Well, yes, seems likely

“Women do not lose their right to medical confidentiality simply because they are pregnant. Most women report drinking very little alcohol in pregnancy, if any at all, even if they may have drunk before a positive pregnancy test.”

Given the part alcohol plays in the existence of pregnancy all too often…..

12 thoughts on “Well, yes, seems likely”

  1. “Most women report drinking very little” find myself agreeing with the sentiment but disagreeing with the logic.

    1)how do you know if you didnt ask them and record the answer?
    2) what’s this most women thing? does that mean there’s a minority out there that we don’t have to bother about?

    The answer ostensibly to 1 is you can collect information then anonymise….but think about it… the research is done, it’s established the level a is safe as maisonettes, 2a has a 1.2% risk of x and 20a means both you and babe are going to be very star crossed indeed.

    at which point when do the bells get rung – down the line- when midwife, on her way in, has a quick shufty in the recycling bin. —- If you think its going to be 2a then better to nip this in the bud.

  2. But don’t the Germans, French and Irish drink all the ti … Oh, Feck It, just disproved my own argument about alcohol having no effect in creating murderous imbeciles.

    Better ban cannabis too, as that breeds stabby shitheads.

  3. They seem to have given up altogether on the consumer/service provider model of healthcare. Or rather reversed it. Hospitals empty of patients to protect the NHS. Doctors not seeing patients to protect doctors. The consumer is now being managed to produce the best outcomes for the service provider.
    Or has it always been like that & just become blatantly obvious.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Women do not lose their right to medical confidentiality simply because they are pregnant.

    No but in many jurisdictional medical confidentiality is limited by a direct threat to the health of yourself or someone else, or because of a threat to the public. If, for instance, you had cholera and you insisted on working as a short order chef.

    Given that drinking alcohol poses a direct threat to someone else, to whit, the foetus, women can reasonably expect doctors to turn nark. Or given the government does not give a shit about the unborn, more accurately, as drinking while pregnant imposes a small cost on the NHS through fetal birth abnormalities, the NHS will squeal.

  5. This suggests to me a wheeze. If you’re pregnant in a country with restrictive abortion laws and your man takes off, the way to get a late term abortion is to say you’ve been drinking heavily / are alcoholic.

  6. “Stakeholders who wish to participate in the consultation are able to do so until Sept 18 2020.”
    So you’ve all day tomorrow, stakeholders. Better get a move on.

  7. Stakeholders? They flatter themselves.

    ‘Identifying children at risk of disorders caused by alcohol intake during pregnancy’

    ‘Identifying children at risk’ sounds like a license to interfere. To invite themselves into your home.

    ‘depends on the accurate recording of the expectant mother’s drinking habits, Nice argues.’

    Which would then depend on the mother’s accurate answers, knowing that the Health Monster will label her child as at risk. Hence mothers will politely lie. Though they should tell them to FO.

    “no compelling research showing harm at lower levels of consumption”

    And all further research will be conducted using data obtained from women who are incentivized to lie.

    The government has no need to know if a child is ‘at risk.’ They should deal with realities, not potentialities.

    This is another example of why government shouldn’t be in the health care business.

  8. “Stakeholders? They flatter themselves.”

    The sort of stakeholders really needed in these times would also carry a well dried bundle of faggots, some paraffin & matches. Perhaps a short length of rope for security’s sake. Of course a band, popcorn, free beer & comfortable seating would also be appreciated

  9. “no compelling research showing harm at lower levels of consumption”

    In fact, this is probably wrong, too. It is more likely at “moderate levels of consumption,” as previous data probably involves pregnant mothers under reporting their consumption, even without the proposed new action.

    When it comes to science, self-reported, unverified data is considered unreliable.

    Self-reported, unverified data is at the heart of U.S. claims of obesity. Additionally, the “data” is adjusted. For reasons.

  10. A specialist in foetal alcohol syndrome was a golfing companion some time ago. He made four points:
    1. Zero consumption is obviously safest.
    2. Most women who drink have been drinking for up to a month or more after conception before they become aware that they are pregnant.
    3. No harm has been shown from low to moderate levels of consumption.
    4. Most of the children they see with obvious signs of the syndrome were born to severely alcoholic mothers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *