Victims In Utero

[geauxtohell]

Except with pregnant women's personal health rights in regards to their pregnancies. This would be barred from evidence, by Supreme Court ruling. Roe V. Wade.

I am not a lawyer, and don't play one on the internet, so maybe you are right. I have my suspicions though. If the results of a UA were not admissible, then there would be no point in involving child protective services since it would no be something the woman could be prosecuted for.

Only because it is drugs.. And only if the drugs are not prescribed to her. It is not illegal to have alcohol in one's system, at any stage of pregnancy, so this does not mandate suspicion of abuse or neglect.

I agree, with the exception that a woman that drinks during her pregnancy is neglecting her child if she wants to carry it to term.

If you claim this to be true across the board for UA tests and blood tests, then what about blood tests with aspirin in them, also??

I just said UA for illegal drugs.

For god's sake, its not fucking ABUSE or NEGLECT to take aspirin.

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

Just because the woman is pregnant does not make her a fucking petri dish for everyone to try to find some ridiculous reason to prosecute her for fucking neglect, over whatever she puts into her system, LEGALLY. Stop trying to ADD something to my argument that does not exist. The reporting of ANYONE is mandatory if they have illegal drugs in their system. That is because illegal drugs are ILLEGAL.

Right. I never said anything to the contrary. I never said it was illegal for a pregnant woman to have alcohol in her system. I just mentioned illegal drugs.

Its not a fucking child. And no doctor will get that opportunity, if she is an irresponsible druggie, the way you depict her to be.

I never depicted anyone in any way. I just stated a fact. Though, I do think you are irresponsible if you test positive for methamphetamine when you present for delivery.

Agreed, but lets just say that the woman eats a bagel every morning that happens to have poppy seeds on it. She will test positive for opiates. If she eats a lot of strawberries, or smokes Clove cigarettes, she will test positive for THC.

That's why there are intentionally high micron counts for positive tests on amphetamines, THC, and opiates.

This stuff is naturally occurring and is NOT conclusive that someone is a druggie or is being neglectful or abusive, in the first place.

I never said it did, just that it warranted a visit from social services, when I say warranted I am not necessarily agreeing with it. Just saying that is what happened.

Besides, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. That means that the prosecution must also prove that whatever problems happened to a stillborn fetus/ just born infant who died, did not occur from natural circumstances. Drug use and fetal alcohol syndrome are facades to facilitate legal actions against women based purely on circumstantial evidence. That is fucking bullshit.

Innocent if the woman is charged and tired. As for cause of death, that is why autopsies are performed. The same legal standard would apply here as in any other similar situation. I disagree with your last two statements. There is a duty to protest a fetus from potential abuse and that includes drug use. A positive UA is also not circumstantial evidence.

It isn't NEW. I never said it was, anyways. I was saying it is LIKE down's syndrome, in many ways. It is only recently that the cause of the SYMPTOMS of Down's were figured out. That took almost a hundred years. How many kids were wrongly diagnosed during that 100 years anyways..

Who knows, but I get you point. I must have misunderstood your original comments.

And yes the sites I gave you show that Fetal Alcohol syndrome is related to a thyroid dysfunction. How else do you think women who did not drink alcohol ended up having babies with FAS?

Misdiagnosis.

Christ!! FAS can happen from someone drinking non alcoholic drinks and eating regular food. Explain to me how you would prosecute women who are mothers to babies born with this condition, then. C'mon, you can do it.

In the same manner that any other case would be prosecuted. With witnesses, evidence, etc.

And YOU failed to see the big picture here, that hypothyroidism is not LIMITED to women who drink.

I never said it was. That would be an absurd statement. However, if a sober woman comes in and tests for a normal thyroid (and alcohol does mess with thyroid function) and then chronically drinks during pregnancy, there is no way for Drs. to know that she is (potentially) suppressing her thyroid.

Even if there is no link, it's beyond dispute that alchohol is harmful to fetuses.

So is Retin-A, prescription narcotics, and a lot of other drugs. I don't see why this is an issue. The general concept is for the mother to avoid doing things that harm her fetus. Most mothers would want to do that.

Untreated hypothyroidism can cause serious problems for an unborn child, so many experts recommend that all pregnant women be tested for thyroid function during the pregnancy.

Yeah, "recommend" is a nice way of saying, "your physician is a bonehead and you should sue his ass if he doesn't do this".

As soon as fetus rights begin to trump women's rights to privacy and freedom, using this bullshit excuse of a condition, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, as a means to incarcerate them, I will be on y'all's asses for not forcing all pregnant women to get their thyroid tested as early as is reasonably possible, as well.

Don't misrepresent me. I am pro-choice. I am also anti-doing-things-to-harm-an-otherwise-health-baby.

As far as I know, thyroid tests are a standard of care, just as are starting prenatal vitamins and folate.

Physicians aren't prosecuted for breaching a standard of care, but they are sued, etc.

This is GOING to happen. Fetuses do not ALL have FAS, even if they have the same symptoms. Not all kids diagnosed with ADHD have that, either, even if they were diagnosed and show the symptoms.

Agreed. I never claimed that physicians were perfect.

Stop being an asshat, and take a look around you.

Now that's not very nice.

 

[Samson]

I agree but fetal alcohol syndrome and heroin addiction can be established at the time of birth. Should the babies be taken away permanently? Should the mother face ANY consequences short of getting "treatment" which is often not effective?

Shouldn't ANY child be taken away permanently if they've been abused?

No.

One size fits all punishments are never a good idea.

Also it's possible for people to become not abusive.

Yes, This is on spot.

Should they? Absolutely. Problem - no consensus on what is considered abuse. Some here feel using drugs during pregnancy is abuse. Some feel it isn't. Some think spanking is. Some think it isn't.

Regardless of the fact that abuse might have taken place during pregnancy, isn't taking illegal drugs...ILLEGAL? Aren't these people already prosecuted?

I see no reason to change the status quo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Source or admit you're making shit up.

Have I mentioned how irritating "cite your source" crybabies are?

Taking a young life often means lesser sentence

Judge sentences Piscataway woman to 15 years for drowning 9-month-old daughter | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com

It's often necessary to demand that leftists cite their sources to get them to quit blathering nonsense and expecting the rest of us to just accept it as the grounds for debate. Unfortunately, the lesson they take away is never that they should base their arguments on facts. It's always that "cite your source!" is a way to halt debates, since that's what happens to them. Kind of like the lesson they learned from Bill Clinton is that "liar" is an insult meaning "I don't like you." ::sigh::

 

[JD_2B]

Except with pregnant women's personal health rights in regards to their pregnancies. This would be barred from evidence, by Supreme Court ruling. Roe V. Wade.

I am not a lawyer, and don't play one on the internet, so maybe you are right. I have my suspicions though. If the results of a UA were not admissible, then there would be no point in involving child protective services since it would no be something the woman could be prosecuted for.

Only if she is a mother. Not just because she is pregnant. Also, simply having drugs in one's system is not necessarily a sign of suspected abuse or neglect towards the children, anyways. With a pregnant woman, it is just plain stupid to think that CPS would come along and cuff her and book her, just because she had drugs or alcohol in her system. Do you really think that is how it works?? Jesus if they did this, then they could call CPS and have her booked on negligence charges just for being dehydrated, or being bulemic, or drinking caffeine, or smoking cigarettes. Get REAL. A fetus is NOT a person. It IS helpless, completely helpless, as helpless as the woman is about how her body works, and no matter how much you wish for it, no guardian ad litem is going to be able to come along and rush to a fetus' aid, because it IS A FETUS. It is not a person. Do you understand that? Do you understand that ALL of this is just ABSOLUTE insanity?? I mean, REALLY.

Only because it is drugs.. And only if the drugs are not prescribed to her. It is not illegal to have alcohol in one's system, at any stage of pregnancy, so this does not mandate suspicion of abuse or neglect.

I agree, with the exception that a woman that drinks during her pregnancy is neglecting her child if she wants to carry it to term.

So if a woman wants to carry to term, she should go to jail for having a glass of fucking wine??
Get fucking REAL.

I just said UA for illegal drugs.

Then learn to be consistent, please.

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

I am just being totally consistent, a far cry from what you preach. You say I am being obtuse simply because you cant come to terms with the facts.

Right. I never said anything to the contrary. I never said it was illegal for a pregnant woman to have alcohol in her system. I just mentioned illegal drugs.

Yeah bullshit, you JUST said, like ten seconds before you posted that last comment, that a woman who wants to carry a baby to term should go to jail for neglect all because she had a glass of wine. PLEASE be consistent.

I never depicted anyone in any way. I just stated a fact. Though, I do think you are irresponsible if you test positive for methamphetamine when you present for delivery.

Is it irresponsible for someone to move into a home that they did not know used to be used as a meth cook's house?? That meth still gets all over them, and into their system. There are these little things called reasonable doubt that you must keep in mind here. She may have even been IN a house that cooked meth, and not known it, even, that SAME DAY. TESTING positive for something does not equate to someone knowingly using it!!! People get into CARS where the TRUNK is a mobile meth lab. You don't know the first fucking thing about meth, I guess. Meth is fucking EVERYWHERE. A house that WAS a meth lab, cannot be COMPLETELY cleaned, even after the county spends 20-50 grand on the job. Plus, all those meth lab cars and STUFF that was cleaned out, and burned, creates a haze of meth all over everything it burned with. Its some MAJORLY SERIOUS SHIT.
Consider moving into a home, and the possibility that someone out of the 10% of the country that is gay having lived there before you bought it.

Consider THIS then...
Results from the 2008 NSDUH: National Findings, SAMHSA, OAS

"Rates of past month illicit drug use varied with age. Through the adolescent years from 12 to 17, the rates of current illicit drug use in 2008 increased from 3.3 percent at ages 12 or 13 to 8.6 percent at ages 14 or 15 to 15.2 percent at ages 16 or 17 (Figure 2.4). The highest rate was among persons aged 18 to 20 (21.5 percent). The rate was 18.4 percent among those aged 21 to 25, and it was 13.0 percent among those aged 26 to 29. Among persons aged 65 or older, the rate was 1.0 percent."

So, you buy a house or rent one after someone who was 19 rented it before, and you have a higher than 1 in 5 chance that it used to belong to an illicit drug user. That means that there could even still be drugs in the house, embedded in the walls, just waiting to fuck your ass up. Sad but true.

That's why there are intentionally high micron counts for positive tests on amphetamines, THC, and opiates.

SO??? If the shit being in your system suddenly makes you a child neglecting criminal, it doesn't MATTER how "trace" the amounts are, now does it???

I never said it did, just that it warranted a visit from social services, when I say warranted I am not necessarily agreeing with it. Just saying that is what happened.

OK thats cool.. But before you said that a woman who had a drink knowing she was pregnant, who intended to bring it to term, should be faced with neglect charges. Can you please be consistent here, or is this just all about scaring the shit out of women for you?

Innocent if the woman is charged and tired. As for cause of death, that is why autopsies are performed. The same legal standard would apply here as in any other similar situation. I disagree with your last two statements. There is a duty to protest a fetus from potential abuse and that includes drug use. A positive UA is also not circumstantial evidence.

Yes it is. As a prosecutor, have to prove that the fetus was not stillborn by natural causes. All a woman has to do is show that it could have been natural, and boom she has a reasonable doubt. She might have an aunt, or a sister, or a mom who had a miscarriage or stillbirth before.. They are REALLY quite common, you know. You market to the jury the woman's apparent drug habit, and I will market her frequent visits with some neighbors who are new to the neighborhood, how often she sits on a public transit bus or taxi, etc, the smell of cat urine in the new apartment she just rented out, and/or I will find someone in her family who had a miscarriage. Drugs being PRESENT do not indicate that the woman is at all negligent for having them in her system, or that she had any knowledge or reason to know that they would get there.
Fail.



Who knows, but I get you point. I must have misunderstood your original comments.

Misdiagnosis.

So, you say the only way a woman's baby can be found to have fetal alcohol syndrome is by a misdiagnosis, eh? How do you figure? The same symptoms are being diagnosed. The SAME. The only DIFFERENCE is that the woman had a drink at some point, so they immediately disregard their knowledge of hypothyroidism, and move straight to FAS, especially if they consider themselves "pro life", AND publish studies claiming that the alcohol goes straight to the fetus through the placenta, which causes it. Lying Bastards..

FAS symptoms:
Symptoms:
Small eyes, very thin upper lip and a short turned up nose
Heart defects
Deformity of joints, limbs and fingers
Delayed physical growth before birth and after birth
Vision difficulties
Hearing difficulties
Small head circumference
Small brain size (microcephaly)
Mental retardation
Delayed development


Compare to hypothyroidism in adults.. And I maybe should have posted this, in addition, before, because it is on the same page as the other one..

Drinking May Alter Thyroid Function

Despite the efforts of doctors and even warning labels on liquor bottles, the rate of FAS has not fallen in the 29 years since it was first defined, so medical researchers have strived to find a way to block the damage by learning how alcohol harms the fetus.

One important clue is the similarity of birth defects in FAS babies and those born to mothers who suffer a shortage of thyroid hormone, which is important for fetal development.

In both conditions, babies suffer damage to the hippocampus and cerebellum.

"From a behavioural standpoint, children born to hypothyroid mothers score less well on intelligence, attention, language, reading ability and school performance measures," said Timothy Cudd, professor of physiology at Texas A&M University and lead author of the study.

"From an anatomical perspective, these deficiencies are similar to those in children with [FAS]."

To determine whether alcohol caused thyroid hormone levels to fall, the Texas researchers gave pregnant sheep doses of alcohol through catheters starting at 109 days of gestation. Since sheep give birth at 145 days, this was the equivalent of the third trimester of human pregnancy.

The sheep got doses of alcohol ranging from 0.75 to 1.75 grams per kilogram of body weight for three days to mimic a pattern of binge drinking. At the higher dose, that's the equivalent of about eight shots of whisky a day in a pregnant woman of average size, and 3.5 shots at the lowest dose.

Next, they collected blood samples from the mother and the fetal lamb. At higher doses, the alcohol "resulted in altered thyroid function in both the mother and the fetus," Dr. Cudd said.

In other words, in EITHER case, all the woman NEEDS is SYNTHROID, a synthetic thyroid replacement therapy regimen.

All that happens to the thyroid with regards to drinking, is that it causes the thyroid to not produce as much. Doctors should not be fucking RETARDS and NOT prescribe this to people who occassionally drink, or drink once a week. They can be given even a low dose regimen, to offset the alcohol's effects.

Again, if a woman is smarter than the fucking retarded doc, then she can easily request this, and he will sleep well at night knowing he is doing his job properly. If the doctor gets the health history and does not prescribe a little synthroid for an alcoholic, then he could be negligent, in light of all this recent research that is peer reviewed in medical journals.

Christ!! FAS can happen from someone drinking non alcoholic drinks and eating regular food. Explain to me how you would prosecute women who are mothers to babies born with this condition, then. C'mon, you can do it.

In the same manner that any other case would be prosecuted. With witnesses, evidence, etc.

I would bring the doctor himself in, for a little chat, then. I have enough evidence to take his sorry ass down for neglecting my pregnant client. LOL!
(I really do want to be a trial lawyer.. I am just getting TIRED of talking about fetuses and how they must be people all because so and so says this or that, and not having anyone around who is capable of reading a little further into this stuff. Nothing personal, really.. I haven't talked to you for long enough to call you a dumbass for real yet. So far, you seem okay.)

I never said it was. That would be an absurd statement. However, if a sober woman comes in and tests for a normal thyroid (and alcohol does mess with thyroid function) and then chronically drinks during pregnancy, there is no way for Drs. to know that she is (potentially) suppressing her thyroid.

Except that they could let her know that if she wants to drink during her pregnancy, then she needs to let him know first, so that he can prescribe some synthroid. This whole argument of yours dangles from the shred of hope that her first doctors visit was the only time the two ever talked, or went over her present diet and alcohol intake, etc. Plus, any obstetrician worth his salt would probably make up a few signs, and send out postcards and stuff warning women about FAS, and letting them in on the secret of synthroid. =)

Even if there is no link, it's beyond dispute that alchohol is harmful to fetuses.

I gave a link.. Enjoy.

So is Retin-A, prescription narcotics, and a lot of other drugs. I don't see why this is an issue. The general concept is for the mother to avoid doing things that harm her fetus. Most mothers would want to do that.

How do you PROVE that she TOOK DRUGS?????? If she is not in possession, then she cant be charged with a crime!!!

Yeah, "recommend" is a nice way of saying, "your physician is a bonehead and you should sue his ass if he doesn't do this".

My point EXACTLY. Civil court. Not criminal. Thanks. You are finally getting it.

Don't misrepresent me. I am pro-choice. I am also anti-doing-things-to-harm-an-otherwise-health-baby.

Sorry you don't come across as pro choice, when all you seem to be arguing for is the imprisonment of women doing with their bodies as they choose, just because they are pregnant, and to you that pregnancy status somehow makes things different. ???

As far as I know, thyroid tests are a standard of care, just as are starting prenatal vitamins and folate.

It is not all about thyroid tests, though. It is about getting a health history, and reviewing the files. And it is about many women not having affordable access to prenatal care, in the first place.

Physicians aren't prosecuted for breaching a standard of care, but they are sued, etc.

Well, not usually, anyways.. and women who are pregnant should also not be prosecuted for breaching a standard of care, either. The only standard of care a woman has is to herself, and her life, not something that she has little control over, like having a bad doctor who is pro life, and hates women so much that they want all those "bitches and hos" in jail, just to avoid a fucking malpractice suit. Attorneys can be VERY helpful in cases like these..

Agreed. I never claimed that physicians were perfect.

But you apparently think that pregnant women should suddenly be expected to be perfect, when physicians with 8+ years of medical experience, and however many years in the field are not held to the same expectations of perfection in care?? Come on..

Now that's not very nice.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I just want you to look at the big picture, is all. Please forgive me. I cuss alot, too. Not allowed to cuss out loud, new year's resolution, so I am letting it out on the board members. Just bypass any cussing I do, please.. lol.. It is hopefully going to remain only temporarily, as I am working hard at improving LOSING the garbageish words from my oral skills. Again, I didnt mean it.. Sorry.

 

[Luissa]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsVAvWL1tVQ&feature=fvw[/ame]

 

[JD_2B]

LMAO!!! That song sounds like shit.. Sounds like a cat that just got hit by a car...

Besides, the lyrics to this song are completely retarded, and they only really make sense in the aspect that they fall in line with Kurt Cobain wishing he had never been born, because he was FUCKING SUICIDAL, after being strung out on hallucinogens and other drugs, for so long.

Gallons Of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through The Strip

Album: In Utero: The Pachyderm Sessions
Time: 7:33

It hurts when you have to press that dull little thing
that you're only supposed to use once and then discard.
Where do you put it? In the garbage can, my honest friend.

The "dull little thing" is probably a pregnancy test, by a girlfriend, with a personal note of feeling unwanted, or not thinking he would be a good dad.

Kurt's problems in his childhood were in regards to having an emotionally unavailable father, who moved out and dedicated his time and energy to a new family, when his mom filed for divorce, for his being available to everyone but the family he made. That is when he started doing drugs. His mom loved him, and went to the ends of the earth for him, including eating all his pot, to try to get him to quit smoking weed. Later, when he did not quit this, she kicked him out of the house (he didn't have a job, so who knows if Kurt was stealing her money to support his habit)- which is the best thing a mother can do in that situation.

My shyness, pet her flow.
She's only been five months late,
even though we haven't had sex for a week.

And now, why won't my girl fuck me? Is she cheating on me, too? Is this even MY baby? No wonder my dad didn't stay around so long.. These are comments on Kirk's childhood, as it related to his present relationships and emotional status.

A meal a day, a meal, I say.
And my heart's made my....

Reminding himself to EAT. His heart is broken, or something negative like that and he doesnt understand how he could be like his father, at all. He doesn't LIKE himself. He hates himself for feeling this way.

Somebody else already used the word aurora borealis.

He wants to go to heaven. He doesn't use the word heaven, but that is the light in the sky he wants.. He just wants to die, really.

She was tied up in chains, and Sam had helped her in the freezer.
She's only five weeks late,
and I haven't had a date forever...
ever...ever...forever!

This is most likely a homicidal fantasy about killing his girlfriend. The reference to Sam, is like "son of sam", who would eat his victims flesh and store limbs in the freezer. He was an active serial killer in the mid 70s. Again, this is relating to him wishing he was dead, even though the reference is to the past, and likely his mother, invariably for divorcing his dad, which was when his emotional state went from depressed and feeling unloved to using drugs, and being more depressed. It was a cycle of depression, spiraling downward until he finally killed himself.

Wish I had more...more opportunity,
more chances to remember some things
so I couldn't have so much pressure on my...
on my...on my, um...ah, on my...um...um...head.

He wishes he didn't feel this way.. He hoped for more happy memories with his parents and family, so that his life wouldn't have gone down the drains, and he wouldnt be contemplating suicide, as he was probably planning on doing such a thing at this stage. September 13, 1993, was when this, the final record was released.. although it was recorded in February of that year. Kurt killed himself April 8, 1994. Kurt was screaming for help, in this album.. Help that he never got. Poor guy. The whole story of the life and death of Kurt Cobain is just incredibly devastating.

We'd have so much more diversity,
and so much more input, so much more creative flow,
if we had someone in school, a (GIT)...

GIT...geeks...in...town.

Kurt having one of his manic moments.. The point to the lyric was planned, though. He dropped out of high school. He wished he was more of a "normal" person, with a better head on his shoulders, to deal with all the shit he was going through.. Better people around him, who he could get advice from, without feeling like a punk/ weak for asking.

Ha!...Come on, Dave, think of one...
Girls In Trouble
It should be GIC, geeks with Charvels
No, GWC
Fuck, man, this is a waste of time!

And this was where the manic stage comes in. Manic for Kurt was not manic for a traditional manic depressive person, but for Kurt, who had used up almost all of his dopamine, this was actual happiness/ Giddiness. That is why this shit is so fuckin sad to me. I can laugh til I cry all day long, some days. I am the happiest, giddiest person my friends and family know. I can't believe someone could only ever feel happiness in such a miniscule dose like Kurt did.

(laughs) One more solo? Yeahhhhhhhhh! Yeaaaahhhhh!
You're personally responsible for...
the entire strip...to be washed away...
cleansed...as if gallons of, um, rubbing alcohol
flowed through the strip and were set on fire.
It didn't just singe the hair, it made it straight.

This is so obscure.. But I hear the word "cleansed", and I believe that is what Kurt wanted to have happen to him. Even if fire and destruction was the only way to be cleansed, that was his ultimate goal, in his final days. To be washed clean of his sins, his hate, his love, his hope.. Everything. He wanted a new life. A straight life. A good life. He didn't have one of those things in his life. =(

And then Perry Ellis came along with his broom,
and his...silk...
and he...he erected a beautiful city...
a city of stars.

Why use the name Perry Ellis, lol.. A designer, hahaha- I don't know- but I don't think Kurt had any real concept of God, besides the generally understood knowledge that God resurrects us and brings us to heaven to hang out with him. God is who Perry Ellis is in this verse. The broom, to clean up the mess. Stars are light sources, so I think the city of stars is like a city of light. A beautiful city of light, complete with fine fabric to wear (like wearing white robes on judgment day)..

Really a sad song. Shame nobody helped him, in his 11th hour.

 

[geauxtohell]

Only if she is a mother. Not just because she is pregnant. Also, simply having drugs in one's system is not necessarily a sign of suspected abuse or neglect towards the children, anyways. With a pregnant woman, it is just plain stupid to think that CPS would come along and cuff her and book her, just because she had drugs or alcohol in her system. Do you really think that is how it works?? Jesus if they did this, then they could call CPS and have her booked on negligence charges just for being dehydrated, or being bulemic, or drinking caffeine, or smoking cigarettes. Get REAL. A fetus is NOT a person. It IS helpless, completely helpless, as helpless as the woman is about how her body works, and no matter how much you wish for it, no guardian ad litem is going to be able to come along and rush to a fetus' aid, because it IS A FETUS. It is not a person. Do you understand that? Do you understand that ALL of this is just ABSOLUTE insanity?? I mean, REALLY.

I am just talking about pregnant women, and I am just relaying what I witnessed on a labor and delivery rotation at a hospital. The issue is pregnant woman. If the physicians did a UA and the expectant mother came up hot for drugs, they got "hot lined" and protective services were involved. The mother obviously wasn't handcuffed, the issue was what would happen to the child after it was delivered. In most instances it was just counseling, but in at least one, the baby was taken from the mother to protect it. There were other circumstances involved in that as well. That was my experience with how it worked in "the real world".

As for all the other things you mentioned, only a UA was relevant. You could tell a mother had smoked during her pregnancy by looking at the placenta, but that didn't warrant involving protective services.

The issue is the potential harm to the developing fetus. I certainly don't think that alcohol (and even MJ) use postpartum implies that the mother is negligent.

So if a woman wants to carry to term, she should go to jail for having a glass of fucking wine??
Get fucking REAL.

I never said that.

Yeah bullshit, you JUST said, like ten seconds before you posted that last comment, that a woman who wants to carry a baby to term should go to jail for neglect all because she had a glass of wine. PLEASE be consistent.

No, I never said that. That's the third time you've told me to be consistent for something I never said and don't believe.

Is it irresponsible for someone to move into a home that they did not know used to be used as a meth cook's house?? That meth still gets all over them, and into their system. There are these little things called reasonable doubt that you must keep in mind here. She may have even been IN a house that cooked meth, and not known it, even, that SAME DAY. TESTING positive for something does not equate to someone knowingly using it!!! People get into CARS where the TRUNK is a mobile meth lab. You don't know the first fucking thing about meth, I guess. Meth is fucking EVERYWHERE. A house that WAS a meth lab, cannot be COMPLETELY cleaned, even after the county spends 20-50 grand on the job. Plus, all those meth lab cars and STUFF that was cleaned out, and burned, creates a haze of meth all over everything it burned with. Its some MAJORLY SERIOUS SHIT.

That's lame. You were in the military. You know (or should know) how the UA works. Your body makes endogenous THC. That means it is physically impossible to score a "0" on a UA. That is why their is a micron count. For THC say is 1000 parts per million. If your count is 999 parts per million than you are "negative". If it's 1001 parts per million than you are positive. By the military's own test, second hand MJ smoke shouldn't yield a positive hit. The micron count is set intentionally high so that a positive result means you have to had smoked MJ (and fairly recently). It's the same with Meth and Coke (only a person would have had to smoke them even more recently since the body metabolizes them so quickly).

Consider moving into a home, and the possibility that someone out of the 10% of the country that is gay having lived there before you bought it.

What does that have to do with anything? I could care less about someone's sexual orientation. I also don't really care about marijuana use and certainly don't care about alcohol use unless there is an individual who will be harmed by it.

Consider THIS then...
Results from the 2008 NSDUH: National Findings, SAMHSA, OAS

"Rates of past month illicit drug use varied with age. Through the adolescent years from 12 to 17, the rates of current illicit drug use in 2008 increased from 3.3 percent at ages 12 or 13 to 8.6 percent at ages 14 or 15 to 15.2 percent at ages 16 or 17 (Figure 2.4). The highest rate was among persons aged 18 to 20 (21.5 percent). The rate was 18.4 percent among those aged 21 to 25, and it was 13.0 percent among those aged 26 to 29. Among persons aged 65 or older, the rate was 1.0 percent."

So, you buy a house or rent one after someone who was 19 rented it before, and you have a higher than 1 in 5 chance that it used to belong to an illicit drug user. That means that there could even still be drugs in the house, embedded in the walls, just waiting to fuck your ass up. Sad but true.

I can't imagine anyone leaving their "illicit drugs" behind after they move out. Other than that, I don't see the point of this or why it matters.

SO??? If the shit being in your system suddenly makes you a child neglecting criminal, it doesn't MATTER how "trace" the amounts are, now does it???

Uh, yes it does. As I explained "positive" versus "negative" is based on quantitative amounts. It might not be fair or perfect, but that's the way it works.

OK thats cool.. But before you said that a woman who had a drink knowing she was pregnant, who intended to bring it to term, should be faced with neglect charges. Can you please be consistent here, or is this just all about scaring the shit out of women for you?

No, and again, I never said that. You have a problem with my "consistency", because you are either misreading my posts or are so emotionally invested in this issue that you are mis-attributing things to me.

What I said was that FAS is real, and alcohol damages fetuses (there is no safe amount, but obviously more is worse).

Yes it is. As a prosecutor, have to prove that the fetus was not stillborn by natural causes. All a woman has to do is show that it could have been natural, and boom she has a reasonable doubt. She might have an aunt, or a sister, or a mom who had a miscarriage or stillbirth before.. They are REALLY quite common, you know. You market to the jury the woman's apparent drug habit, and I will market her frequent visits with some neighbors who are new to the neighborhood, how often she sits on a public transit bus or taxi, etc, the smell of cat urine in the new apartment she just rented out, and/or I will find someone in her family who had a miscarriage. Drugs being PRESENT do not indicate that the woman is at all negligent for having them in her system, or that she had any knowledge or reason to know that they would get there.

As explained before, a positive UA is simply evidence of recent use (not simply exposure). I am not terribly interested in holding a mock trial over the issue.

Fail.

Um, okay. Whatever.

So, you say the only way a woman's baby can be found to have fetal alcohol syndrome is by a misdiagnosis,

No. I never said that. I am either being completely unclear or your reading comprehension is terribly lacking. I said, like anything else, FAS can be misdiagnosed.

eh? How do you figure? The same symptoms are being diagnosed. The SAME. The only DIFFERENCE is that the woman had a drink at some point, so they immediately disregard their knowledge of hypothyroidism, and move straight to FAS, especially if they consider themselves "pro life", AND publish studies claiming that the alcohol goes straight to the fetus through the placenta, which causes it. Lying Bastards..

Any woman who has had adequate prenatal care would have TSH values to indicate thyroid function. Also, If a single drink during pregnancy automatically caused FAS, mankind would have ceased to exist long ago. The children who come out with FAS most likely were carried by a mother that was a chronic drinker.

And, though anything can be misdiagnosed, there are definite phenotypic diagnostic markers to FAS. Off the top of my head, I remember that children with FAS don't have a philtrum, the groove under your nose. The abnormal physical findings aren't necessarily problematic, it's the cognitive difficulties that children with FAS have.

FAS symptoms:
Symptoms:
Small eyes, very thin upper lip and a short turned up nose
Heart defects
Deformity of joints, limbs and fingers
Delayed physical growth before birth and after birth
Vision difficulties
Hearing difficulties
Small head circumference
Small brain size (microcephaly)
Mental retardation
Delayed development

Oh, you just provided some of the physical findings.

Compare to hypothyroidism in adults.. And I maybe should have posted this, in addition, before, because it is on the same page as the other one..

Hypothyroidism is completely different in adults. At issue is that the mother's thyroid hormone is needed for development of a child's brain and, if absent, causes major problems.

Symptoms of hypothyroidism in adults are less drastic (low metabolic rate which leads to being cold, weight gain, etc) and are easily treated with replacement hormones.

In other words, in EITHER case, all the woman NEEDS is SYNTHROID, a synthetic thyroid replacement therapy regimen.

Right. The need an Rx for thyroxine.

All that happens to the thyroid with regards to drinking, is that it causes the thyroid to not produce as much. Doctors should not be fucking RETARDS and NOT prescribe this to people who occassionally drink, or drink once a week. They can be given even a low dose regimen, to offset the alcohol's effects.

That assumes too much. A couple of things are tested for thyroid function: TSH and T4 (there is another one, but it isn't relevant for this). If those are normal, the assumption is a woman has a normally functioning thyroid. Putting a woman with a normal thyroid on thyroxine causes them to be HYPERthyroidic, which is also bad.

Furthermore, the assumption is that alcohol absolutely suppresses thyroid function. The evidence points that way, but it is yet to be established. So, it would be premature for a Dr. to try and use "kentucky windage" to normalize the thyroid function of a woman who is drinking. In the long run, it's going to be much better for the baby if the Dr. simply tells the woman to stop drinking as opposed to trying to accommodate their drinking habit and making them hyperthyroidic.

However, the greatest assumption is that a woman will actually tell a Dr. that she plans to drink throughout her pregnancy.

Again, if a woman is smarter than the fucking retarded doc, then she can easily request this, and he will sleep well at night knowing he is doing his job properly. If the doctor gets the health history and does not prescribe a little synthroid for an alcoholic, then he could be negligent, in light of all this recent research that is peer reviewed in medical journals.

No. You are wrong. This is not a standard of care, and I don't even know how they would dose thyroxine based on alcohol consumption (assuming that the articles are correct. a couple of articles in journal magazines don't equate to a consensus/absolute fact). As I said, it's safer for the child to simply tell the mother that their is no safe amount of alcohol they can consume in their pregnancy. I've never even heard a Dr. mention alcoholism as a means to suppress thyroid function. Maybe in a couple of years, that will be the established pathophysiology. However, even if that is the case, it will still safer for the child to counsel the mother on not drinking as opposed to trying to pharmacologically make up for her lifestyle choices.

I would bring the doctor himself in, for a little chat, then. I have enough evidence to take his sorry ass down for neglecting my pregnant client. LOL!
(I really do want to be a trial lawyer.. I am just getting TIRED of talking about fetuses and how they must be people all because so and so says this or that, and not having anyone around who is capable of reading a little further into this stuff. Nothing personal, really.. I haven't talked to you for long enough to call you a dumbass for real yet. So far, you seem okay.)

The issue is this: if you intend to carry your baby to term you are the sole source of it's nutrition and developmental needs. You know this better than I do. We can bemoan the biological disparity of a mother's role versus a father's role, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. When you are a mother, you take folate so your child doesn't have a neural tube defect, you (at least should) get vaccinations to try and avoid perinatal transmission, and you (at least should) avoid toxic substances.

It's the bottom line, and most mothers are more than happy to comply. While I am pro-choice, I don't think "choice" extends to a mother being able to do something that could potentially hurt their child. Even if it's not a 1:1 correlation, why roll the dice and take un-necessary chance? This seems blatantly obvious, and I don't really see the debate.

Except that they could let her know that if she wants to drink during her pregnancy, then she needs to let him know first, so that he can prescribe some synthroid. This whole argument of yours dangles from the shred of hope that her first doctors visit was the only time the two ever talked, or went over her present diet and alcohol intake, etc. Plus, any obstetrician worth his salt would probably make up a few signs, and send out postcards and stuff warning women about FAS, and letting them in on the secret of synthroid. =)

Again, you are putting the cart way before the horse. I doubt you'd find a single OB in the country that would say "It's okay if you drink, just take some synthroid".

My point EXACTLY. Civil court. Not criminal. Thanks. You are finally getting it.

I never "didn't get it". We don't throw mothers in jail for using drugs during pregnancy, but the child can be taken away by the courts and the law is very much involved.

Sorry you don't come across as pro choice, when all you seem to be arguing for is the imprisonment of women doing with their bodies as they choose, just because they are pregnant, and to you that pregnancy status somehow makes things different. ???

A.) For the fifth time, I've never claimed women should be imprisoned for doing things that they know can hurt their fetus. I said they were negligent. Before you harp on me for consistency, perhaps you should actually read what I've written.

B.) Being pregnant does make them different. That is the reality of the situation in the eyes of the law and society. Sorry if you disagree, but you are on an island.

It is not all about thyroid tests, though. It is about getting a health history, and reviewing the files. And it is about many women not having affordable access to prenatal care, in the first place.

I fully agree that many women don't get adequate prenatal care. In the hospital I was it, our population was almost 100% medicaid and served the poor and immigrant population. Those women were not turned away and were cared for.

Well, not usually, anyways.. and women who are pregnant should also not be prosecuted for breaching a standard of care, either. The only standard of care a woman has is to herself, and her life, not something that she has little control over, like having a bad doctor who is pro life, and hates women so much that they want all those "bitches and hos" in jail, just to avoid a fucking malpractice suit. Attorneys can be VERY helpful in cases like these..

If that's directed towards me (a mediocre medical student), you are barking up the wrong tree. My wife is in her last semester of law school and is working at a med malpractice firm, where she will most likely stay on after graduation. I think malpractice litigation exists for a very real and important reason and oppose "tort reform". Also, in no way do I feel that women are all just "bitches and hos" who belong in jail.

I disagree that a woman who has carried her child past the point of termination doesn't have a standard of care towards her child. I think the law disagrees as well, other wise it wouldn't be possible for the court to intervene. I don't think they should be "prosecuted" but it might be necessary to take the child out of her arms and put it into a safer environment.

Also, a woman has absolute control over what she ingests during her pregnancy. As you noted, if her Dr. goofs up, she has legal recourse and that is why OB's have the highest malpractice premiums (or among the highest). If the woman intentionally causes harm, then the state can get involved.

But you apparently think that pregnant women should suddenly be expected to be perfect, when physicians with 8+ years of medical experience, and however many years in the field are not held to the same expectations of perfection in care?? Come on..

No. I don't think that at all. You are acting like abstaining from alcohol and drugs while pregnant is an impossible task. Unless the woman is addicted, it's a pretty simple matter of willpower.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I just want you to look at the big picture, is all. Please forgive me. I cuss alot, too. Not allowed to cuss out loud, new year's resolution, so I am letting it out on the board members. Just bypass any cussing I do, please.. lol.. It is hopefully going to remain only temporarily, as I am working hard at improving LOSING the garbageish words from my oral skills. Again, I didnt mean it.. Sorry.

Oh, I was just messing with you. I don't care about harsh words. However, please read what I actually say. I think you are inferring my beliefs based on my statements, and that's a slippery slope.

To sum up:
1.) I don't think mothers should be thrown in jail for doing things that harm their fetus, but I certainly think it warrants state involvement if they show up for delivery (which means they are close to 36 weeks) and come up hot on a UA test. Think about that. That means the woman used an illicit substance late in her pregnancy (and with the knowledge that she would be in a hospital and potentially drug tested).

2.) A positive UA means that it is highly probably that the mother has actually used drugs based on the way the test is designed. I am not sure what the relevant specificity/sensitivity is, but I would assume that the high micron count means that UAs are highly specific for use. Consequently, that is why hair tests are not used. Too many false positives.

3.) A pregnant mother has a duty to act in a manner that will preserve her fetus. A Doctor (obviously) has a duty to preserve life (though I would make physician assisted suicide legal in all 50 states if I had my way. That's another topic).

4.) It might not be fair that the mother should abstain from booze while the father doesnt' have too, but life isn't fair.

 

[geauxtohell]

Besides, the lyrics to this song are completely retarded, and they only really make sense in the aspect that they fall in line with Kurt Cobain wishing he had never been born, because he was FUCKING SUICIDAL, after being strung out on hallucinogens and other drugs, for so long.

I believe heroin was his drug of choice. It would have been nice if he stuck with hallucinogens. He'd probably still be alive right now.

And this was where the manic stage comes in. Manic for Kurt was not manic for a traditional manic depressive person, but for Kurt, who had used up almost all of his dopamine, this was actual happiness/ Giddiness. That is why this shit is so fuckin sad to me. I can laugh til I cry all day long, some days. I am the happiest, giddiest person my friends and family know. I can't believe someone could only ever feel happiness in such a miniscule dose like Kurt did.

Cobain was bipolar? I didn't think that pure mania existed outside of any other psych condition.

 

[JD_2B]

Only if she is a mother. Not just because she is pregnant. Also, simply having drugs in one's system is not necessarily a sign of suspected abuse or neglect towards the children, anyways. With a pregnant woman, it is just plain stupid to think that CPS would come along and cuff her and book her, just because she had drugs or alcohol in her system. Do you really think that is how it works?? Jesus if they did this, then they could call CPS and have her booked on negligence charges just for being dehydrated, or being bulemic, or drinking caffeine, or smoking cigarettes. Get REAL. A fetus is NOT a person. It IS helpless, completely helpless, as helpless as the woman is about how her body works, and no matter how much you wish for it, no guardian ad litem is going to be able to come along and rush to a fetus' aid, because it IS A FETUS. It is not a person. Do you understand that? Do you understand that ALL of this is just ABSOLUTE insanity?? I mean, REALLY.

I am just talking about pregnant women, and I am just relaying what I witnessed on a labor and delivery rotation at a hospital. The issue is pregnant woman. If the physicians did a UA and the expectant mother came up hot for drugs, they got "hot lined" and protective services were involved. The mother obviously wasn't handcuffed, the issue was what would happen to the child after it was delivered. In most instances it was just counseling, but in at least one, the baby was taken from the mother to protect it. There were other circumstances involved in that as well. That was my experience with how it worked in "the real world".

You are talking about apples and oranges, when you claim that you are only discussing pregnant women and then state that a woman who birthed a baby had the baby removed from her custody.
One situation involves a pregnant woman who is not getting ready to birth the child, and the other situation involves a woman who actually delivered a baby, who no doubt also tested positive for drugs, as well. ANY time the kids test positive for drugs, they are removed. That is DIFFERENT from being pregnant and on drugs, though, because nobody can say whether the pregnancy would come to term, and if the woman does not EXPECT it to come to term, because she has been told BY doctors that she can't bring a pregnancy to term, or that she would bring it to 7 months, or that she would surely have stillborn fetuses, etc, then there is no hope on her end to even TRY to make the pregnancy work any better. It is like when doctors play God and tell their patients that they have two months to live, or two weeks, so the people go out and spend their life savings, etc, doing all kinds of dangerous shit, just for the sake of doing something loony for once, and then turn around and, bankrupted, get told it was a misdiagnosis. People REACT to things differently. Pregnant women are no different- no MORE level headed when it comes to their lives or what their diagnosis or prognosis was, than anyone else. Nor should they expect to be. Now, if the woman gets to be FURTHER on in the pregnancy than she ever expected, and has gotten hooked on drugs at whatever point, either during or before she was pregnant, then yes- the reasonable and ideal thing to do would be to sober up. This is not an ideal world. Her kid might get taken from her, if she did not clean up her act in time, but if she gets clean, she can get them back. I think parents get like a year or so to get it together, and they FINALLY get the resources they need to do this effectively. Anyways, the point is that I think that there are a lot of factors involved with drug use of pregnant women, and I think that DCF is pretty fair about considering the child's best interests in these matters, even when the child is given back to the parent that child was taken from in the first place. That can be a VERY good thing. It is amazing how many people go through their whole lives wondering where their parents are, and wishing they would come and collect them. I understand that sometimes there are situations that are just beyond comprehension, that are intentionally cruel and terrible acts, towards kids.. And those people should not get a whole lot of leeway on having custody.

As for all the other things you mentioned, only a UA was relevant. You could tell a mother had smoked during her pregnancy by looking at the placenta, but that didn't warrant involving protective services.

Why not? If the child had a birth defect, and the mother smoked, it is no different from a mother drinking beer, and the fetus having a birth defect. My mom smoked, and I grew up with bladder and kidney infections until I was 8. Then I underwent major surgery to correct the defect, and have been fine since. But that doesn't change the amount of pain I was in as a child, going to the bathroom. Why is it that one type of substance, known to cause birth defects, is better somehow, or less reprehensible, than another type of substance which is also known to cause birth defects??

The issue is the potential harm to the developing fetus. I certainly don't think that alcohol (and even MJ) use postpartum implies that the mother is negligent.

As long as she doesn't get drunk, right.. And as long as her high will allow her adequate functional ability to give the child care, correct?

So if a woman wants to carry to term, she should go to jail for having a glass of fucking wine??
Get fucking REAL.

I never said that.

But if she REPORTS having a glass of wine, and her thyroid was screwed up, and the doctors never found that out (they only test thyroid in the newborns, not the mothers, for some reason, and how do we know if the ones who were already diagnosed with FAS even GOT tested for thyroid deficiency- because FAS lends a "given" to thyroid dysfunction.. ) then automatically they claim it was from FAS. There is no way of knowing if her thyroid was not at optimal function prior to getting pregnant, in the first place, so it's a Catch-22, with HER being at risk for punishment over a possible medical condition.. See?

No, I never said that. That's the third time you've told me to be consistent for something I never said and don't believe.

Yes you did.. You said that if she was a drinker, she should have the infant taken, if it caused problems. You have said this SEVERAL times. You just try to backpedal a little and claim you are only pushing the drug use being the standard, but that is not the limit to the standard you are arguing on here.

That's lame. You were in the military. You know (or should know) how the UA works. Your body makes endogenous THC. That means it is physically impossible to score a "0" on a UA. That is why their is a micron count. For THC say is 1000 parts per million. If your count is 999 parts per million than you are "negative". If it's 1001 parts per million than you are positive. By the military's own test, second hand MJ smoke shouldn't yield a positive hit. The micron count is set intentionally high so that a positive result means you have to had smoked MJ (and fairly recently). It's the same with Meth and Coke (only a person would have had to smoke them even more recently since the body metabolizes them so quickly).

Well, apparently the military doesnt go into detail about how they do their tests, and anyone who pops positive for a higher than normal amount of this is in danger of getting a dishonorable discharge. This one dude who smoked cloves needed to get his bosses to vouch for him, to medical, that he smoked cloves daily, because he popped positive for THC. They also test kids for having THC in their system, based on suspicions that a drug user is in the home. My god, I had another bad experience in Colorado, too. Taught my son about drugs, when he was in Kindergarten. Only two kids in the school were on free lunches, and he was one of them. Well, the school nurse said his pupils were dilated (his eyes are light blue, and the Dr said that light colored eyes dilate naturally sometimes) and that his pulse was high (the doctor said that was a load of crap too) and anyways, they called an ambulance for him, based on some bullshit suspicion that he has under the influence of drugs. He HAD gotten into my nail polish the night before, which is this clear nail polish that turns bright pink when sunlight hits it. It was in his hair, on his face, on his arms.. All over my down comforter. Ugh.. Of course, I used nail polish remover on his arms and hands, the night before, but not on the face, because of the fumes. Anyways, being that it was clear polish, we didn't quite get it all off, so he had a couple of pink streaks in his hair and blotches on his face when he came outside. No doubt they used some good faith I guess, but the whole symptoms part was made up, so IDK. I had cops come to my house, had to let them look around, etc. They were looking for "pills", and "inhalants"??
That is how I learned that my son was in the ER for possibly being HIGH. Good GOD I was scared as hell. Turns out, when the cop or whomever asked my 5 year old son "What do you know about drugs?" He answered simply "Marijuana is a drug." LOL!! Well that brought CPS into it, too, and I has barred from even entering the ER room he was in for an hour or so. I asked the drug specialist officer what the fuck was going on in there, and why the hell they thought there was a "marijuana user in the house" as the social worker said, and he said that once he talked to my son, my son said "Marijauna is a drug. My mom said that some adults use it, and they smoke it from something like a cigarette, and she also said that kids should never use drugs, because drugs are bad news!" They finally let him go, stating that "the whole thing was unfounded, all his tests were negative, etc, so you two can go home now, but just give us a UA today or tomorrow, for our peace of mind, and yes you have to pay for it yourself".. Grrr. Anyways.. Hence my contempt for the justice system and longing to become a lawyer. What a mess. Plus, my son was so traumatized, too. They asked him if he took any pills, before they took him to the hospital, and apparently he mentioned that he takes pink pills sometimes (children's tylenol, for growing pains). Well, they took him away in a large vehicle (an ambulance, but my son thought he was going to jail) with my son thinking that they were asking him if he STOLE (took) pink PILLOWS off the floor somewhere. Poor baby. We laugh about it now, of course.. but for a couple of weeks, we were both steaming mad over it. Talk about injustice.

What does that have to do with anything? I could care less about someone's sexual orientation. I also don't really care about marijuana use and certainly don't care about alcohol use unless there is an individual who will be harmed by it.

You must be talking to someone else, because I never mentioned sexual orientation.

I can't imagine anyone leaving their "illicit drugs" behind after they move out. Other than that, I don't see the point of this or why it matters.

I had some neighbors one time, who moved out of their house, and the landlord told me he found crack rocks all over the place. Druggies do not often have the mental clarity to keep very close track of their stashes, it seems. And meth houses will always have meth in the walls, from the vapors that come from cooking it.

Uh, yes it does. As I explained "positive" versus "negative" is based on quantitative amounts. It might not be fair or perfect, but that's the way it works.

Well, if it is not perfect, then the social implications of the imperfect testing needs to be addressed, to protect the innocent.

No, and again, I never said that. You have a problem with my "consistency", because you are either misreading my posts or are so emotionally invested in this issue that you are mis-attributing things to me.

What I said was that FAS is real, and alcohol damages fetuses (there is no safe amount, but obviously more is worse).

And in saying that, as well as saying SEVERAL times that alcohol use "that damages another individual", is a good enough reason to take the child away. I say why not have doctors prescribe synthroid, when they take a health history? Why not do public service announcements on the importance of supplementing thyroid, when a person who drinks is pregnant. Why not cause a doctor, who failed to fulfill their hippocratic oath, to be sued, and win, when women who were under a full term of medical care, and drank alcohol, have babies that are affected by FAS??!

As explained before, a positive UA is simply evidence of recent use (not simply exposure). I am not terribly interested in holding a mock trial over the issue.

I disagree. I think that UA's can indicate much more than you seem to want to believe.

No. I never said that. I am either being completely unclear or your reading comprehension is terribly lacking. I said, like anything else, FAS can be misdiagnosed.

You just said it was real, too. I just want you to admit that doctors have a responsibility to their patients, in terms of synthroid.

Any woman who has had adequate prenatal care would have TSH values to indicate thyroid function. Also, If a single drink during pregnancy automatically caused FAS, mankind would have ceased to exist long ago. The children who come out with FAS most likely were carried by a mother that was a chronic drinker.

So? The reasons for the major birth defects that are symptomatic of FAS are caused by a lack of thyroid, which is generally caused by drinking. Why should SHE have to stop drinking, when the doctor could simply give her synthroid?

And, though anything can be misdiagnosed, there are definite phenotypic diagnostic markers to FAS. Off the top of my head, I remember that children with FAS don't have a philtrum, the groove under your nose. The abnormal physical findings aren't necessarily problematic, it's the cognitive difficulties that children with FAS have.

SOME do not have that. Not all FAS children have exact same symptoms. It is pick and choose. Pick from this list, then move to list two. Pick one from here, then move to list three. If one or another option is present, in each list of several possible symtoms, then it is diagnosed as FAS. It is subjective and arbitrary at best.

Oh, you just provided some of the physical findings.

Yes.. in list format, notice that it says "if ONE of the following is present"...

Hypothyroidism is completely different in adults. At issue is that the mother's thyroid hormone is needed for development of a child's brain and, if absent, causes major problems.

Symptoms of hypothyroidism in adults are less drastic (low metabolic rate which leads to being cold, weight gain, etc) and are easily treated with replacement hormones.

My mom had her thyroid removed, because she had thyroid cancer, from radiation treatments to her neck to treat a 3rd degree burn caused by a babysitter leaving the handle on a pot turned towards the floor, rather than the wall. Mom grabbed the handle when she was like 3, and it burned her. So anyways, she had to be on synthroid her whole life. I also would not say that a dysfunctional thyroid is not drastic. Three days was the longest my mom would have survived without hers. (or close to it)

Right. The need an Rx for thyroxine.

Or synthroid. Both do the same thing. I dont know if synthroid is still on the market, but it does the same thing, so I really don't know if you are splitting hairs here, or agreeing.

That assumes too much. A couple of things are tested for thyroid function: TSH and T4 (there is another one, but it isn't relevant for this). If those are normal, the assumption is a woman has a normally functioning thyroid. Putting a woman with a normal thyroid on thyroxine causes them to be HYPERthyroidic, which is also bad.

Assuming that she is not a drinker.. If she is a drinker, then she can get the synthroid in even a low dosage, I am SURE.

Furthermore, the assumption is that alcohol absolutely suppresses thyroid function. The evidence points that way, but it is yet to be established. So, it would be premature for a Dr. to try and use "kentucky windage" to normalize the thyroid function of a woman who is drinking. In the long run, it's going to be much better for the baby if the Dr. simply tells the woman to stop drinking as opposed to trying to accommodate their drinking habit and making them hyperthyroidic.

However, the greatest assumption is that a woman will actually tell a Dr. that she plans to drink throughout her pregnancy.

And any woman that is adequately informed of how drinking affects the thyroid, who also intends to bring the pregnancy to term, would be well set to have these things discussed with her. In any event, if the amount of synthroid required to regulate the thyroid based on a certain number of drinks, on average, per week, is something that needs to be studied, and used, rather than having pregnant alcoholics giving birth to severely damaged infants.

No. You are wrong. This is not a standard of care, and I don't even know how they would dose thyroxine based on alcohol consumption (assuming that the articles are correct. a couple of articles in journal magazines don't equate to a consensus/absolute fact). As I said, it's safer for the child to simply tell the mother that their is no safe amount of alcohol they can consume in their pregnancy. I've never even heard a Dr. mention alcoholism as a means to suppress thyroid function. Maybe in a couple of years, that will be the established pathophysiology. However, even if that is the case, it will still safer for the child to counsel the mother on not drinking as opposed to trying to pharmacologically make up for her lifestyle choices.

It may be safer this way, but the point is that is should be assumed that a woman who drinks regularly does not have use of her thyroid, and a low dose regimen of synthroid could be plausible, with a great deal of supervision and testing throughout the pregnancy. Like, twice a week, she would have to go in and get her thyroid levels tested, to keep her thyroid levels in check. Like methadone clinics for people who are recovering from addictions, a thyroid clinic for pregnant alcoholics is feasible.

The issue is this: if you intend to carry your baby to term you are the sole source of it's nutrition and developmental needs. You know this better than I do. We can bemoan the biological disparity of a mother's role versus a father's role, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. When you are a mother, you take folate so your child doesn't have a neural tube defect, you (at least should) get vaccinations to try and avoid perinatal transmission, and you (at least should) avoid toxic substances.

Except for cigarettes, lol.. Right??! LOL!!!
Idealism and subjectivity is not a fair way to determine that a pregnant woman should be treated any differently than any other non pregnant person.

It's the bottom line, and most mothers are more than happy to comply. While I am pro-choice, I don't think "choice" extends to a mother being able to do something that could potentially hurt their child. Even if it's not a 1:1 correlation, why roll the dice and take un-necessary chance? This seems blatantly obvious, and I don't really see the debate.

Smoking cigarettes is an unreasonable chance, but you condone this type of substance abuse.

Again, you are putting the cart way before the horse. I doubt you'd find a single OB in the country that would say "It's okay if you drink, just take some synthroid".

How much do you want to bet I can't find one that will?

A.) For the fifth time, I've never claimed women should be imprisoned for doing things that they know can hurt their fetus. I said they were negligent. Before you harp on me for consistency, perhaps you should actually read what I've written.

People go to jail for neglecting children. Fetuses are not children. You should not harp on the legal implications of neglect of fetuses by pregnant women, if you want to be as consistent as you claim to be, at least not when the thread is about the Unborn victims of violent crime act. If you do not wish there to be legal implications involved, then go post about this in the Ethics forum.

B.) Being pregnant does make them different. That is the reality of the situation in the eyes of the law and society. Sorry if you disagree, but you are on an island.

It doesn't give the right for the government to take away any rights they had before they were pregnant. Being different is not something people should lose freedoms over.

I fully agree that many women don't get adequate prenatal care. In the hospital I was it, our population was almost 100% medicaid and served the poor and immigrant population. Those women were not turned away and were cared for.

Great!

If that's directed towards me (a mediocre medical student), you are barking up the wrong tree. My wife is in her last semester of law school and is working at a med malpractice firm, where she will most likely stay on after graduation. I think malpractice litigation exists for a very real and important reason and oppose "tort reform". Also, in no way do I feel that women are all just "bitches and hos" who belong in jail.

No It was not directly aimed at you.

I disagree that a woman who has carried her child past the point of termination doesn't have a standard of care towards her child. I think the law disagrees as well, other wise it wouldn't be possible for the court to intervene. I don't think they should be "prosecuted" but it might be necessary to take the child out of her arms and put it into a safer environment.

I agree with this, but it has to be proven that this was the woman's fault, not just some bullshit FAS diagnosis, or something that does not account for the woman's possible thyroid function or alcoholism.

Also, a woman has absolute control over what she ingests during her pregnancy. As you noted, if her Dr. goofs up, she has legal recourse and that is why OB's have the highest malpractice premiums (or among the highest). If the woman intentionally causes harm, then the state can get involved.

I agree with the sentiment, but the unborn persons act claims that the damage did not have to be intentional or with knowledge of the pregnancy even existing. That is where I have the most trouble here.
Also, I agree that a woman theoretically has total control over how she governs her body. However, this discussion is aimed at prosecuting women who are alcoholics, and did not have the willpower to quit while they were pregnant, and that their stillborn fetuses would be considered victims of violent crime or negligence, just because the docs found drugs in the fetus' system. They have to PROVE that the drug is what caused the death. Easy to claim that a high quantity of the drug was present in the fetus, and to show other evidence that the fetus had brain damage, etc., but they have to prove that the two things are related. This is why I think giving fetuses rights is a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of effort. The drugs in the fetus MIGHT not be the cause of death. Maybe they would be a key element in prosecuting her, or the reason why that cause of death was suspected, but that is not conclusive, in all cases.

But you apparently think that pregnant women should suddenly be expected to be perfect, when physicians with 8+ years of medical experience, and however many years in the field are not held to the same expectations of perfection in care?? Come on..

No. I don't think that at all. You are acting like abstaining from alcohol and drugs while pregnant is an impossible task. Unless the woman is addicted, it's a pretty simple matter of willpower.

Grrrr.. I AM talking about addicts. Sorry you missed this but many many people are addicted to drugs. I even posted statistical data on just how many percentage wise, even REPORT to have used drugs in the past month. One in FIVE. That is HUGE.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I just want you to look at the big picture, is all. Please forgive me. I cuss alot, too. Not allowed to cuss out loud, new year's resolution, so I am letting it out on the board members. Just bypass any cussing I do, please.. lol.. It is hopefully going to remain only temporarily, as I am working hard at improving LOSING the garbageish words from my oral skills. Again, I didnt mean it.. Sorry.

Oh, I was just messing with you. I don't care about harsh words. However, please read what I actually say. I think you are inferring my beliefs based on my statements, and that's a slippery slope.

How else am I going to make an inference to your beliefs, than what you say??? LOL!!!

To sum up:
1.) I don't think mothers should be thrown in jail for doing things that harm their fetus, but I certainly think it warrants state involvement if they show up for delivery (which means they are close to 36 weeks) and come up hot on a UA test. Think about that. That means the woman used an illicit substance late in her pregnancy (and with the knowledge that she would be in a hospital and potentially drug tested).

That is fine by me, too.. But the fetal stage begins at week 9. I am not here to argue what the law would be/ should be, idealogically speaking. I am here to argue the actual law, and how it affects everyone. We don;t need extra laws to protect fetuses, if fetuses are believed to need a standard of care, anyways. Laws don't help to increase awareness of right and wrong, or prevent criminal activity. They just DEFINE criminal activity and punish, based on certain societal members specific views on who and what should be punished. They never explain WHY. I want to be a lawyer, and I think that laws are almost pointless. LMAO.. But I agree with most laws, and it is fun to debate them, it is almost all I can think about, so what the hell.. =)

2.) A positive UA means that it is highly probably that the mother has actually used drugs based on the way the test is designed. I am not sure what the relevant specificity/sensitivity is, but I would assume that the high micron count means that UAs are highly specific for use. Consequently, that is why hair tests are not used. Too many false positives.

K

3.) A pregnant mother has a duty to act in a manner that will preserve her fetus. A Doctor (obviously) has a duty to preserve life (though I would make physician assisted suicide legal in all 50 states if I had my way. That's another topic).

I thought you were pro choice???

4.) It might not be fair that the mother should abstain from booze while the father doesnt' have too, but life isn't fair.

Maybe she should abstain from going outside, driving, and smoking cigarettes, also, then..
Safety is never paramount to freedom.

 

[geauxtohell]

You are talking about apples and oranges, when you claim that you are only discussing pregnant women and then state that a woman who birthed a baby had the baby removed from her custody.
One situation involves a pregnant woman who is not getting ready to birth the child, and the other situation involves a woman who actually delivered a baby, who no doubt also tested positive for drugs, as well. ANY time the kids test positive for drugs, they are removed. That is DIFFERENT from being pregnant and on drugs, though, because nobody can say whether the pregnancy would come to term, and if the woman does not EXPECT it to come to term, because she has been told BY doctors that she can't bring a pregnancy to term, or that she would bring it to 7 months, or that she would surely have stillborn fetuses, etc, then there is no hope on her end to even TRY to make the pregnancy work any better. It is like when doctors play God and tell their patients that they have two months to live, or two weeks, so the people go out and spend their life savings, etc, doing all kinds of dangerous shit, just for the sake of doing something loony for once, and then turn around and, bankrupted, get told it was a misdiagnosis. People REACT to things differently. Pregnant women are no different- no MORE level headed when it comes to their lives or what their diagnosis or prognosis was, than anyone else. Nor should they expect to be. Now, if the woman gets to be FURTHER on in the pregnancy than she ever expected, and has gotten hooked on drugs at whatever point, either during or before she was pregnant, then yes- the reasonable and ideal thing to do would be to sober up. This is not an ideal world. Her kid might get taken from her, if she did not clean up her act in time, but if she gets clean, she can get them back. I think parents get like a year or so to get it together, and they FINALLY get the resources they need to do this effectively. Anyways, the point is that I think that there are a lot of factors involved with drug use of pregnant women, and I think that DCF is pretty fair about considering the child's best interests in these matters, even when the child is given back to the parent that child was taken from in the first place. That can be a VERY good thing. It is amazing how many people go through their whole lives wondering where their parents are, and wishing they would come and collect them. I understand that sometimes there are situations that are just beyond comprehension, that are intentionally cruel and terrible acts, towards kids.. And those people should not get a whole lot of leeway on having custody.

Again, I specifically was discussing mothers who were pregnant and presented for delivery and tested postive for a UA. Which means, at the very least, they were using within four weeks of delivery of a child they had every intent to deliver (much less for methamphetamine. Everything else (circumstances after birth) you inferred.

Yes you did.. You said that if she was a drinker, she should have the infant taken, if it caused problems. You have said this SEVERAL times. You just try to backpedal a little and claim you are only pushing the drug use being the standard, but that is not the limit to the standard you are arguing on here.

Where have I said this? Show me. I said if a mother is proven to be consuming alcohol chronically while pregnant, then protective services should be involved. Not that the mother should be locked up.

You must be talking to someone else, because I never mentioned sexual orientation.

Uh, yes you did.

From your post:

Consider moving into a home, and the possibility that someone out of the 10% of the country that is gay having lived there before you bought it.

Maybe you thought I would have a problem moving into a house that was formerly occupied by a gay person? I don't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Other than that, I surrender. I have studying to do and don't have the time to address your post point by point. I concede by sure mass effect.

 

[JD_2B]

I meant a person can move into a house that was formerly a meth lab, and test positive. Also that if young people used to occupy it, the chances are 1 in 5 that it was inhabited by a meth user, and a little bit less than that, that the person who used to occupy it was a meth cook. The chances of moving into a house that used to be occupied by gay people are less than the chances of moving into a meth house.