Ecstasy Use During Pregnancy May Harm Fetus: Study

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
US News, Health

February 28, 2012

With reader comments

TUESDAY, Feb. 28 (HealthDay News) -- Taking the hallucinogen ecstasy during pregnancy may harm the health of the fetus and lead to poorer motor control in infants, a new study suggests.

Researchers asked 96 British women about their substance-abuse history before and during pregnancy. The women were taking part in the University of East London Drugs and Infancy Study, which looks at recreational drug use among pregnant women. Most of the women reported taking a range of illegal drugs both before and during pregnancy.

Infant growth, motor control and brain development were assessed at birth and when babies were 4 months old.

Infants born to mothers who used ecstasy during pregnancy had worse motor control and poorer hand-eye coordination at 4 months than babies whose mothers didn't use the drug. Other problems among the ecstasy-exposed group included an impaired ability to balance their heads, sit up without support or roll from their back on to their side.
Click to expand...
"The study also found that ecstasy was associated with more male births, suggesting that the drug may impact "chemical signaling that determines a baby's gender."
Click to expand...

More...
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...asy-use-during-pregnancy-may-harm-fetus-study
 
I never would've guessed...doctors say that most drugs should not be used during pregnancy. I don't know much about medicine but I know that most illicit as well as licit drugs should be avoided as anything the mother consumes can affect the fetus.
 
Studies like this may seem like a "duh" factor, but they are still worthwhile. Sure, err on the side of caution is a good philosophy most of the time. But, what if, one day, MDMA and other drugs that we all assume should be avoided during pregnancy are finally recognized for their legitimate medicinal/psychological benefits? We should know, based on evidence, which ones are safe for pregnant women because a pregnant woman might actually need those drugs.

The "err on the side of caution" philosophy says that pregnant women shouldn't use opiates. But, thanks to evidence and research, we know how to (relatively) safely administer pain management drugs to pregnant women.

I hope no one goes all straw-man on me and saying I shouldn't support drug use during pregnancy.
 
I'm somewhat confident that there really isnt a legitimate reason to take MDMA while pregnant.
 
The study also found that ecstasy was associated with more male births, suggesting that the drug may impact "chemical signaling that determines a baby's gender.
Click to expand...

tl_gf_lenny_montana.jpg
 
seriously though, can you imagine if it were found out that a drug can influence the sex of your baby? There'd be Costco-like lines for that.
 
Amphetamines tend to be quite harmful to fetal development. It would very utterly perplexing if MDMA was found to be non-teratogenic.

ebola
 
Really? unbelievable....lmao

scureto1 said:
We should know, based on evidence, which ones are safe for pregnant women because a pregnant woman might actually need those drugs.
Click to expand...

Theres never gonna be a day when a pregnant woman needs MDMA.
 
Newbierock said:
Really? unbelievable....lmao



Theres never gonna be a day when a pregnant woman needs MDMA.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, to you believe MDMA to be a possible effective treatment for PTSD?

If so, do you believe women can get PTSD? Do you also believe that women with PTSD can become pregnant?

If your answer to all of those questions is yes, then why would you assume there would never a reason for a pregnant woman to need MDMA?

Think beyond the knee-jerk reaction for a moment. As an example - yes, opiates are not good to take while pregnant. However, pregnant women who are addicted to opiates are usually encouraged by their doctors to continue some sort of maintenance while pregnant because this is the safest route FOR THE CHILD. Not so that they can keep getting high and having a great time, they tell them to TAKE THE DRUGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD.

To relate this back to the MDMA/PTSD example, imagine a woman with severe enough PTSD that she suffers blackouts or periods where she is not in control of what she does. She could very easily injure herself in a way that could end up harming the child or killing it. If MDMA (or whatever the drug in question) was demonstrated to not be harmful to fetal development, and could also mitigate the risk of these blackouts....why, then, would you be opposed to it?

I just can't understand the hostility towards wanting scientific evidence before discounting the possibility of a type of treatment. Generally, the attitude on Bluelight is that drug use doesn't deserve to be stigmatized without evidence to support it. Yet when it comes to drugs and pregnancy, stigma gets to come back with or without evidence? Of course I agree that pregnant women should be more cautious about all drugs, but that doesn't mean that the possibility of their use should be ruled out for all eternity by decree of the moral police. It just means that we need studies EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE to determine whether they are okay or not.
 
I would have thought all the Phenethylamines, in particular Amphetamines would be somewhat teratogenic. I'd have thought most people wouldn't use such chemicals whilst pregnant, though there sure are some stupid people out there, so not so sure.

That said, I agree completely with Sureto above, making this kind of information public will hopefully reduce the incidence of pregnant mothers using the drug during pregnancy. In that sense, its a good thing.
 
my ex-girlfriend didn't know she was pregnant until like 4 or 5 months into it (stomach flat as a plank), and she was a motherfucking laboratory vessel. The study is referring to MDMA use early in the pregnancy (like even before sex is determined), so possibly before most girls know about it. I'm sure practically nobody intentionally rolls if they are aware of their pregnancy and intent on giving birth.
 
scureto1 said:
I'm curious, to you believe MDMA to be a possible effective treatment for PTSD?

If so, do you believe women can get PTSD? Do you also believe that women with PTSD can become pregnant?

If your answer to all of those questions is yes, then why would you assume there would never a reason for a pregnant woman to need MDMA?

Think beyond the knee-jerk reaction for a moment. As an example - yes, opiates are not good to take while pregnant. However, pregnant women who are addicted to opiates are usually encouraged by their doctors to continue some sort of maintenance while pregnant because this is the safest route FOR THE CHILD. Not so that they can keep getting high and having a great time, they tell them to TAKE THE DRUGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD.

To relate this back to the MDMA/PTSD example, imagine a woman with severe enough PTSD that she suffers blackouts or periods where she is not in control of what she does. She could very easily injure herself in a way that could end up harming the child or killing it. If MDMA (or whatever the drug in question) was demonstrated to not be harmful to fetal development, and could also mitigate the risk of these blackouts....why, then, would you be opposed to it?

I just can't understand the hostility towards wanting scientific evidence before discounting the possibility of a type of treatment. Generally, the attitude on Bluelight is that drug use doesn't deserve to be stigmatized without evidence to support it. Yet when it comes to drugs and pregnancy, stigma gets to come back with or without evidence? Of course I agree that pregnant women should be more cautious about all drugs, but that doesn't mean that the possibility of their use should be ruled out for all eternity by decree of the moral police. It just means that we need studies EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE to determine whether they are okay or not.
Click to expand...

It hilarious that all studies seem to be written to scare people away from trying any drug, unless a major pharm company can profit from it. Prescription drugs get recalled all the time and sometimes because of severe side effects.
 
scureto1 said:
I'm curious, to you believe MDMA to be a possible effective treatment for PTSD?

If so, do you believe women can get PTSD? Do you also believe that women with PTSD can become pregnant?

If your answer to all of those questions is yes, then why would you assume there would never a reason for a pregnant woman to need MDMA?

Think beyond the knee-jerk reaction for a moment. As an example - yes, opiates are not good to take while pregnant. However, pregnant women who are addicted to opiates are usually encouraged by their doctors to continue some sort of maintenance while pregnant because this is the safest route FOR THE CHILD. Not so that they can keep getting high and having a great time, they tell them to TAKE THE DRUGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD.

To relate this back to the MDMA/PTSD example, imagine a woman with severe enough PTSD that she suffers blackouts or periods where she is not in control of what she does. She could very easily injure herself in a way that could end up harming the child or killing it. If MDMA (or whatever the drug in question) was demonstrated to not be harmful to fetal development, and could also mitigate the risk of these blackouts....why, then, would you be opposed to it?

I just can't understand the hostility towards wanting scientific evidence before discounting the possibility of a type of treatment. Generally, the attitude on Bluelight is that drug use doesn't deserve to be stigmatized without evidence to support it. Yet when it comes to drugs and pregnancy, stigma gets to come back with or without evidence? Of course I agree that pregnant women should be more cautious about all drugs, but that doesn't mean that the possibility of their use should be ruled out for all eternity by decree of the moral police. It just means that we need studies EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE to determine whether they are okay or not.
Click to expand...

Your case for a pregnant woman legitimately taking MDMA is just too far fetched.
A pregnant woman going through that many PTSD symptoms needs more help than some MDMA therapy.
I think it's pretty obvious it would not be a good thing to consume when you have a baby inside of you.
 
It was once pretty obvious that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it and that laudanum was an excellent remedy for a hysterical wife. Just because a lot of people think a thing doesn't make it true. Much better to use measurable, reproducible evidence.
 
I understand your approach. But you can't actually have yourself convinced that a pregnant woman with PTSD should be taking MDMA at all. That would be fairly delusional. Why would they take something that elevates their BP, dehydrates them, and messes around with their brain chemistry when they're trying to take care of an unborn baby?
 
nsauce said:
who the hell eats ecstasy while they're pregnant!?
Click to expand...
ME! someone who didnt know they were pregnant till 4months gone! and i think thats a load of shit i think it does the opposite my little boy has adhd! like hes on ectasty himself. its a really sad thing that i deeply regret, wish i coluld of found out sooner that i was pregnant
 
Laika said:
I understand your approach. But you can't actually have yourself convinced that a pregnant woman with PTSD should be taking MDMA at all. That would be fairly delusional. Why would they take something that elevates their BP, dehydrates them, and messes around with their brain chemistry when they're trying to take care of an unborn baby?
Click to expand...

It isn't specifically that I'm arguing that a pregnant woman should be taking MDMA. I'm arguing against the prevailing attitude that this is a "Duh, I already knew that" issue. I'm arguing that all medical decisions should be based on scientific evidence, with controls and reproducible data, rather than a general feeling of "no, that's the bad stuff, keep it away from baby."

My statement about the pregnant woman with PTSD was an analogy, and it contained a big "IF".
"If MDMA (or whatever the drug in question) was demonstrated to not be harmful to fetal development..."
Click to expand...
It was not, in this case, but it was still worthwhile to do the study and will be worthwhile to do studies on additional drugs. There are certainly some out there that people assume would be harmful to a fetus but are, in fact, not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top