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.
Shame nobody helped him, in his 11th hour.
