My wife is currently growing our first baby. Neither of us had children coming into the marriage so it’s been, at times, an overwhelming task to learn about pregnancy. The task is made needlessly complicated by the proliferation of fake science on the internet. At times you simply can’t tell what is accurate information. That’s why information from obstetricians is vital to the baby’s health and wellbeing.
It should be common knowledge that drinking while pregnant is a bad idea. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say avoid all alcohol while pregnant. However, a quick internet search for Pregnancy Myths Alcohol yields contradictory information on the subject. Enter HB 2695.
The bill is short and to the point. It requires:
- doctors to provide information on fetal alcohol spectrum disorders to expectant parents at the initial contact,
- doctors to provide information on fetal alcohol spectrum disorders to the parents of a child who receives that diagnosis, AND
- states a cause of action will not lie for failure to give the required information.
Essentially, the bill requires doctors to warn about the dangers of drinking while pregnant, and shields them from liability if they do not.
Warnings regarding the dangers while drinking are found on all alcoholic beverages. The message isn’t getting through. The CDC has compiled statistics on fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. For Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the most involved impairment, they estimate that 0.5 to 1.5 infants per 1,000 live births by medical records; rising to 6 to 9 out of every 1000 by in-school assessment. That number doesn’t seem too high, until you remember that this is an entirely preventable birth defect. However, that number just measures Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Looking at the full range of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders shows an incidence of 2 to 5 per 100 school children. That’s 2 to 5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}, all of which are preventable.
The thought is that an expectant mother will listen to information from her obstetrician. This will cut through the fake science proliferating online and reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Some bills are simply good ideas. This is one such bill. The cost of compliance is de minimis – simply print out information and give it as part of the initial visit paperwork. Doctors are shielded from liability in case the information isn’t provided. A very similar bill was introduced last session and never made it to the floor. It’s time to rise above politics and pass this uncontroversial bill.
Neither Here Nor There says
The more knowledge that is available, the less common sense we seem to have. I still can’t get over the don’t stick your foot or hand under the lawn mower when it is running.
I believe that if the wife gives up alcohol, the husband should do so also, as moral support.
May God bless the three of you.
Greg Degeyter says
Thank you.
Jeff Larson says
There is a warning sign on the door to the men’s room in many restaurants telling of the dangers of drinking during pregnancy. I doubt that many of the users of the men’s room will ever be pregnant.
I find it difficult to believe that this information isn’t taught during school health classes, or that most women don’t encounter literally dozens of warnings about alcohol use during pregnancy before they ever become pregnant for the first time. I find it equally difficult to believe there are ob-gyns who do not give out this information as a matter of routine during the first prenatal visit (my wife received such counseling at her first prenatal visit over 20 years ago).
Despite all these warnings, studies show that as many as half of all expectant mothers drink during pregnancy, however little. I sincerely doubt that more warnings will stop the practice. There is also hard evidence that moderate drinking during pregancy leads to an infinitesimal chance of FASD. So clearly, our problem is with women who have been warned numerous times to limit alcohol use during pregancy, and cannot limit themselves to moderate use.
Given our statistics on drunk driving and on alcoholism in general, I’m not sure why that should be a surprise. A woman who gets sloshed and drives probably isn’t going to stop just because she’s pregnant.
On the other hand, what this will do is drive up the cost of healthcare in general, and the cost of having a baby in particular. Practically every ob-gyn already does what you claim is a de minimus expense…printing out the information and handing it to the patient.
However, you overlook the cost of compliance. If this passes, there will have to be records kept of whether or not this information is provided. There may be no legal requirement to keep these records, but rest assured, every physician dealing with pregnancy or children will keep those records as protection against legal proceedings.
This is like every other ill-conceived, burdensome, miserable piece of legislation proposed “for our own good.” There is a sob story behind it. There is ALWAYS a sob story, whether it be the child who was run over by a school bus, the elderly woman who was scalded by a hot drink, or in this case, a child who is handicapped for life due to his mother’s drinking. The presence of a sob story doesn’t magically transform bad legislation into good.
If you feel motivated to “do something” about this, here’s my suggestion. Don’t drink to excess while pregnant. Tell your children that you didn’t do this, and tell them exactly why. Donate to organizations that promote FASD awareness and/or help the victims. But please don’t extend the government’s intrusion into the physician-patient relationship even more than it already is, especially when practially all providers are already doing exactly what you want them to do.
Greg Degeyter says
Thank you for your comment Jeff. Your opposition seems to be highly ideological. How much actual impact will your concerns translate to is an area to address.
Let’s look at some of your concerns:
A. Increased costs.
Can you point to something specific that will increase costs? You raised two points:
1) It will “drive up the cost of healthcare in general, and the cost of having a baby in particular.” As you said most ob-gyns already give out information this would just add a little flesh to the blurb given. It’s the cost of ink for a couple of sentences. So no extra cost burden there.
2) “You overlook the cost of compliance.. will keep those records as protection against legal proceedings.” No offence, but this is an especially flimsy argument.
Standard practice requires patients to fill out initial paperwork and date/sign the acknowledgment they received various items is kept as business records for the reasons you noted. Including FASD information in the initial packet and obtaining a signature on the preexisting acknowledgment achieves your goal. It will require a sentence and signature line. Once again a bit of ink is the cost involved.
B. The information is already out there,
You are correct the information is already out there. However, the 2-5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} incidence of FASD is res ipsa loquitor that the current information presentation isn’t working. In Gaussian distribution the third standard deviation outer threshold is 99.73{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} and the second standard deviation is 95.45{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} leaving FASD incidence range straddling the two deviations.
You also give good reasons for giving the information. Discounting the need by referring to studies showing “an infinitesimal chance of FASD” is why the bill is needed. Anyone can point to studies to support their point that drinking is/is not dangerous while pregnant. Having the ob-gyn give information cuts through the clutter of information out there.
C. Some mothers will drink anyway
Sure they will. Some people will engage in dangerous activities regardless of the warnings. That doesn’t mean the warnings shouldn’t be given.
D. It’s an “ill-conceived, burdensome, miserable piece of legislation proposed “for our own good.””
1). Burden. Where is the burden beyond the ordinary burden already in place? We’re talking about adding a few sentences to the information packet already given and a signature block to the preexisting acknowledgments. The alleged burden is minimal.
2) “for out own good.” Not at all. If someone wants to get sloshed that’s their business. This is for the good of the baby.
Bob in Champions says
I’ve talked with genetic counselors and, long story short, since there’s neither a magic amount that is okay (or even a good guideline formula), doctors simply just say “don’t do it” for alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, and other things that they know are fine, as long as the body filters it all out before it gets to little shrimp (or soon to be full-fledged baby).
I’m glad that the law is being updated based on better information, since most doctors are smart enough to explain it well to parents that the safest amount is “NONE”, but we don’t know how much more still counts as safe.