Does this count as “scoldy”?

This was a very serious information put in the out by a department of my NHS (Portugal) in the mid 2010, on the outcome of a study done to the drinking habits of the population.

Among changing habits, the most worrying concern was about younger people overall drinking less as a regular habit but binge drinking on outings and social gatherings.

And it was linked to imported cultural depictions, from television and series.

Newspapers and televisions were all over this back then. Everyone started pointing fingers at lax legislation and remembering the 80's, when we woke up to the notion we had a serious issue with alcoholism.

Feel free to interpret it that way.

Lax attitudes towards alcohol consumption when it poses a risk ticks me off in a major way. You would not be surprised that I feel the same way about any level of alcohol consumption when operating a motor vehicle. I don't care that you think that you can drive safely after drinking a glass of wine, not one bit.

I'm not revisioning anything. I gave a specific time window and place to ground what I said.

Regarding the brits, my country is a vacantion destination for them: they drink bars dry. They drink to fall. You are right. And it is a running joke on the germans that they do not have an alcohol problem because they are always too drunk to notice. But it's a stretch to consider russians as europeans; they don't consider themselves as such.

This isn't Mortal Kombat, Jax. No need to raise your hackles and put your figurative "fists" up.

You want to go into the details of my own country, regarding alcohol? I'm open for it.

The article is focusing on harm reduction and how to reduce drinking. It was never about justifying drinking while pregnant.

Then you would be agreeing with the author of the article.

I’m so glad people decided to read the title and spout off without comprehending the point.

Did you read my comment? It clearly quotes a part of the article, which is not a part of the title.

A single line.

Do you understand that the point of the article was to discuss ways to get women to trust medical advice again in order to reduce drinking?

The real issue is that no amount of alcohol is safe for anybody. But if we allow that because of "culture" then it's kinda unfair to expect pregnant people to abstain totally too.

I mean, they can't even choose the correct indefinite article

The difference is that while pregnant, the choices you make about what you consume don't just apply to yourself, they also apply to your unborn child.

It is fully reasonable to expect complete abstinence while pregnant.

Hah well thank you :)

If I take the presumptions offered:

• Offering substance abstinence doesn't improve the issue as much as the medical world would like
• "Scolding" doesn't work
• More people get their medical info from random shitheads on social media than their own doctors

From my point of view, the problem isn't doctors, dangerous substance abstinence, tone, or how the message is delivered. The underlying problem is:

For every 30 minutes a doctor spends with their patient, that patient spends hours and hours with a different source of information.

I see it happen all the time in nearly every way I can imagine. I'll convince my parents some useless and expensive vitamin supplement they found from an advertisement doesn't actually have the effectiveness they think it does. I'll share the relevant dangers and harms. I'll give them as much info as I can without being judgemental, just informative. And initially, they might listen to me.

Then a week later they're right back on being convinced it's the right way to go. The societal pressures from friends and coworkers and social media are hammering away at their sense of reason every second I'm not there to check them on it.

So ultimately, who's responsible? The medical field and public health agencies for saying "Don't eat tidepods, idiots, they'll kill you?" Or society for deciding a funny video of someone eating them had more value to them? Why is it on public health agencies to adapt to the problem instead of seeing better regulations for corporations and online platforms? Why is the messages' delivery being given focus, over these same platforms disseminating distrust of the institutions delivering them? I'm not saying they're ignoring it, but I think they're chasing the wrong cause and a shortsighted solution.

Making it every doctor's personal responsibility to give their patients less judgemental? advice and information is like making it your personal responsibility to recycle your non-biodegradable toxic plastics, instead of putting way more responsibility on the industry that keeps being allowed to produce them without harsher regulations. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many doctors take this suggested approach. It mathematically won't be enough to impact the other side of the equation in the long run. We can still do both, I'm not saying it's totally pointless. But it's clear which one should be a priority and which one is a stop-gap.

It is fully reasonable to expect complete abstinence while pregnant.

It is about how it's communicated though. That's of course the goal, but talking down to women and being patronizing isn't enough to reverse these numbers. It's making it worse and it is compounded by the neglect of women's health in the medical field overall.

We live in the age of entitlement. People feel entitled to not be scolded.

It's not an inappropriate reaction when they are harming other people, though. One should have grown out of the need for gentle parenting by the time they want to be considered a grownup.

It’s not an inappropriate reaction when they are harming other people, though.

Fetuses aren't people and don't supersede a woman's autonomy.

No one is fond of being scolded and shame isn't a good motivator. We can approach educating the public in a better way.

There are many, many more options than "scold and shame" and "dismiss accountability altogether" and as a medical professional it is part of the job to find the route to holding someone accountable while also ensuring that they will continue to trust you enough to discuss these things going forward.

Like okay, on just a person-to-person basis, if someone drinking during pregnancy pisses you off and you get upset with them, I kinda get it even if that's not an ideal response. It is an emotional response to possible harm. But a medical professional has to keep their emotions detached enough to choose the path that leads to the best outcomes. Last thing you want is your patient getting frustrated with you and going to the grifter who tells them all the drinking they want is OK so long as they take a bullshit supplement. Shaming does not motivate behavioral change in the way that laypeople tend to believe it does, especially in public health. You have to meet people where they're at and guide them toward reasonable steps, otherwise you're doing more harm than good.

...do we need someone to be responsible?

This kinda reminds me of the antisemitism quote from sartre. We are looking for someone to blame, and everybody knows that blaming shameless shitposters is pissing into the wind. So they blame doctors instead.

Well yeah not being fond of it is how it works

You don't take your hand out of the fire because it feels nice

"Fetuses aren't people" - are you sure you thought this through? Because abortions weren't mentioned here

It's probably because pregnancy fucking suuucks and there are so many social situations where you might find yourself surrounded by alcohol or where there is social pressure for your partner to consume alcohol, including at your own baby shower. The list of things that you aren't supposed to consume or activities you aren't supposed to do can be downright exhausting. Maybe have a little empathy for people going through one of the hardest times of their lives which is in no way fair or proportional to what their partners go through. And by the way people loooove judging pregnant woman for fucking everything, including completely non-medically based decisions.

Yeah but it's her body, what about men abstaining so they don't pass on some fucked up sperm to the future egg from the woman? it's okay for men to have one drink always but a woman can't when she's carrying a man's baby? At some point it's like if one drink isn't that bad for a born person, it's not that bad for a pregnant person and a fetus either.

You want to punish women into submission? That’s not an effective method.

Fetuses aren’t people. And they don’t have more rights than the woman gestating them. A woman has every right to bodily autonomy just like men have.

book

Whenever someone sells a book about any scientific field without doing a paper in a journal first, you can bet your ass it's because they fully know they'll be eviscerated by peer reviews and they just care to make a quick buck even if they actually believe whatever they're saying and it's everyone else's fault for being closed to new ideas.

And on top of that, no matter whether you're right or wrong, people will interpret it and the discussion will be vague and some people will remember the wrong number of drinks per day and there will be a million different variations of one quote going around at any dinner table that brings up the subject and some people will remember that it's different for everyone so maybe try calculating your body mass and your age and the number goes from one drink a month to 15 drinks a day unless you've had a cold in the past 6 months in which case don't touch any water.

You have no idea about the levels of empathy I show for people going through pregnancy, and you should probably refrain from speculating on that subject.

Yeah but it's her body,

Up until the day she makes the decision to get pregnant - during pregnancy, the body is shared between the mother and the baby, and all decisions must take the baby's needs into account. One of those needs is not consuming alcohol.

what about men abstaining so they don't pass on some fucked up sperm to the future egg from the woman?

Should there be any action I was to take in the process of having a child, I would naturally do so. Alas, I am only tasked with providing support for my pregnant partner.

it's okay for men to have one drink always but a woman can't when she's carrying a man's baby?

Were the roles reversed and men were the only ones who could become pregnant, then men would be tasked with abstaining from alcohol during the pregnancy.

"A man's baby"? Surely the baby belongs to both of the parents, including the mother?

At some point it's like if one drink isn't that bad for a born person, it's not that bad for a pregnant person and a fetus either.

Try giving a young child one drink. Don't actually, this is a theoretical exercise only. What you would notice is that the amount of alcohol that would not have a significant impact on an adult has a massive impact on a child. This is because they are far, far smaller, with organs less capable of metabolizing the alcohol. Fetuses are even smaller than young children.

What's a small amount of alcohol for an adult is not a small amount for a fetus in relative terms.

Fetuses aren't people

This is only true insofar as women have a right to terminate their life in the form of an abortion, should the pregnancy be undesired or otherwise harmful to the woman. A fetus that continues to grow will obviously become a person, and suffers the consequences of the actions of the mother, for which the mother is accountable to.

and don't supersede a woman's autonomy.

They very much do.

I read it. I'll remember it for posterity.

No, that’s not only true in cases of abortion. That is always true.

Women have a right to bodily autonomy.

Did you know it’s illegal to refuse a pregnant woman a drink in the US? Because women have a right to do what they want with their own bodies.

I am personally completely sober and I don’t want women to be misinformed about health issues that lead to worse health outcomes. That’s why the conversation here is around messaging and not about taking away women’s rights.

I highly doubt you're going to be allowed to keep your child if you intentionally harm them like that.

The very idea that a woman's right to inebriation should trump a child's right to not be poisoned is unthinkable to me.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere in this conversation, so let's agree to end it here, shall we?

Show me women who’ve been arrested because their child had FAS.

It’s not a right to inebriation, it’s a right to bodily autonomy.

If you don’t want people to speculate, don’t publicly comment showing your lack of empathy for women.

Criminal charges are uncommon. Loss of custody on the basis of severe neglect is not.

There is no basis to be shown empathy for the desire to drink alcohol while pregnant, just as there is no basis to be shown empathy for striking a child.

Having a glass of wine doesn’t cause FAS. A child isn’t the same as a fetus.

FAS isn’t necessarily from severe neglect. Some women don’t even know they’re pregnant until they’re in labor.

Show me case examples then.

I'm not their medical professional though. I'm a guy who believes medical professionals and is not gonna be an enabler for belated abuse of your children.

There's no approval for these actions to be found with me.

It’s always so obvious when people who know very little about women’s health and pregnancy comments on subjects like these smh.

So many assertions with so little to back it up. Just scold women into living like perfect baby incubators. Don’t even think of doing that yoga class, don’t touch that deli meat, don’t think bad thoughts, don’t have a sip of wine, don’t sleep on your back, don’t act entitled, don’t do this, don’t do that, etc.

Just yell at them. That’ll make them listen, right?

Ok, you don't understand the harm this is doing if those fetuses become people.

I agree with you if they get aborted, but again, nobody made that restriction anywhere. So we're talking about knowingly giving your future children physical disabilities. There are gonna be women among those too, you know?

But I get the feeling you're just repeating feminist phrases without understanding them, which hurts the cause of actual feminists.

I understand the harm which is why I posted and want to talk about how we change the messaging so that more women reduce their drinking while pregnant.

I absolutely understand what it means when I say women have a right to bodily autonomy. You nor I don’t get to cherry pick when those rights apply and when they don’t. Women have a right to bodily autonomy.

So then it comes down to communication and education to reduce harm.

Like you’re so concerned with the cause of feminists. Don’t bother.

It’s a good thing women don’t need your approval to do anything.

The father should abstain from alcohol too. That's support.

edit: Vibesurgeon didnt agree, shocked I tell you.

Don’t actually, this is a theoretical exercise only

No, it's not a theoretical exercise only. This is a well-studied and documented question. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2043426/

You're making statements with no basis in science
There's no need to imagine it with theoretical exercises.

Women are real, pregnancies are real, and there's a mountain of documented research on the question.

That's an opinion piece. Here's a different one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2043444/

Nevertheless, there is still no evidence that low to moderate alcohol intake in pregnancy has any long term adverse effects. But don't take my word for it. Last year the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists concluded a comprehensive analysis with the view 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.”5 In 2003, the Midwife Information and Resource Service updated their evidence based advice: “Women can be reassured that light infrequent drinking constitutes no risk to their baby.” The Medical Council on Alcohol reached a similar conclusion,6 and a report in 2006 from the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit in Oxford found “no consistent evidence of adverse health effects from low-to-moderate prenatal alcohol exposure,” although it did add that the current evidence is not robust enough to rule out the possibility completely.3 The most recent review, published in September 2007 in draft form by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence advises that, based on current evidence “pregnant women should limit their alcohol intake to less than one standard drink (1.5 UK units or 12 g of alcohol) per day and if possible avoid alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy. It would appear that drinking no more than 1.5 units per day is not associated with harm to the baby.”7

So, no evidence of harm from low levels of intake in pregnancy, but we can't completely exclude the possibility. But in a sense, all of this is of secondary importance. I'm not trying to argue that low levels of alcohol are definitely safe. What I am arguing is that we should respect the autonomy of pregnant women. We have a duty to be open and honest with the people we advise. Women are entitled to decide for themselves (and their babies); some are more risk averse than others and will wish to abstain completely. Indeed, even with the previous advice, around half of all women abstained during pregnancy.

Did you read their source?

Also, that source you linked directly references the source you're trying to refute.

Okay then that's the debate, not your theoretical guesses.

Yeah the only new variable I see in this article is social media. Weird how it's not the focus of the whole thing.

It depends where in Europe and where in America. If you live on a state bordering Canada you drink 50% more than the average American. Europe is even more diversified based on this map I found: