Just the Messenger...You Can Drink Alchohol While Pregnant.

[littleWMN]

No, I'm sorry, I really can't understand. I can't understand how your daughter's unfortunate issues, which are not diagnosed as FAS, because of a lack of evidence relating it to an unknown quantity of alcohol in pregnancy, should serve as a resounding and clear warning to moms like me. I drank sips of wine during the first half of my pregnancy to help settle my upset stomach.

 

I don't even enjoy wine. I never got a buzz out drinking it. I normally hate it, because it can induce migraines. The only enjoyment I got out of it was relief from puking my guts out 10x a day, and having my esophagus scalded to hell from stomach acid.

 

That's sweet, thanks. Do you mind editing this out? If not, that's fine. I deleted my words. The reason it was not diagnosed is because we do not have confirmation of alcohol being consumed while pregnant. Otherwise, all her "unfortunate issues" fit FASD - according to the geneticist and other specialists who work with children with FASD.. I've seen it in my friends with kids with FASD. FASD is very hard to diagnose b/c facial features only occur if you drink during two weeks of your pregnancy and because very few women will admit to drinking during pregnancy when it relates to their child's "unfortunate issues".

[LucyStoner]

I know this. I've had 5 miscarriages myself and take that seriously as well. I also did not drink caffeine during the first trimester and what I did drink was a small amount. I made that choice with caffeine. Everyone is welsome to make that choice with caffeine or alcohol. It's fair to point out the risks to both.

 

FWIW, the regular, high, consumption of caffiene before and in the early days of pregnancy before any one would know they were pregnant is a big part of the risk. Because of my history of miscarriages, that put me off of any daily caffiene use and the next pregnancy did happen to result in a healthy live birth. I fell off the wagon after my younger son was born since we thought we were done having kids and now I will admit I wonder about my subsequent 2nd trimester loss of a genetically fine fetus.

Edited September 25, 2011 by kijipt

[TravelingChris]

My argument is that not drinking very low amounts of alcohol in pregnancy is probably increasing risks of blood clots which are dangerous for both mother and child. SO it isn't simply a choice between not drinking and having no risk and drinking 1 -2 glasses of wine a week and having all these risks. It is a choice between drinking nothing and having an increased risk of blood clotting and drinking 1-2 glasses of wine and apparently having no increased risk to the child. I am done with having kids. My two older kids are both adults and currently vow they won't have kids. If they change their minds, I will tell my son's wife at that time. My daughter will already be on something- maybe aspirin, maybe heparin- since she has a blood clotting factor. My youngest does not. I will be urging her to have that one to two drinks to prevent the clot.

[littleWMN]

FWIW, the regular, high, consumption of caffiene before and in the early days of pregnancy before any one would know they were pregnant is a big part of the risk. Because of my history of miscarriages, that put me off of any daily caffiene use and the next pregnancy did happen to result in a healthy live birth. I fell off the wagon after my younger son was born since we thought we were done having kids and now I will admit I wonder about my subsequent 2nd trimester loss of a genetically fine fetus.

 

I abstained when TTC my son as well. It took 9 years of off and on TTC to have him (with miscarriages and adoptions in between). I did not abstain from caffeine in TTC with several of my pregnancies that I lost. However, I do have several reasons why I miscarry (the biggest being a blood clotting disorder that was treated when I had my son and not in the other pregnancies, but I have 4 "infertility factors"). So I really can't say whether caffeine affected those pregnancies or not, but when I "knew better, I did better". But like I said, I did drink light caffeine later on in his pregnancy. I had severe hyperemesis and sometimes that was all I could keep down.

[twoforjoy]

That's sweet, thanks. Do you mind editing this out? If not, that's fine. I deleted my words. The reason it was not diagnosed is because we do not have confirmation of alcohol being consumed while pregnant. Otherwise, all her "unfortunate issues" fit FASD - according to the geneticist and other specialists who work with children with FASD.. I've seen it in my friends with kids with FASD. FASD is very hard to diagnose b/c facial features only occur if you drink during two weeks of your pregnancy and because very few women will admit to drinking during pregnancy when it relates to their child's "unfortunate issues".

 

I'm really not trying to be dense here: if it were found that she was exposed to a 5 oz. glass of wine once a week during pregnancy, would they make a FASD diagnosis? Or, more in line with what people here are saying of their own experience, if she was exposed to half a beer once and half a glass of wine three times during the entire pregnancy, would FASD be the diagnosis? If it could be confirmed that the absolute only exposure to alcohol was 1 drink or less on isolated occasions, would they attribute the symptoms to that drinking, or assume there was another reason for them?

[Aelwydd]

We obviously have a difference of opinion. When a drug like alcohol has been proven to have serious and permanent impacts on brain development in amounts that are not that all that high, I think common sense tells us that it is not good for developing fetuses. I would err on the side of caution.[/Quote]

 

Again, I don't think you're wrong to take the cautious route. All I am saying is, I don't agree with assigning a moral value of "wrong" to those women who don't assign the same value judgment to an occasional drink, that you do, Bill.

 

We don't (generally) conduct controlled experiments that could cause significant harm to developing life for ethical reasons (understanding that there are the Dr Mengeles and other monsters in history).[/Quote]Well, there is such a thing as retrospective cohort study, which looks at a population that has already been exposed to a particular substance (through their own choice), and compare it to another population that hasn't been. It's not as reliable as a prospective, randomized study, but I'm just pointing out that it is possible to gather useful data without being a Nazi. ;)

 

The cited study tested for some developmental markers in a limited sample. If that is enough to convince you, that is your judgment to make. I would require a much higher burden of proof given alcohol's proven capacity to cause serious and permanent harm to fetuses in the womb.[/Quote]Bill, my B.S. is in pubic health, so that's where I am largely influenced. I don't take any one study ever to be the final word on anything. There is no perfectly designed study. There are only stronger studies and weaker studies, and it is the overall body of evidence I look at to inform my decisions. Since there is precious little out there about FAS and limited amounts of alcohol, that leaves only subjective things like anecdotal evidence, personal history, and so forth, to draw inferences from.

 

CDC and others admit this lack of evidence with their statement, "No safe amount has ever been established..." Why hasn't it been established? Because there haven't been enough studies. The evidence is too weak to say one way or the other if alcohol is safe, so CDC just takes the conservative side and says, "Don't drink it at all."

 

That's fine. I don't disagree with you or anyone else judging that the unknown risk cannot be justified by other potential benefits. I'm not arguing to change your mind on that. All I am trying to establish here in this thread, is that it isn't fair to hold other women to some nebulous standard like that, as if they are really stupid or selfish to make any other choice.

 

 

I'm sure it would not be difficult for you to intuit my position on a pre-natal diet of junk-food. As my mother always said, two wrongs don't make a right.[/Quote]That's great you don't go for junk food. It's really very harmful stuff in large amounts. I still don't think it's wrong for others to indulge in the occasional brownie during pregnancy.

 

 

It is unfortunate that you feel the need to testify to name-calling with those who have a legitimate and reasoned difference of opinion with your. It makes reasoned discussion difficult.[/Quote]Bill, where did I call you names??? I'm treating this as a friendly disagreement here, not insults! I'm shocked that you feel this way. I respect you, even when I don't agree.

 

I freely admitted that I have an almost complete lack of knowledge regarding pitocin, so I have no informed opinion. If it is a harmful I would not favor it's use. What is laughable about that?[/Quote]I told you I wasn't laughing at you (I said it wasn't personal). I was laughing because of the irony that it's a given how obsessed our society is with drugs and alcohol in pregnancy, so few are ever told the risks of the powerful, mind-altering drugs given in L&D. I wasn't laughing at your ignorance of this particular issue. It was a rueful, "If you only knew!" laugh.

 

And I think the potential risk of permanent harm to a developing fetus from a alcohol consumed in quantities sufficient to cause transitory "relaxation" or "stress reduction" on the part of the mother should give protection to the fetus that trumps the right to recreational drug consumption my the mother. So we profoundly disagree.

 

Bill[/Quote]Well, I don't equate a developing fetus as equal to its fully formed and developed adult mother, either legally or ethically. I'm pro-choice. That's not to say when I was pregnant, I didn't take many precautions to help ensure the health of the developing human inside me. I made most decisions with that as my foremost consideration. Heck, I underwent labor and delivery with NO PAIN MEDS. That wasn't for me.

 

However, I don't apologize for making some choices that had my health as the foremost consideration at times. I don't think I should have to. I don't condemn you or others who make a different choice. I just don't want to be infantalized, or called selfish, or whatever, for my own decisions.

[Aelwydd]

That's sweet, thanks. Do you mind editing this out? If not, that's fine. I deleted my words. The reason it was not diagnosed is because we do not have confirmation of alcohol being consumed while pregnant. Otherwise, all her "unfortunate issues" fit FASD - according to the geneticist and other specialists who work with children with FASD.. I've seen it in my friends with kids with FASD. FASD is very hard to diagnose b/c facial features only occur if you drink during two weeks of your pregnancy and because very few women will admit to drinking during pregnancy when it relates to their child's "unfortunate issues".

 

 

I repeated back what you, yourself, posted! Why are you so sarcastic? I didn't post that with anything but the most serious intent. I really don't understand. How am I supposed to base my entire judgment of this issue on a situation that is a, anecdotal, b, not an official case of FAS (stated not as an attack, but as a fact that you shared), c, involving an unknown quantity of alcohol?

 

That's too many variables for me to say that yes, x = any amount of alcohol, even minute portions of it.

 

I will gladly edit the portion you didn't appreciate, but I don't believe my response was wrong or disrespectful. That was my analysis of the data you provided.

 

ETA: I've removed what you asked.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Aelwydd

[littleWMN]

I'm really not trying to be dense here: if it were found that she was exposed to a 5 oz. glass of wine once a week during pregnancy, would they make a FASD diagnosis? Or, more in line with what people here are saying of their own experience, if she was exposed to half a beer once and half a glass of wine three times during the entire pregnancy, would FASD be the diagnosis? If it could be confirmed that the absolute only exposure to alcohol was 1 drink or less on isolated occasions, would they attribute the symptoms to that drinking, or assume there was another reason for them?

 

FASD would have been the diagnosis if there were any admission to any alcohol consumed at all, based on clinical symptoms and the alcohol use. The diagnosis process is very difficult and very strict. Her geneticist is one of the top in the country. He does not make the FASD diagnosis lightly. She has something else going on as well, but it was not ruled out that FASD is not the cause for part of her issues. It's neither here nor there b/c it can't be diagnosed. But my point is, that I've lived with a child that has issues similar - very similar - to a child with FASD. She may never live on her own without heavy support. It's simply not worth the risk to me. No judgment here, but it would be nice to see some understanding going both ways on this thread. And with that, I'm out.

 

If ya'll want to know more, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything else to say.

[Aelwydd]

This discussion is getting way too intense. I'm going to bow out, because I don't see anything positive coming out of my continued participation.

 

Bill, please believe me when I tell you I don't have any hard feelings regarding your position on being risk-adverse. On the contrary, there's much to admire and agree about it. I don't think you're wrong or unintelligent or whatever, for adopting that stance.

 

I will simply say that it's not my intent to change anyone's mind, if they feel that all alcohol should be avoided during pregnancy. My purpose was and is, to defend the right of those of us who are comfortable incurring what we deem to be a small risk. And that our rationale is as sound as the other side, since there is no scientific pool of evidence from which to draw an objective medical standard.

[twoforjoy]

FASD would have been the diagnosis if there were any admission to any alcohol consumed at all, based on clinical symptoms and the alcohol use.

 

I'm not trying to drag this out, just curious.

 

So if a woman only drank a single glass of wine her entire pregnancy, and her child had certain symptoms, the child would have a FASD diagnosis? They wouldn't look for other causes?

[littleWMN]

I repeated back what you, yourself, posted! Why are you so sarcastic? I didn't post that with anything but the most serious intent. I really don't understand. How am I supposed to base my entire judgment of this issue on a situation that is a, anecdotal, b, not an official case of FAS (stated not as an attack, but as a fact that you shared), c, involving an unknown quantity of alcohol?

 

That's too many variables for me to say that yes, x = any amount of alcohol, even minute portions of it.

 

I will gladly edit the portion you didn't appreciate, but I don't believe my response was wrong or disrespectful. That was my analysis of the data you provided.

 

ETA: I've removed what you asked.

 

Thanks for removing. I'm sorry I came across as sarcastic, that was not my intent. I did read sarcasm in your post as well. And I guess that's why I was defensive - that and the fact that I'm obviously passionate about FASD. What I was TRYING to say is that I've lived with a child that's symptoms highly mimic FASD (what I said is it can't be diagnosed OR ruled out)... I know others with children with (official) FASD. It is not an easy life. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm not trying to make the correlation you think I'm trying to make, but I can see how you read it that way. I didn't ask anyone to base their entire judgment on anything I posted. I posted a lot of links about the risks and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, it's good to be educated on both sides of this issue. Ultimately, the choice is yours. I think I'm too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it further on this thread.

 

I'm out.

 

eta: I wasn't asking you to remove what you posted. I was asking you to remove what I posted and you quoted. I went back and edited out my words (felt it was too much personal information out there). So, you can remove the quote if you wish, if not, that's fine. Thanks for trying.

Edited September 25, 2011 by littleWMN

[WishboneDawn]

I don't either. But I would never propose to urge someone to have a drink if it makes no difference to them anyhow.

 

 

We agree on this. :)

[WishboneDawn]

For the sake of my blood pressure, I need to bow out of this thread. There are no studies proving that any amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy.

 

I think reading the thread might lower your blood pressure. I've found and linked to three studies that show just that. The very first post contained a link to one of those studies.

[WishboneDawn]

Everyone has to make their own decisions, yes. Drink what you are comfortable with. But perhaps instead of just throwing the "drink while pregnant" phrases around, you could make some disclaimers to be careful as well. It's very real and effects some people on a daily basis.

 

The title was an accurate reflection of the information contained in the studies I quoted. I am certain the women here (especially here) don't base their decisions on thread titles but rather do as I did and at enter the thread and read the information linked to within.

 

I'm honestly asking, do you know anyone diagnosed with FASD?

 

Yes, one of my best friends and her brother suffer from it in varying degrees.

 

But I can't see that as a reason to not share information on drinking small amounts of alcohol while pregnant.

[WishboneDawn]

I will simply say that it's not my intent to change anyone's mind, if they feel that all alcohol should be avoided during pregnancy. My purpose was and is, to defend the right of those of us who are comfortable incurring what we deem to be a small risk. And that our rationale is as sound as the other side, since there is no scientific pool of evidence from which to draw an objective medical standard.

 

My view on this as well.

 

I think abstaining is a perfectly reasonable and understandable approach.

 

I simply don't think pointing out that there seems to be non-harmful levels of alcohol ingestion while pregnant is inflammatory or something one should not do. Neither do I think that women making an informed choice based on current science are doing wrong.

[WishboneDawn]

Thanks for removing. I'm sorry I came across as sarcastic, that was not my intent. I did read sarcasm in your post as well. And I guess that's why I was defensive - that and the fact that I'm obviously passionate about FASD. What I was TRYING to say is that I've lived with a child that's symptoms highly mimic FASD (what I said is it can't be diagnosed OR ruled out)... I know others with children with (official) FASD. It is not an easy life. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm not trying to make the correlation you think I'm trying to make, but I can see how you read it that way. I didn't ask anyone to base their entire judgment on anything I posted. I posted a lot of links about the risks and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, it's good to be educated on both sides of this issue. Ultimately, the choice is yours. I think I'm too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it further on this thread.

 

I'm out.

 

eta: I wasn't asking you to remove what you posted. I was asking you to remove what I posted and you quoted. I went back and edited out my words (felt it was too much personal information out there). So, you can remove the quote if you wish, if not, that's fine. Thanks for trying.

 

Thanks for your contribution. It may feel frustrating but I think it's valuable that you added your voice. :grouphug:

[Aelwydd]

Thanks for removing. I'm sorry I came across as sarcastic, that was not my intent. I did read sarcasm in your post as well. And I guess that's why I was defensive - that and the fact that I'm obviously passionate about FASD. What I was TRYING to say is that I've lived with a child that's symptoms highly mimic FASD (what I said is it can't be diagnosed OR ruled out)... I know others with children with (official) FASD. It is not an easy life. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm not trying to make the correlation you think I'm trying to make, but I can see how you read it that way. I didn't ask anyone to base their entire judgment on anything I posted. I posted a lot of links about the risks and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, it's good to be educated on both sides of this issue. Ultimately, the choice is yours. I think I'm too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it further on this thread.

 

I'm out.

 

eta: I wasn't asking you to remove what you posted. I was asking you to remove what I posted and you quoted. I went back and edited out my words (felt it was too much personal information out there). So, you can remove the quote if you wish, if not, that's fine. Thanks for trying.

 

Oh, my bad. I went back and edited out the quote of your post. Let me know if I missed anything. I agree that personal stuff should be respected as private. Sorry again for my misunderstanding!

[Abigail4476]

Okay, I read through the links Wishbone provided. I didn't find the study very convincing, although I admit to being hard to convince on this issue. ;) Not only is the study supporting the idea that light drinking does not harm the fetus, but it also presents the notion that children of light drinkers fare better in cognitive and behavioral tests than those who abstain altogether. If true, this should lead doctors to actually recommend light drinking to women who normally abstain--right along with taking their prenatal vitamins. I find this to be both interesting and preposterous at the same time.

 

http://www.medscape.com published an article about this study, and here's some of the commentary:

 

"...Reached for outside comment, Marc C. Lewis, MD, service chief for Women's Health Services at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, said the study is "interesting, but certainly warrants much more long-term data."

 

Although the short-term data suggest no increased risk for poor socioeconomic or cognitive developmental outcomes in children born to mothers who drank not more than 1 to 2 units of alcohol per week, "I agree with the authors' statement that further work to tease out etiological relationships is needed," Dr. Lewis told Medscape Medical News.

 

"We know that in the United States, the leading cause of mental retardation is related to fetal alcohol syndrome," he added, "and although the study was for light drinkers, I do not believe we want to establish a precedent that any level of alcohol consumption is okay, because in truth, we really don't know the long-term effects of even light drinking."

 

Also of note:

 

"...Dr. Kelly and colleagues point to the observational nature of their study and caution that "causal inference based on observational data is limited."

 

They also note that data on mothers drinking during pregnancy were collected when the children were 9 months old, and although some studies report that retrospective recall of alcohol consumption is reliable, it is possible that the measure used in this study was prone to recall bias."

 

What this says to me: This was NOT the kind of study that can be heavily relied upon for definitive scientific conclusions.

 

I wouldn't leave the decision making regarding the health of my growing fetus to a study that used the "recollections" of women in regard to how much alcohol they drank during pregnancy. A serious scientific study would require the recording of exact amounts, detailed investigation of outcomes, long-term observations and data collection--and repetitive testing of all of the above to see that the same results were reached each time. Otherwise, they are surmising at best.

 

Simply put, the fact that a study was done and data was collected and conclusions were drawn does not grant integrity or validity to the method of study itself. The method used in this study would be akin to asking my children what sorts of foods they ate last year and trying to draw clear conclusions about their current health based on their answers and no doubt imperfect recollections.

 

What this study does, essentially and credibly, is create interest in the topic for further research. However, the study itself is not sophisticated or reliable enough to warrant putting the health of a fetus in jeopardy, IMO.

 

According to the CDC (yes, this is their "propaganda" statement, but nevertheless...):

 

"There is no known safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink and no safe kind of alcohol. CDC urges pregnant women not to drink alcohol any time during pregnancy.

 

Women also should not drink alcohol if they are planning to become pregnant or are sexually active and do not use effective birth control. This is because a woman could become pregnant and not know for several weeks or more. In the United States half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

 

FASDs are 100% preventable. If a woman doesn't drink alcohol while she is pregnant, her child cannot have an FASD."

 

I agree with this last statement. Until there is better proof that even light drinking is harmless, I will stick to my "total abstinence" stance. Maybe it is an unnecessary stance, but it's a protective one.

 

I will be more likely to trust the conclusions drawn from a study which:

 

--closely observes pregnant women throughout their pregnancies.

--carefully monitors and records food, supplement, medicine and fluid intakes in exact amounts throughout pregnancy

--monitors and observes their children over a long period of time, independent of parental bias, recollection ability, or the possibility of skewed information considering the sensitive nature of this topic

 

 

This is from the March of Dimes website:

 

"...Researchers are taking a closer look at the more subtle effects of moderate and light drinking during pregnancy.

 

A 2002 study found that 14-year-old children whose mothers drank as little as one drink a week were significantly shorter and leaner and had a smaller head circumference (a possible indicator of brain size) than children of women who did not drink at all (8).

A 2001 study found that 6- and 7-year-old children of mothers who had as little as one drink a week during pregnancy were more likely than children of non-drinkers to have behavior problems, such as aggressive and delinquent behaviors. These researchers found that children whose mothers drank any alcohol during pregnancy were more than three times as likely as unexposed children to demonstrate delinquent behaviors (9).

A 2007 study suggested that female children of women who drank less than one drink a week were more likely to have behavioral and emotional problems at 4 and 8 years of age. The study also suggested similar effects in boys, but at higher levels of drinking (10).

Other studies report behavioral and learning problems in children exposed to moderate drinking during pregnancy, including attention and memory problems, hyperactivity, impulsivity, poor social and communication skills, psychiatric problems (including mood disorders) and alcohol and drug use (2)."

 

footnotes:

 

2 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Updated 5/2/06.

 

8 - Day, N.L., et al. Prenatal Alcohol Exposure Predicts Continued Deficits in Offspring Size at 14 Years of Age. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, volume 26, number 10, 2002, pages 1584-1591.

9 - Sood, B., et al. Prenatal Alcohol Exposure and Childhood Behavior at Age 6 to 7 Pediatrics, volume 108, number 2, August 2001, page e34.

10 - Sayal, K., et al. Prenatal Alcohol Exposure and Gender Differences in Childhood Mental Health Problems: A Longitudinal Population-Based Study. Pediatrics, volume 119, number 2, February 2007, pages e426-434.

[Abigail4476]

For clarity, I was referencing only the first study that you posted.

 

Regarding a couple of others, I'll just post their conclusions and the problems I find with them:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19922516 -

 

RESULTS: Low levels of prenatal alcohol were not associated with child behaviour problems. There were increased odds of internalizing behaviour problems following heavy alcohol exposure in the first trimester; anxiety/depression [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-7.43] and somatic complaints (aOR 2.74; 95% CI 1.47-5.12) and moderate levels of alcohol exposure increased the odds of anxiety/depression (aOR 2.24; 95% CI 1.16-4.34).

 

"Moderate levels" and "low levels" of alcohol exposure aren't defined in this study (at least, not at this link), so a conclusion regarding safe amounts doesn't seem possible.

 

Also, CONCLUSIONS:

 

Prenatal alcohol exposure at moderate and higher levels increased the odds of child behaviour problems with the dose, pattern and timing of exposure affecting the type of behaviour problems expressed. Larger studies with more power are needed to confirm these findings.

 

Again, this isn't really conclusive. It leads to more interest, more research and more studies, but it doesn't provide satisfactory relief from the current alcohol-during-pregnancy boundaries.

 

Another one -

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19171621 -

 

RESULTS:

There was no association between low levels of alcohol consumption and language delay at any time period, although there was a nonsignificant 30% increase in risk when moderate-to-heavy levels of alcohol were consumed in the third trimester. Children exposed to a binge pattern of maternal alcohol consumption in the second trimester had nonsignificant, three-fold increased odds of language delay, with a similar estimate following third trimester alcohol exposure after controlling for covariates.

 

I admit to not understanding how a 30% increase in risk is "nonsignificant." :001_huh:

 

CONCLUSIONS:

This study did not detect an association between low levels of prenatal alcohol exposure and language delay when compared with women who abstained from alcohol during pregnancy. A nonsignificant threefold increase in the likelihood of language delay was seen in children whose mothers binged during late pregnancy. However, the small numbers of women with a binge-drinking pattern in late pregnancy limited the power of this study; studies analyzing larger numbers of children exposed to binge drinking in late pregnancy are needed.

 

And once again you have a study that concludes with a need for more data.

 

I agree with these conclusions: We need more data. In the meantime, better safe than sorry. ;)

[ElizaG]

And I think the potential risk of permanent harm to a developing fetus from a alcohol consumed in quantities sufficient to cause transitory "relaxation" or "stress reduction" on the part of the mother should give protection to the fetus that trumps the right to recreational drug consumption my the mother. So we profoundly disagree.

Just to add some more points to your databank...

 

1) Emotional stress during pregnancy, whether severe or mild, has been shown to result in a higher rate of birth defects and behavioral problems in the offspring. This is pretty well established. There are other ways to lower stress, but many people find an occasional half or full glass of wine to be a very good one, especially in the right social context.

 

2) If you want to call wine and beer "recreational drugs," that's up to you, but outside of highly Puritan-influenced cultures, they're considered to be traditional and healthful foods that happen to contain alcohol. As another poster has mentioned, red wine has nutrients such as flavonoids that can benefit the circulation. (Hmm... maybe the association between light alcohol consumption and cognitive benefits, as observed in the recent study, could be related to increased oxygen supply?) There's some interesting research suggesting that these compounds can mitigate the neurotoxic effects that are found with exposure to pure ethanol.

 

3) Not sure if you'd also consider dark chocolate to be a drug -- after all, it contains caffeine, theobromine, and other potent substances -- but it turns out that daily consumption (or, if you prefer, "dosing") is associated with a much lower risk of pre-eclampsia, and also with happier babies.

 

I get so upset when I think of all those pregnant ladies who don't eat chocolate every single day... how could they be so selfish, thinking only of their own waistlines? I could never put my child at risk like that. I know there's no actual proof of causality, but if he turned out to be bad-tempered for the rest of his life, I couldn't stand the guilt.

(just kidding, I think ;))

[kiana]

I admit to not understanding how a 30% increase in risk is "nonsignificant." :001_huh:

 

This is a reference to statistical significance, rather than the common usage of significance which would be rather different. What their sentence means is "We think we saw a 30% higher risk. Due to the low numbers in our study, though, we can't be sure whether this is just caused by random variations or not."

 

For a (hopefully non-controversial) example of statistical significance:

 

Let us say that we are considering whether a coin is biased or not. Suppose we flip it two times and get two heads. Assuming the coin is fair, this has a 25% chance of happening. We cannot use this to say that the coin is biased.

 

Now suppose that we flip it 200 times and it comes up heads 70% of the time. The odds of this happening by chance are pretty small, and we would likely then conclude that the coin is biased.

 

Similarly, medical studies with low numbers of participants require far higher risk increases in order to show statistical significance.

[Abigail4476]

This is a reference to statistical significance, rather than the common usage of significance which would be rather different. What their sentence means is "We think we saw a 30% higher risk. Due to the low numbers in our study, though, we can't be sure whether this is just caused by random variations or not."

 

For a (hopefully non-controversial) example of statistical significance:

 

Let us say that we are considering whether a coin is biased or not. Suppose we flip it two times and get two heads. Assuming the coin is fair, this has a 25% chance of happening. We cannot use this to say that the coin is biased.

 

Now suppose that we flip it 200 times and it comes up heads 70% of the time. The odds of this happening by chance are pretty small, and we would likely then conclude that the coin is biased.

 

Similarly, medical studies with low numbers of participants require far higher risk increases in order to show statistical significance.

 

Okay, thanks. They're not saying that the 30% increase is mathematically insignificant; they're saying that they're disregarding it because of possible bias (read: inaccuracy?). Right?

[kiana]

Okay, thanks. They're not saying that the 30% increase is mathematically insignificant; they're saying that they're disregarding it because of possible bias (read: inaccuracy?). Right?

 

Close enough. It's because they can't rule out that it could have happened by chance.

 

For more information, check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

 

The first paragraph in the article and the first paragraph in "use in practice" have some further explanations.

[WishboneDawn]

Okay, I read through the links Wishbone provided. I didn't find the study very convincing, although I admit to being hard to convince on this issue. ;) Not only is the study supporting the idea that light drinking does not harm the fetus, but it also presents the notion that children of light drinkers fare better in cognitive and behavioral tests than those who abstain altogether. If true, this should lead doctors to actually recommend light drinking to women who normally abstain--right along with taking their prenatal vitamins. I find this to be both interesting and preposterous at the same time.

 

It's important to make it clear that the study isn't "supporting the idea" or "presenting the notion", it's simply presenting the data. I don't think any doctor would actually reccomend light drinking based on that study because the authors make no claim about whether the result is correlation or causation. It could well be that there were other factors in the light drinkers not accounted for that could explain the difference in cognitive and behavioral tests.

 

I think your other points are good but the issues are the same as ones that come up with some of the studies from the March of Dimes website (at least with the ones I could find). The second one for instance involved a large number of women with nicotine and illicit drug problems and similarly relied on self reporting.

[WishboneDawn]

3) Not sure if you'd also consider dark chocolate to be a drug -- after all, it contains caffeine, theobromine, and other potent substances -- but it turns out that daily consumption (or, if you prefer, "dosing") is associated with a much lower risk of pre-eclampsia, and also with happier babies.

 

I get so upset when I think of all those pregnant ladies who don't eat chocolate every single day... how could they be so selfish, thinking only of their own waistlines? I could never put my child at risk like that. I know there's no actual proof of causality, but if he turned out to be bad-tempered for the rest of his life, I couldn't stand the guilt.

(just kidding, I think ;))

 

:lol: You just reminded me of the big bar of dark chocolate in the cupboard. I think I'll go do something good for my unborn baby.

[WishboneDawn]

I just want to apologize for the hurt this thread has caused some.

 

When I started it my only intention was to share the relief I felt about research into light drinking while pregnant. I did think it might be a little controversial but I didn't think about those of us dealing with FASD and how they might feel seeing this thread. I think the discussion here has been really good and I appreciate those who've joined in despite of how personal and emotional the discussion of alcohol in pregnancy can be but I do want those folks to know that I did not intend or foresee the pain this subject has caused.

 

You guys dealing with FASD have all of my respect.

[Ria]

I just want to apologize for the hurt this thread has caused some.

 

When I started it my only intention was to share the relief I felt about research into light drinking while pregnant. I did think it might be a little controversial but I didn't think about those of us dealing with FASD and how they might feel seeing this thread. I think the discussion here has been really good and I appreciate those who've joined in despite of how personal and emotional the discussion of alcohol in pregnancy can be but I do want those folks to know that I did not intend or foresee the pain this subject has caused.

 

You guys dealing with FASD have all of my respect.

 

And you have my respect. Good thread, good discussion. Well done.