NC Penguin

They may have died prematurely due to health issues from birth?

Rushman

I dont think Rete did say it was OK. I think she was inferring that the risks may be exagerrated greatly.

Who was arguing against that?

Is'nt that the whole idea of a forum Miss Moderator?

Redlippie

Surely ADULTS should be left alone to make their own decisions in life without the nanny state or interfering nosy people getting in their face about it.

I don't like the entire smoking thing. Gave it up years ago. But I wouldn't sit in judgement of someone who does smoke.

Sally Redux

It's more about the birth weight I believe, low birthweight being linked to a number of problems, also smoking has been shown to damage both eggs and sperm, so ideally both parents should give up before conceiving.

Trixie_b

smoking is one of the high risk factors in cot death - Sudden Infant Death syndrome.

I agree that smoking during pregnancy can cause birth defects and low birth rates, but conceed that you could smoke through out pregnacy and have a healthy baby.

However smoking when you've got a baby in the house contributes greatly to the risk of SIDS. and I'm not talking about smoking over the baby, but smoking outside in the garden and coming back into the house is as risky.

If you can't stop or dramatically reduce smoking when you're growing a baby, what hopes are there of giving up when the baby is in the house?

Adnams

that may be and is the case, but the OP's question was whether she should say something. See my earlier post it is not her position to moralise. Its a super super nanny state gone mad and bad!

Steerpike

There are 1,001 things that can go wrong in a pregnancy that are beyond your control. Why not at least avoid the things you can control. My mum smoked when I was a kid and admitted she didn't know any better. I thought this behavior was a thing of the past.

Since healthcare gets brought up in most other posts, may as well do it here. I'm opposed to the current practice of insurance companies refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions. I think this is barbaric since the individual has no control over what conditions they have. But if an individual knowingly does something that is known to increase the risk of ill-health, I'd say it's not as unreasonable to refuse to cover someone for the specific consequences. i.e. - you smoke, you get lung cancer, you aren't covered. I don't actually like that idea, but I like it more than what's happening to some friends of mine - you get breast cancer, you can't get private insurance.

Steerpike

What about a drug-addicted pregnant mother? I believe the state (in both UK and US) can take certain forcible actions to control the mother's actions, can they not? Is that also unreasonable?

Adnams

Okay so if youre fat you cant get coverage for diabetes? Is that what youre saying? And by conclusion your argument would say that you ate too many burgers you now cant get health coverage for heart disease? Thats what they're doing to smokers and the logical conclusion is that you wont be able to get coverage for any health issue that you might have contributed to by life style choices.

Ray

She is popping at me .the usual different rules apply ....

yorkshirelass

I am by no means an expert on this, however I did work for a not for profit organization aimed at educating pregnant women about how to have a healthy pregnancy. In my experience, many women who smoked during their pregnancies were just not aware of the dangers (not only low birth weights, but also ear and respiratory infections, ADHD, SIDS etc) because their mum, aunt, grandmother etc etc smoked and they all turned out just fine! We had oxygen monitors to show just how much % they were getting to their baby. Very scary! It was my job to educate doctors about said statistics and let me tell you, they just did not make the time to hear about them nor did they in turn take the time to educate their patients. For heavy smokers who actually asked for help, they would simply tell them to call us for help. Part of my area we had a 25% rate of pregnant women who admitted to smoking during pregnancy. I believe the national average is around 7% if memory serves me correctly. I look at it that it's only 9 months of your life -- 9 months compared to your child's whole life. Surely she can quit for that amount of time to ensure her unborn child is getting 100% oxygen during its gestation period? Ok, getting off soapbox now!

Sally Redux

I think the OP may have been wanting to help the person rather than moralise though.

Sally Redux

It's good to know you were able to help them. I'm sure every mother would want to best for her baby and as you say not realise the possible harm they were doing.

fatbrit

You're an air traffic controller and you have heart disease? Piss off!
You're a teacher and you have a nervous breakdown? Piss off!
You ate McDonalds all your 20 years of life and now you've got diabetes? Piss off!
You worked in a cubicle farm with a keyboard and now you've got carpal tunnel? Piss off!

It's a slippery slope. I wouldn't even start on it if I were you!

SarahInTX

They're offering cash to the fatties to lose weight . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...publicservices

I reckon I'll gain a few pounds then get paid to lose it. What a deal!