Moderate drinking in early pregnancy branded 'safe'

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
Drinking a low or moderate level of alcohol in early pregnancy is not linked to developmental problems in five-year-olds, researchers say.

The Danish research, published in the BJOG journal, suggested one to eight drinks a week was not linked to harm.

In Denmark a standard drink has 12g of alcohol, compared with the UK's 7.9g.

UK pregnant women are advised not to drink, but experts say those who do should have no more than one or two units, once or twice a week.

Heavy drinking during pregnancy is known to be linked to miscarriage, foetal alcohol syndrome and low birth weight.

cont at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18506174
 
I'm in disagreement with the research.

If she's drinking during the first trimester is she all of a sudden going to stop at the second tri?

Why should she?

Has the media looked over the books carefully to see who exactly paid for this research?

Probably not. The media is still busy chasing the octomom. Jesus Christ our culture is ill.
 
To tell the truth, at first I didn't want to post this article.
I was afraid that some BLers might get the wrong idea.
But I didn't want to censor DiTM...
So I decided to post it, and hope that people interested will discuss it here.
I will argue that you should respect the life of your unborn baby, and stop using drugs (including - especially, even - alcohol) during pregnancy.

Whatever pleasure you may get from the drugs won't be worth the lifetime of regret in case something goes wrong.

Peace.
 
While I agree that safeguarding the development of your unborn child is vastly more important than having a good time, I think that our fears should be based upon sound science, and that we should be willing to accept the possibility that some of our fears, even the ones firmly entrenched into "common knowledge", might be misplaced. Much of the anti-drug crowd believes it is "common knowledge" that ANY drug use turn you into a raving lunatic, savagely chasing their next high no matter the cost. They turn a blind eye to research that even begins to suggest otherwise and dismiss it. The same thing seems to be happening in this thread.

I also agree that one study is not enough to refute the body of evidence we already have that says moderate alcohol consumption IS harmful in early pregnancy, but science gets it wrong all the time, even for long periods of time. That's just how science works. The moment you start ignoring evidence because it doesn't jive with what you already believe, you are no longer using science, you are using dogma. It is one thing to say "I still wouldn't do it" and that is totally each individual's choice. But people's personal feelings don't really do anything to refute data.

So many people seem to feel guilt over anything that is done purely for pleasure, but for the most part, drug users seem to have gotten over that guilt. But during pregnancy, it seems to resurface. Again, I still agree that safeguarding the baby is more important than having a good time. But when the science suggests that there is not a danger to the baby, the guilt appears to step in and say "No! You still shouldn't be doing that. It's naughty."

I shouldn't have to add this, but I probably do - I say all this as the father of a healthy 2 week old baby.
 
Drinking (and drugging) is like gambling, yeah sure you can "win" and the child comes out fine, but what's the stakes of losing? Isn't the best way of "not losing" is not to play at all? My 2 pfennigs.
 
scureto1 said:
Much of the anti-drug crowd believes it is "common knowledge" that ANY drug use turn you into a raving lunatic, savagely chasing their next high no matter the cost. They turn a blind eye to research that even begins to suggest otherwise and dismiss it. The same thing seems to be happening in this thread.
Click to expand...

Think so?
I don't see the same thing happening at all.
Like you, I believe that we should base our fears, and our approach, on science.
But people don't understand science very well, unless they are scientists.
They rely on the media to report about recent developments in science.
But the media, unlike science, is very biased.
Are you a scientist? I am a social scientist, but not a biologist, and I do not have the ability to judge the merits or trustworthiness of the original paper without relying on the media.
I do, however, have some knowledge of drugs, and know that alcohol is a very strong drug, with risks involved, especially for pregnant women.

Like you, I don't trust that this one study is sufficient to overturn all of the other evidence we have that alcohol is bad for a fetus. But the way that the media presented it - "slanted" it - makes it look like it is just fine.

So, my opinion is based on considering the full body of research, and weighing it against this one study (trying to account for media bias), and doing a risk-benefit analysis of drinking during pregnancy. What does the mother get from drinking? What does she risk? Is it really worth the risk to derive the benefits?

This is common sense and the most intelligent, wise, and informed analysis I can muster, given my lack of knowledge of biology.
It is most certainly not on turning a blind eye to research that I don't like.
 
The first time I saw this it was a Fox news story. It seems to be, and this is just my opinion, that it's "go ahead, drink when you are pregnant and please stay stupid enough for us to control you. Oh and stay away from the killer drug marijuana"

I am in no way a conspiracy guy, but everytime I see an article on how red wine everyday is healthy (as if it's not the grapes themselves) or you can drink when you are pregnant I suspect it's the same money that is given to keep marijuana illegal. Alcohol lobbyists doing their thing. With a nice side effect of keeping your average joe stupid on purpose. That is about as far as I'll go with that because even that I am not sure is fact, but I know there are others that truly believe that. I use to think that was nonsense, now I am not so sure. ??

It has been "common knowledge" that people planning on having a child really moderate everything they take in and pay more attention to taking in vitamins while eliminating toxins. Alcohol affects nerves more than any other drug. The shaking alcoholic is an example. I can't imagine what large amounts of drinking can do to a fetus.
 
@JackARoe: This study was done in Denmark, which has a lot more government oversight over that sort of corporate whoring. If not for that, I'd probably be agreeing with you.

@SlimVictor: Yes, I am a PhD student in chemistry. The lab I work in is a bio-organic lab so I'm pretty familiar with the research methods of the physical science side of things. I also absolutely agree with you that the media butchers the reporting of scientific findings most of the time. This article actually did a pretty good job on this study, though. They gave an overview of the methods, compared these results with existing results, and reported the results as the study reported them, i.e. "There were no differences in IQ test results in children whose mothers drank one to four units per week or five to eight units per week in pregnancy compared with children of abstaining mothers." rather than "The study found that drinking has no effect on the future IQ of a fetus."

"Patrick O'Brien, a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and a consultant obstetrician said the research was very well designed."

The article also included this line: "The RCOG advises that women abstain from alcohol while pregnant, but if they do decide to drink evidence suggests "one or two units, once or twice a week, is acceptable after 12 weeks of pregnancy"."

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone here to drink during a pregnancy. I am trying to convince everyone here that a study can't be discounted just because it goes against something that you have a strong 'gut' reaction to. As a social scientist, surely you recognize how strong the confirmation bias can be.
 
^ Absolutely. I spend much mental energy trying to avoid the confirmation bias.
And I appreciate your input here. What's more, you clearly are better fit to comprehend the science of the study than I am, based on your background, so I am really happy that you are piping in here.

But I still question the wisdom of giving a known neurotoxin to pregnant mothers based on the results of one study (that seems to go against a whole body of evidence), no matter how solid it seems.
For example, what if the fetuses are affected in ways that are not measurable later using IQ tests - which measure only a minuscule portion of the full intelligence of an individual, and do so in a culturally biased way?
 
I absolutely agree with questioning that wisdom - my argument is simply that the questioning of that wisdom should be scientific. Like you said before, most people don't understand science. When they come across evidence they disagree with (like this study), especially if it is something they feel strongly about or have a strong bias against, they tend to just discard it. I think that since alcohol has very little to no therapeutic benefit, it seems like I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing, so I'll explain a little background about why I get so into this.

My wife has pretty severe ADD that manifests with racing thoughts that cause her a lot of anxiety. It is very well-treated by Vyvanse (very-extended-release Adderall). I had a somewhat long discussion in another thread very similar to this one about amphetamine use during pregnancy. I saw the same effect going on there. Since amphetamine is an abusable and potentially fun drug, with potential to be harmful to the user, everyone assumed there must be lots of evidence demonstrating how harmful it is to a developing fetus. It was "common knowledge". But, the fact is, there are no studies whatsoever to demonstrate this, and in fact a lot of the studies that were intended to demonstrate this (in animals) demonstrated the opposite. Nevertheless, the belief that "it should be obvious that you shouldn't use amphetamine while pregnant" persists. We ended up erring on the side of caution and she didn't take her medicine, for the most part, so she just had to deal with it untreated. Could this have had negative effects on her health, and thus possibly the baby's as well? Maybe. The point is, for her, or for someone with a more severe ADD than hers, perhaps the risk of taking a questionable drug is outweighed by the risk of leaving a condition untreated.

Another example: I assume that most people wouldn't recommend that a pregnant women use opiates. However, it has been found that maintaining methadone treatment during pregnancy and then breastfeeding while still on the treatment is substantially safer for the developing fetus than trying to quit an opiate addiction during the pregnancy. So, in a case such as this, a study which found that methadone is 'safe' for pregnant and nursing mothers has results that end up benefiting the child. I suspect, however, that people's gut response upon first reading the study would be very similar to the responses in this thread.

So, the reason I argue this is to try and pry people's minds open. Basically I'm advocating for everyone to approach these things the way you mentioned before: a risk-benefit analysis, rather than a knee-jerk response to something they have a very one-sided understanding of.
 
scureto1 said:
So, in a case such as this, a study which found that methadone is 'safe' for pregnant and nursing mothers has results that end up benefiting the child. I suspect, however, that people's gut response upon first reading the study would be very similar to the responses in this thread.
Click to expand...

I think a gut response to that statement is but won't the baby suffer withdrawal? Logically it should. And while withdrawal may not be permanently harmful, the thought of even subjecting a baby to that would seem inhumane. I am someone that believes methadone is safe at many levels. I have never bought into the "rotting bones and teeth" stories, only because I know people on methadone since they have been back from Vietnam, at least over 35 years and have normal teeth and bones as well as a normal life. But I do have the initial gut response to subjecting that possible withdrawal to an unborn baby. That feeling is comes from deductive reasoning as well as simple gut feeling. BTW although trial and error through science is most important, a lot of discoveries start with a gut feeling, our own little internal GPS system so to speak that points to a way.

This is a most enjoyable post Scureto and Slim. Lot of good info thrown out there on different levels to ponder.
 
In lots of jails, methadone is pretty much only gauranteed to pregnant women. They also have opium tincture available to detox newborns. And to "subject a child" to that pain, in reality, is not very damaging physically (as the body is more fit by this time, though it will be uncomfortable for the baby) but emotionally and mentally the child will repress these memories along with the rest of their early childhood so long term mental trauma is mimimized. Not saying "go shoot dope" or "drink methadone" while pregnant, in effect its harm reduction: high possibility of pregnancy being termimated to prevent newborn detox, or high discomfort and greater chance for newborn survival?
 
In my mind there is no place for taking anything recreationally while pregnant. Why expose an unwilling person to a substance when they're most vulnerable. The term "safe" is misleading, it certainly isn't safe, but may just be a "low risk"

But the "low risk" is beyond the point, unless you have a damn good reason it's wrong to expose a non-willing party to drugs
 
ive also heard smoking cigarettes during the firts tri-mester is safe.
realy it all depends on who you ask
 
A friend of mine was pregnant and had a miscarriage due to her drinking in her first tri. Very devastating for her.

I don't care what "research shows", if I ever plan to have children I will make damn sure I'm clean and have been clean for a while before I try to conceive. Sure "mistakes" happen, but that's no way to justify drinking or drugs during pregnancy. If someone isn't ready to have a child and wants to keep drinking or using; use protection (preferably 2 forms..ex condom and the pill), your hand, or don't do it
 
Yeah I think you owe it to the child to not take any drugs while pregnant, even if it's something low risk, no drug use is 100% safe and a child deserves the best chance possible when it comes to starting their life.

The only exception would be when the mother is highly addictive to opioids and detoxing while pregnant would be riskier than keeping the mother on a stable maintenance dose then tapering the child after birth. Possibly the same for benzos, I'm not sure what the long term effects there are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top