A glass of wine whilst pregnant...your thoughts vs those of the Government.

[Cyclone 10]

Key points

● There is an increasing body of evidence suggesting harm to the fetus from alcohol

consumption during pregnancy. While the safest approach may be to avoid any alcohol

intake during pregnancy, it remains the case that there is no evidence of harm from low

levels of alcohol consumption, defined as no more than one or two units of alcohol once

or twice a week.

● Binge drinking in early pregnancy may be particularly harmful and specific advice to

young men and women should make this clear. Advice on the risk of harm to an

unplanned pregnancy, as well as the risk of sexually transmitted disease, should be widely

available. Access to postcoital contraception and screening for sexually transmitted

infection should be made available to those whose behaviour has put them at risk.

● In antenatal clinics, effort should be made to improve objective history taken about

alcohol and other substance abuse, to attempt to identify the high-risk group of women

with problem drinking or other behaviour that can be harmful to the fetus.

 

That's from the study done by the RCOG, linked in my previous post. My bold.

[Titian 10]

unfortunately my pregnancies reduced my body to a spiritual temple so being a breatharian was about all I could manage...oh and an IV to feed me.

 

Had I been given a choice I probably wouldn't have had alcohol as I'm not keen on it anyway. So I'm no use to this dilemma. Perhaps I can be the control experiment?

[Plain Talker 11]

cyclone's comments, above about the dangers to the foetus have me particularly worried for the "delightful flower" of a young "woman" (and I use the term loosely) that I had the "pleasure" to encounter on the bus yesterday afternoon.

 

Loud, and gormless, and pretty much "falling-down-drunk", she stunk to high heaven, of booze (it was the heavy-stuff, whisky, I think; it certainly wasn't beer)

 

She proceeded to "show-off" (even more loudly) to her cronies, about some other passengers having to "rearrange, slightly" so I could get in the wheelchair space. (and she had to move, less than about five or six feet further down the bus. )

 

She proceeded to do her screaming anad shouting about how I and my wheelchair shouldn't be allowed on the bus, and then yelling about how she "shouldn't be standing up, because she's pregnant"!!!! (incidentally, she hadn't been sitting down when the bus pulled up to let me on! and she was barely showing if she was pregnant)

 

I was thinking "You're desperately concerned about the danger to your unborn child, from having to stand up on the bus, yet you're totally unconcerned about the massive amounts of alcohol that you're just pickling that poor baby in! dear god alive!"

 

Now I have no problem with a woman, if she so chooses, having an occasional drink, during pregnancy. if it's done sensibly, and she sticks to the limits ..

 

but this poor baby that this "flower of womanhood" was carrying!! sheesh! I dread to think what damage she must be doing to the child! Can you say "foetal alcohol syndrome? *winces at the thought*

 

I don't give a monkeys to be frank, if she wants to endanger herself. It's her body, her choice: her decision to poison herself. However, the child she is pregnant with should be her priority, not how soon she can be looking through the bottom of the next whisky glass!

 

(please note, ladies, this is a rant at this pillock of a woman, not directed at yourselves.)

[canuck 10]

"It's up to you, but if you're not basing it on government advice and you've not found or read any medical studies, then you're basing it on fear of the unknown or a whim."

 

As I said, there are plenty of medical studies (see below) suggesting that even low doses of in utero alcohol exposure can be linked to neurological & behavioural problems later in life. Are they always . . . clearly not. But I'm certainly not basing anything on "whims" or "fears of the unknown". As I said, I deal with FAS students daily -- it is certainly a "known" in my world. And it is a known that I'd rather avoid. Perhaps I'm too cautious -- but I'd rather be too cautious in cutting out a luxury for 9 months than have to deal with problems for a lifetime. I'm sure you are right that there is a safe limit, but for now the only one that I'm personally convinced about is none.

 

I should also say that I don't think guidelines forbidding women from drinking are necessarily beneficial or helpful. My own limit is based on my own reading of the literature and my own comfort level with risk. Such strict government guidelines have, for example, been blamed for increases in abortion rates as women get so stressed out about their one drink that they choose to abort because of fears that are, more than likely, unwarranted. This is obviously bonkers! It is exactly because of this sort of behaviour that the RCOG and others are trying to avoid "bans" -- they stress new mothers out. It should be pointed out, though, that RCOG guidelines have a bit of a checkered past, and often seem to be more politically motivated than medically sound:

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/497

 

The other, only partly related problem, is that very few people actually drink "one-drink" as defined by those studies. Did anyone catch the BBC special last year -- they followed pregnant women around as they went out to the pubs, etc. Most of them cited the "new guidelines that said we can drink a little bit", and at the end of the evening they were quizzed on how many drinks they had consumed -- 90% of them underestimated their actual consumption. This isn't an argument for a ban on booze, since it is obviously entirely a matter of self-discipline, but it is interesting nonetheless in how guidelines are often interpreted by average non-scientists.

 

In addition to the paper linked above:

 

Conclusion of this peer reviewed study:

http://www.come-over.to/FAS/LowDose.htm

"Maternal alcohol consumption even at low levels was adversely related to child behaviour; a dose-response relationship was also identified. The effect was observed at average levels of exposure of as low as 1 drink per week"

 

Conclusion of this peer reviewed study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8576439?dopt=Abstract

"These results support the hypothesis that exposure to a continuous, low blood alcohol concentration can result in the death of developing neurons and lead to permanent neronal deficits. The degree of neuronal loss does not correlate with the magnitude of the peaks of blood alcohol concentration"

 

Conclusions of this peer reviewed study (link will open pdf)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1989.tb00281.x

"Beginning at very low concentration (0.001 g/100ml) alcohol elicited dose-dependent contractions of the human umbilical artery in vitro. These results suggest that alcohol may increase umbilicoplacental resistance in vivo, thus decreasing fetal

-placental blood flow"

[Cyclone 10]

"It's up to you, but if you're not basing it on government advice and you've not found or read any medical studies, then you're basing it on fear of the unknown or a whim."

 

As I said, there are plenty of medical studies (see below) suggesting that even low doses of in utero alcohol exposure can be linked to neurological & behavioural problems later in life.

That's not what you said, you said this.

Cyclone,

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your information -- but there are no scientific studies saying that there is a safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant.

 

The fact is, it is entirely unknown whether there is a safe limit or not.

 

Which I understood (maybe incorrectly) to mean that there were no studies showing it either way.

 

Are they always . . . clearly not. But I'm certainly not basing anything on "whims" or "fears of the unknown". As I said, I deal with FAS students daily -- it is certainly a "known" in my world. And it is a known that I'd rather avoid. Perhaps I'm too cautious -- but I'd rather be too cautious in cutting out a luxury for 9 months than have to deal with problems for a lifetime. I'm sure you are right that there is a safe limit, but for now the only one that I'm personally convinced about is none.

 

I should also say that I don't think guidelines forbidding women from drinking are necessarily beneficial or helpful. My own limit is based on my own reading of the literature and my own comfort level with risk. Such strict government guidelines have, for example, been blamed for increases in abortion rates as women get so stressed out about their one drink that they choose to abort because of fears that are, more than likely, unwarranted. This is obviously bonkers! It is exactly because of this sort of behaviour that the RCOG and others are trying to avoid "bans" -- they stress new mothers out. It should be pointed out, though, that RCOG guidelines have a bit of a checkered past, and often seem to be more politically motivated than medically sound:

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/497

 

The other, only partly related problem, is that very few people actually drink "one-drink" as defined by those studies. Did anyone catch the BBC special last year -- they followed pregnant women around as they went out to the pubs, etc. Most of them cited the "new guidelines that said we can drink a little bit", and at the end of the evening they were quizzed on how many drinks they had consumed -- 90% of them underestimated their actual consumption. This isn't an argument for a ban on booze, since it is obviously entirely a matter of self-discipline, but it is interesting nonetheless in how guidelines are often interpreted by average non-scientists.

 

In addition to the paper linked above:

 

Conclusion of this peer reviewed study:

http://www.come-over.to/FAS/LowDose.htm

"Maternal alcohol consumption even at low levels was adversely related to child behaviour; a dose-response relationship was also identified. The effect was observed at average levels of exposure of as low as 1 drink per week"

 

Conclusion of this peer reviewed study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8576439?dopt=Abstract

"These results support the hypothesis that exposure to a continuous, low blood alcohol concentration can result in the death of developing neurons and lead to permanent neronal deficits. The degree of neuronal loss does not correlate with the magnitude of the peaks of blood alcohol concentration"

 

Conclusions of this peer reviewed study (link will open pdf)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1989.tb00281.x

"Beginning at very low concentration (0.001 g/100ml) alcohol elicited dose-dependent contractions of the human umbilical artery in vitro. These results suggest that alcohol may increase umbilicoplacental resistance in vivo, thus decreasing fetal

-placental blood flow"

 

My bold for one of those studies. There's a big difference between 1 drink a week and continuous low blood alcohol concentration...

[canuck 10]

Ummmm, yes, that is what I said.

 

Is there any reason you decided not to quote my very next sentence?

 

"But there is also quite an extensive amount of research suggesting that as little as a single drink can lead to problems".

 

Look, I'm not really interested in getting into a row over this. It is a personal issue that can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

 

You started the thread to ask why some soon-to-be mothers would stop drinking altogether "when the medical advice is that a small amount is absolutely fine".

 

You also implied (if not outright stated) that soon-to-be mothers who decide not to drink "make the decision emotionally rather than rationally". I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but statements like that can come across as somewhat insulting -- our hormones are running high, you know

 

My point is simply that your assertion that "medical advice is that it isn't necessary or beneficial to give up completely" simplifies the issue somewhat. Not all medical experts agree -- some believe that it is necessary to stop entirely, some believe that a small amount of alcohol is fine (within certain limits, or during certain phases of pregnancy, etc.), and some believe that we don't have enough information to decide either way and so advocate not drinking until we get better data.

 

I don't think that taking that last camp's advice makes me an irrational "emotional" decision maker. It simply means that, after evaluating the pros and cons, I balance the risks and rewards differently than others.

 

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

If you didn't like that one study, here is another for you:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/2/e426?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=alcohol&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

Results: "After controlling for a range of prenatal and postnatal factors, the consumption of <1 drink per week during the first trimester was independently associated with clinically significant mental health problems in girls at 47 months. This gender-specific association persisted at 81 months and was confirmed by later teacher ratings.

 

Conclusions: Very low levels of alcohol consumption during early pregnancy may have a negative and persistent effect on mental health outcomes. Given the lack of a clear dose-response relationship and unexpected gender effects, these findings should be considered preliminary and need additional investigation.

[duckweed 10]

I lost my first baby by miscarriage. I was an older mother and disabled. I read all the literature and avoided caffeine, ready packaged salads unpasteurised cheeses liver etc. Maybe if I'd eaten them nothing would have happened but I didn't want to add more worries to my pregnancies. Why do these people want to drink during pregnancy? It's not an essential food is it? If you can't do without alcohol for nine months for the good of your unborn child then maybe you should be seeking help?

[cosywolf 10]

I lost my first baby by miscarriage. I was an older mother and disabled. I read all the literature and avoided caffeine, ready packaged salads unpasteurised cheeses liver etc. Maybe if I'd eaten them nothing would have happened but I didn't want to add more worries to my pregnancies. Why do these people want to drink during pregnancy? It's not an essential food is it? If you can't do without alcohol for nine months for the good of your unborn child then maybe you should be seeking help?

 

I think that's a bit harsh. And despite all the numbers floating around here, a huge number of women drink the odd wine/stout/whatever - and quite a few drank lots before they realised they were pregnant - and the vast majority are fine.

 

I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest that any woman who has a glass of wine or two during her pregnancy should be referred for professional help.

[duckweed 10]

That was not what I said. What I said was that if there is any doubt it's better to leave it out. If the need for a drink is more important than the safety of your unborn child then you have a problem. The same is true of any other drug you might use without regard for your unborn child. I didn't even use pain killers or cold cures without medical advice. Why put your baby at risk? How would you feel if something happened and you were told the alcohol could have been a factor? If it is so important to you that you disregard the risks you do have a problem. The same if you smoke through pregnancy. No one knows why I lost my first baby but at least I'm sure I did everything I could. The following pregnancies were obviously worrying. I didn't want to add to those worries by taking anything potentially harmful.

[Cyclone 10]

Only if the doubt is actually based on rational evidence.

In fact I'd go so far as saying only if the doubt can actually provided a quantified risk to allow you to make an informed decision.

If you've never heard of FUD then google it, this is what some groups engage in, it raises doubt in the minds of many people who often don't have the ability or inclanation to do in depth research of the issue, so they act based on this completely unfounded doubt (not that I'm saying this is a case of completely unfounded...).

 

Risk is a part of life. Everyone knows that and accepts it, you take a risk by crossing the road, you take a risk by walking down stairs, the difference is you know what that level of risk is and decide it's acceptable.

 

Without going into details I've had a friend not come on holiday because they are trying for a baby and have had a miscarriage in the past, IMO that decision is completely wrong as there is no quantifiable risk and so they've deprived themself of a holiday for no good reason.

[lola2 10]

 

Risk is a part of life. Everyone knows that and accepts it, you take a risk by crossing the road, you take a risk by walking down stairs, the difference is you know what that level of risk is and decide it's acceptable..

Fine except its not your life your risking its someone elses, possibly and thats a big responsibility that i would imagine from your post you've never had that responsibility.

[Cyclone 10]

So does that mean that you won't cross the road?