New study: now it's OK to have a glass during pregnancy

You might say it's cause for cracking open a bottle of Champagne, but that might be going too far. Back in May the government announced that pregnant women should abstain completely from alcohol for the sake of their unborn baby, not because of evidence supporting the recommendation but because it would send a "strong signal" to mums-to-be. Now the health watchdog NICE says 1.5 units a day is fine - that's about the amount in a small glass of wine - after the first three months.

At last an advisory body is giving women the facts (and acknowledging that the science isn't definitive) rather than just scare-mongering and adopting a paternalistic attitude toward them. As Margot posted on the previous Alpha Mummy discussion:

The issue here is not so much whether or not women should drink during pregnancy, but whether it is the place of government to make strong recommendations to the public on based on no scientific evidence.

I worry greatly about the way that this impacts of women's rights to choose how they live, pregnant or not.

If we start down that road soon we'll be debating whether we lock up pregnant women with real alcohol dependencies. It's a hot topic in the States, where a study found that states with more draconian sanctions had fewer women lawmakers. What a coincidence.

Tomorrow morning I'm going to be on BBC 1 Breakfast at 8:20, along with Dr Rosemary Leonard, talking about the new recommendations and how women feel about them. So I don't look like a complete fool, let me know by posting your comments here.

Comments

[jen]

The message should be to see pregnancy as a responsibility...the beginning of realizing your actions will now affect another. It is important to know at what point drinking becomes a true concern...for that matter - smoking, caffine, medication, environmental pollution (tuna resrtictions while preg).... It would be great if all preg. women could abstain from anything that may negatively affect a growing child as well as eating, drinking, and doing all that the newest research shows has a positive impact...but the reality is that not all women will be able to, so having a guideline to coach expecting mother's and allowing them to learn to be responsible may be more effective than telling them they must.

[mumoftwo]

Kieransmum/Jennifer, perhaps someone else has already said this (wow, the message board got really active when I wasn't looking!) but the risks of any activity whilst breastfeeding are much lower than in utero, because the substance has a direct pathway into the embyo's bloodstream. So, smoking when pregnant is more risky for the foetus than if you smoke whilst breastfeeding, same for drinking etc.

[Sarah]

One study does not make it safe. There are just as many studies which say the opposite. That's the whole thing with research on any subject - it's always very inconclusive.
All we have is our common sense. Mine tells me that as alcohol provides no health benefits to adults then why would it to an unborn child. I am 12 weeks pregnant and have made a decision not to drink throughout my pregnancy. I am capable of foregoing a few overindulgences in my life for the next 6 months (we're hardly talking about foregoing oxygen here). My life won't come to an end and if it reduces the risk of behavioural problems in my child (as some studies suggest) then for me it is a no brainer.
Other people's common sense tells them that one or two drinks is fine. We are all entitled to make that choice as adults and until there is some conclusive evidence, none of us is right or wrong.

[Catherine]

Supermum, it must be lovely to be perfect. I think the point here is that everyone with a modicum of intelligence( and even if you don't, I'm sure your health visitor would enlighten you) knows that you shouldn't smoke or drink a lot during pregnancy. The question was, how much is too much? Now we know thanks to this scientific study rather than the Government's alarmist figure pulled from thin air. I've never had a baby, but if I did, I would probably continue to drink one or two units per week. I don't think this is reckless. What everyone seems to have forgotten that since the dawn of time, mothers all over the world have not had governmental advice and until very recently(as in the past 30 years) French women have not known to eschew brie, Italians to cut out prosciutto and yes, Brits to avoid drink! I bet all your mothers committed these gastronomic crimes during pregnancy-I know mine did-and we are all fine! I appreciate the arguments against drinking at all, but the list of 'dangerous' substances for pregnant women is now so long(tap water?!) that you may as well go and squat in an organic yurt and consume only raw veg during your term. If the government really wants to look after children, how about banning the E numbers and additives that are helping to grow their bodies and brains at the most important stages of development? Oh, that would encounter resistance from the all powerful advertising/sweet companies.

[Angelo Lenarduzzi]

The fact that we are having a debate about women drinking during pregnancy in this country is a problem in itself. in other countries in Europe the debate wouldn't happen, women would not even think about drinking when they were pregnant and are generally very moderate drinkers even in normal circumstances. alcohol is a big social problem here in the UK and that is something we should all talk about. Acoholism is a progressive illness and genetic, but in this country the argument is often swept under the carpet in order not to spoil the drinking industry. most people live in denial of their own drink problem, so they'd rather talk about something else than spoil their own drinking :0)

[Nigel]

I suppose the only drink that realy should be allowed is Mumm.... the pop and the bubbling all in one.

[Ele Williams]

The issue here is not so much whether or not women should drink during pregnancy, but whether it is the place of government to make strong recommendations to the public on based on no scientific evidence.

Ha! I read the above statement and thought it said think where it says drink. Also makes sense.

[Domestic godess]

I did not drink during pregnancy and have two alpha children. However did drink whilst breast feeding which is proably as bad. What I find most appaling is Nigella Express guide to obesity for the middle class. This woman is a domestic slob with midnight snacks and shopping at the local petrol station

[Lazy Mummy]

If a child is born unhealthy or disabled because of its mother's reckless behaviour while pregnant, that is not the child's fault and we should NOT be punishing the child by withholding treatment. Once born, the child is an individual in its own right and deserves to be recognised and treated as such.

Seems to me that this could be a dangerous first step back towards a more medieval concept of justice (punishing the children for the sins of the parents). Also, society (in the West, taxpayers) will be paying the cost one way or another anyway (whether it's through NHS treatment, private insurance premiums or indirect costs in terms of education, disruption, societal breakdown, etcetcetc) so might as well try & mitigate things by treating the direct problem w/ the child as effectively as possible rather than storing up problems for later.

[Jane]

"It would be opening a can of worms if we felt we could forcibly feed mothers the correct foods or prohibit them from swimming or diving or mountain climbing at 8 months pregnant or whatever."

One issue though, is, if a pregnant woman knowingly lives a lifestyle that is injurious to her foetus, and when the baby it born it has health conditions in respect of that, should the child be treated free on the NHS?

Again and again, if we DO have responsibility for ourselves, and we take that responsibility as POWER, then why should 'everyone else' (aka the taxpayer) have to pick up the tab for them when they need treatment for the abuse of that power (ie, drinking, smoking, climbing up mountains, whatever).

Depressingly, I do keep coming back to the logical conclusion of my position, which is that the only way to equitably finance health care is through personal insurance, as the premiums will adjust to the lifestyle. Those who DO take responsibility, will pay less than those who abuse the power over their own bodies and inflict wilful damage on it, which only seems right to me.

[Jennifer]

Thanks for everyone who tried to watch - they ended up running the segment a few minutes early. The BBC said they would get me a copy of it so when I get it I'll post it on the blog.

[supermother]

Obese children can be taken into care as we all know as can children abused in other ways too. But the pure important issue as regards pregnancy is when do we intervene. Although I'm a Catholic and I probably think we are just entrusted to look after our bodies which belong to God not us I think the current English law position is right, although it does feel unfair that fathers have no rights until a child is born. It would be opening a can of worms if we felt we could forcibly feed mothers the correct foods or prohibit them from swimming or diving or mountain climbing at 8 months pregnant or whatever. I think the position we have now, that we don't intervene in pregnancy to stop women doing things is right.

I would certainly agree with what Jane said about having moral obligations or duties in relation to our children.

(This is not an abortion thread, thank God but the person who said up to the limit - there is no limit in English law for disabilities - you can abort at 40 weeks plus if the child has down's or indeed possibly even cleft palate)

[Laura Kidd]

Why take the chance of drinking even small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy when the repercussions will be felt by the whole family and beyond for an entire lifetime? I briefly studied foetal alcohol syndrome and the effects can be devastating. why run the risk by thinking, "it might not happen to me?". Is this the attitude we should all take in life?would you take the risk of running across a busy motorway whilst thinking in such a manner? No it may not happen to you but if it does you will regret it for the rest of your life. I feel its better to abstain for nine months, no matter how difficult, and reap the rewards of a healthy child who has no chance of being affected by foetal alcohol syndrome.

[Jane]

"how would people feel if obese mothers whose children were becoming obese had them taken into care"

I'd feel it might actually wake the damn parents up! Certainly, the children should be placed on a health risk register, and regular visits to the doctor, plus the family supported in getting healthy (ie, not obese), but, in the end, it's the child who is important, not the parent. Maybe not wanting to be dumped in care might get the poor kid to put effective pressure on the mother, and get it a healthy diet.

Of course it's an extreme 'remedy' taking an obese child into care - but if parents insist on abusing their children's health, ignore or refuse all support etc, what do you do? Maybe fine them enough to finally kick them out of obesity? But we can't just wring our hands spinelessly and let the children grow up obese. Nor can we fork out a fortune on such parents - there are worthier cases, eg, cancer patients.

[J]

Women with very serious alcohol problems or other addictions are not best placed to remember the pill. It is too difficult currently for doctors to offer them the contraceptive jab unless they mention it. it should be eaiser to help such avoid pregancy unless they are ready.

Once pregnant, I dont think you can intervene without consent. To take your own analogy, how would people feel if obese mothers whose children were becoming obese had them taken into care?

[Jane]

"Supermother, it is precisely becxause you own your own body that you have to take adult responsibility for it."

I agree, but it begs the question whether, if an adult does NOT take responsibility for their own body, whether that responsibility should be forced upon them by law.

Trouble is, whilst, if say, I could argue that someone who neglects their health (eg, becomes obese, smokes, drinks etc), should not be eligible for free NHS treatment for diseases arising from that neglect, it's hard to say that a woman's foetus should suffer from her wilful neglect. As has been said, a woman's foetus is her personal possession until whenever the limit is on abortion - but should it be? Should a foetus be, effectively, a 'ward of court' with the law protecting it from harm?? Which is why 'should you drink in pregnancy?' (assuming it DOES endanger your foetus's health) is essentially the same question as 'should you be allowed to kill your foetus?' And I could argue that, at least with the latter, it's pretty damn indisputable that abortion DOES harm a foetus...

[J]

Supermother, it is precisely becxause you own your own body that you have to take adult responsibility for it.

My post is about recognising the difference between valid scientific advice and what your mum's mate said to you down the launderette. Think about it properly, with some recognitions of what scientific evidence means (so by all means laugh at the government changing its view, and question if they know their arse from their elbow) but dont do a Keith Manton on me.

[supermother]

The difficult issue for nations to decide is when is something so harmful to a child such as starving or burning it that we intervene and when is something just within a broad range of practices we are happy to tolerate even if we don't agree with them. We seem to have decided that pregnant women own their own bodies although it took us a good few thousand years to get to that point, and can do what they like to them.

[kieransmum]

Yes. I was in hospital with this idiotic woman who said how she'd smoked 30 a day, always had big children. Next bed, another woman who'd smoked in pregnancy and had a seriously, dangerously, undersized baby.

[J]

The proof is in the pudding *if* you do a proper clinical trial..One lucky family is exactly that- one lucky family. And if teling people how it all went fine for you causes just one person to follow your advice and then have a result more in line with the rest of the population- well I think you are responsible for that.

Having a disabled or severely impaired child can be an absolute nightmare. By all means make up your mind based on good quality advice- if we can get any- and treat research with healthy scepticism. But don't shade into ignoring all health advice just because the lady round the corner had a different outcome. It is very hard to for those of us whose kids have non-preventable disabilities, to watch people playing with fire.

[Jane]

"Don't kid yourselves it is just the Dutch, Brits, Germans and Scadinavians etc. "

That's depressing.

[Jane]

"pregnant mums generally just want to do the best for the baby."

Well, not those who are planning to hire CV!!!!

[Claire King]

I missed Jennifer too, and I turned on at 8.21am I wonder if the debate was cut in favour of the dancing program footage?

I don't ever watch breakfast TV, but being 41 weeks pregnant with twitchy inlaws in situ it was actually quite a break. They did show an article about how anxious children are these days, driven by violence and unhappiness at home. That would make an interesting discussion?

On the government/breastfeeding thing, pregnant mums generally just want to do the best for the baby. All you can do is go on the best information currently available and a bit of common sense. If there is info there (not just opinion and 'strong messages') then personally I'd like to see it. Not just on alcohol but also as mentioned below things like fish, vitamin A (liver), iron, and so on and so forth. Then I'd like to be left alone with my choices, since if we all have the same information, anything else is just opinion.

I'm not convinced by the proof is in the pudding point of view. I know our parents and grandparents were encouraged to eat plenty of liver and to drink guinness, and my mother in law was encouraged to smoke to calm her nerves. As it turns out my husband wasn't born stunted, he's 6'6", but since we do now know that smoking harms foetuses and that too much vitamin A can cause damage to eyesight, the argument 'well it never did my children any harm' is a bit facaetious. It's like saying 'I smoked 20 a day for 50 years and never got cancer'. Good to be a lucky one.

[keith manton]

When pregnent with our two, 1970 and 1972 our doctor told my wife to drink 1/2 pint of guinness a day for nutrition. Both Kids are strapping inteligent healthy individuals. She did not smoke but did take a few glasses of wine on top of the guinness. So, I say proof is in the pudding

[ANA]

I don't know why Northern Europeans think people drink in moderation here in the Med. Women and men consume vast amounts of alcohol especially teenagers. Look up the 'botellon' which is basically binge drinking Spanish style. Being pregnant might be the only time a woman would cut down on drink. There are many problems here in Spain with alcohol. Don't kid yourselves it is just the Dutch, Brits, Germans and Scadinavians etc.