Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Foetal alcohol syndrome

Can't say I've ever heard of anyone who's just stopped using anything without also addressing their social situation.

Yes, I'm not in disagreement. However, I read VP as saying that people have to avoid certain places forever. That's just not true for everyone.
 
You're making some silly assumptions.

No, I'm really not. I'm well aware from prior postings of your own situation. Don't you believe that your views are mediated by your professional experience, though, even so far asd your personal experience of addiction is concerned?
Me, I don't believe we can escape such mediation!
 
No, I'm really not. I'm well aware from prior postings of your own situation. Don't you believe that your views are mediated by your professional experience, though, even so far asd your personal experience of addiction is concerned?
Me, I don't believe we can escape such mediation!

Yes, you are. You appear to be assuming that your personal experience is universal. People can and do make full recovery. Yes, in early recovery, avoiding people and places and things associated with using is necessary. This stage does not necessarily last forever.

I used to be addicted to tobacco. I avoided certain situations for a while in early stages of quitting. Now I can happily be around smokers, pubs, parties etc and not have the urge to smoke.
 
I didn't say it was true for everyone. I said it was rare, and in my experience it is.

Its not in my experience. Everyone is different. You're taking a very 12 step line on things here. Which is great for some people. Its not universal though.
 
For example, there are loads of ex addicts working in drug services with ex users. Sometimes working with people they used to graft/score and use with. If what you say is true, then they'd be relapsing left, right and centre.
 
It's sad that this has been inevitably derailed into discussing abortion when it wasn't about that at all. It seems like hobby horses always come out whenever you mention pregnancy. I think it's counter productive.

I think it's almost impossibly-hard, outside of academe, to separate the issues convincingly enough that the hobby horses get left in the closet.
 
Is it the difference between recovery and cure? That you can recover from an addition but even if you've been recovered for ages, it's still problematic saying that you've been "cured"?
 
For example, there are loads of ex addicts working in drug services with ex users. Sometimes working with people they used to graft/score and use with. If what you say is true, then they'd be relapsing left, right and centre.

No, if what I said were true, then they'd be tempted to, which is a bit different.
 
Is it the difference between recovery and cure? That you can recover from an addition but even if you've been recovered for ages, it's still problematic saying that you've been "cured"?

Pretty much. I'd never call myself cured, not least because it's presumptive. I just don't know that I'll never succumb again, IYSWIM, so saying "I'm cured" doesn't make sense to me.
 
Like, if you had cancer. You might be cured of the cancer, but not recover back to where you were, if that makes sense?
Cancer is probably not a bad analogy as a lot of cancers are never cured, you just go into remission. Permanently perhaps, but it's still considered remission.

IME the word "cure" tends to be avoided in MH and additions because it sounds so final.

I guess what you are suggesting though is that someone may become non symptomatic but be suffering from issues (be they physical, social or psychological) that arose from their addition.
 
There is a particular article I was thinking of, can't find it now. It was about what it was really like being a midwife in the 1940s, before the NHS. It contained the memorable sentence 'There was an epidemic of "overlaying"'. Overlaying was where the mother goes to sleep next to the baby and 'accidentally' smothers it. The midwives would basically collude in covering this up, because the woman couldn't afford to raise the child and I guess orphanages were horrible.

Horrible, but 50 years prior to that (and even in the '20s and '30s) the infant mortality rate was a lot higher purely due to infection. Once antibiotics were avalable, the mortality rate plummeted, and without a concomitant rise in contraception, families would have grown even more than if "overlaying" hadn't happened.
 
How about taking medication which is good for the mother, but will cause birth defects in the baby? Or, eating soft cheese and risking listeria? Or having pain relief in labour that puts the baby at risk, directly or indirectly?
Eactly this. If I were to have a pregnancy I'd still have to take various medications yet most of what I currently take are contraindicated for pregnancy, so it would like to be several months of pain and kidney problems, if not pre-eclampsia. There is a balance to be struck.

I hate that a lot of people think it's okay to be judgmental about what a woman does or doesn't do during pregnancy - it's none of their business.
 
A lot of the time recovery means not reverting to what you were but in fact moving forward.
I know a lot of people say that.

But in my experience, the people I have met who I have felt, a sense of recovery from, I have felt like, they found themselves again after whatever their troubles were. They might have had to change loads about their life, even everything, but somehow they found themselves again.

That's just my opinion.
 
I'm not a lawyer, I do not think they would make a ruling that made women responsible for "a crime against a person" while she was pregnant, that simultaneously made abortion illegal.

Unfortunately for the human race, most legal decisions are formulated with reference to prior precedent, so if a foetus is considered to be a person in one legal decision, the precedent is set for a case to be made that the precedent applies in other situations, or even "across the board".
 
Personally I felt like I never knew myself after addiction and as such it was a case of leaving my past behaviour in the past and starting again. I have heard many ex users say exactly the same thing.
Do you mean before not after?

I had mental health problems as well as a bit of a substance problem, but I feel like, I was a nice good person before. I was just unlucky. I had some difficult stuff to deal with. But there is nothing wrong with me. So I don't always feel to comfortable with all this "moving forward" stuff. Maybe I needed to toughen up a bit but that is it really.
 
Unfortunately for the human race, most legal decisions are formulated with reference to prior precedent, so if a foetus is considered to be a person in one legal decision, the precedent is set for a case to be made that the precedent applies in other situations, or even "across the board".

The short version is that it opens the door for a great many other things. If I look to the US, there have been cases of judges ordering ceaserians, and going to court to mandate bedrest to prevent miscarriage. Which according to the doctor I spoke to while experiencing bleeding during pregnancy, is usually useless- very little of the stuff that is advised to prevent miscarriage makes any difference, they just advise that women don't do anything that they are likely to think would cause the miscarriage and make them blame themselves.
 
I'll bet money, that were you in theatre for an 'as late as necessary', you wouldn't eat for a while. It is not at all nice. It is the thing that theatre staff dread most.
Just for reference, terminations after 14 weeks are via induction of miscarriage and the mother goes through labour just the same as she would at the end of pregnancy. It isn't surgical or in theatre.
 
I wasn't quite sure what was driving the original story. Presumably the local authority had taken the kid into care - and whether the woman's drinking was classed as an offence had some bearing on who paid for his/her care?

Regardless of that I can't see causing FES becoming an offence, particularly as a result of case law - and I can't see Parliament, even the current one actually doing it by statute. Plenty of nobbish MPs might vote for it, but the chorus of professional opposition should make it a non-starter. To be honest though, a couple of years ago I wouldn't have imagined a bedroom tax. :(
 
The short version is that it opens the door for a great many other things. If I look to the US, there have been cases of judges ordering ceaserians, and going to court to mandate bedrest to prevent miscarriage. Which according to the doctor I spoke to while experiencing bleeding during pregnancy, is usually useless- very little of the stuff that is advised to prevent miscarriage makes any difference, they just advise that women don't do anything that they are likely to think would cause the miscarriage and make them blame themselves.

We know that one in five pregnancies (current UK figures) will end in miscarriage regardless of any preventive steps taken, so it does seem rather too much like cases of males exerting power to constrain womens' choice. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom