then copped myself on.

A good example of this is people parking in disabled locations who get out of their car and look fine. I would catch myself judging and then remind myself "Not all disabilities are visible". I realise I might not have all the facts. So I get over myself and move on.



On balance I believe I simply do not know what an individual does or does not do in general just because I see them doing it or not doing it in a single given moment. I simply don't. And you likely don't either. More than this I am not saying.



Well no - such a study is not required. Just like we do not need studies on women who drink _one_ glass of wine during an entire pregnancy.

What we do need is studies with variable sample sizes and then we get a clearer idea where issues start to arise and where none arise. And certainly if the sample sizes we work with show no issue - then people smoking _less_ than those sample sizes are unlikely to have issues either now are they?

So why would you need a study of women who smoked only 1? If you have a study that shows no issues with a much larger number than 1 - then you can make extrapolations from there.

Alcohol is a great example of this. Studies showing any harm of drinking moderately and infrequently during pregnancy are between rare and non-existent. The strongest statement such studies come out with in general are along the lines of "We do not recommend drinking during pregnancy despite no findings it is harmful". They do not even come out recommending not to - they just do not recommend you do which is a pretty light conclusion really.

I would not recommend smoking during pregnancy and we should certainly judge negatively any women who do so regularly and heavily. If a woman is having a glass of wine and a ciggie of a Friday night throughout her pregnancy however - I certainly am not going to lose any sleep over it. My own heavily pregnant partner had two glasses of wine last night. she will likely have 1 maybe two next Friday too.

But isn't it established that even one cigarette can cause cancer? I'm sure there was an anti-smoking campaign based on that a few years back. Alcohol can, in very small quantities, be close to harmless. One cigarette is not comparable to one drink.

crustyjuggler

Every day is judgement day in Ireland .

aloneforever99

aloneforever99 wrote: »

But isn't it established that even one cigarette can cause cancer?

Depends what you mean. Which cancer specifically for a start? Remember there is not only one and the ones most associated with smoking are likely the ones least associated with the fetus.

Further there is a method of classification that has confused the F out of the public before and will again.

Basically we classify carcinogens not by how carcinogenic they are but rather by our certainty that they _are_ in fact carcinogenic. This is why Bacon and cigarettes are in the same class "A" which caused a news paper furor some time ago. With a lot of "science journalists" who do not know the first thing about science writing that bacon is as carcinogenic as tobacco.

The chances that a single bacon sandwich or a single cigarette are likely to cause you any particular issue however is really very small. The chances that either will cross blood barriers and affects a fetus even less so.

I would suspect the stage of pregnancy someone is at will also have some influence. By the time a pregnancy is noticeably visible to someone passing on the street my suspicions would be that the potential effect of a single cigarette would be much much tinier than it already is that in earlier stages of the process. If any.