From the BBC:
Fathers-to-be should stop smoking to protect their unborn child from the risk of stillbirth or birth defects, scientists say.
University of Nottingham researchers found that pregnant women exposed to smoke at work or home increased their risk of stillbirth by 23% and of having a baby with defects by 13%. They looked at 19 previous studies from around the world. A UK expert said it was "vital" women knew the risks of second-hand smoke.
Ho hum.
The figures are probably complete rubbish, but let's take them at face value for now. According to Tommy's there are around 4,000 still births a year in the UK against around 800,000 live births, and let's assume that a quarter of mothers smoke or are exposed to 'second-hand smoke'.
While I accept that a still birth is heart breaking and distressing for the parents involved, let's do our bit to inform women of the absolute risks of second-hand smoke:
Not exposed - 600,000 pregnancies x 0.473% = 2,837 still births
Exposed - 200,000 pregnancies x [0.47% x 1.23=0.58%] = 1,163 still births
Total = 4,000 still births.
So in absolute terms, 'second-hand smoke' increases the risk by 0.11% (from 0.47% to 0.58%). What's even more heart breaking is of course that 81% of still births where 'second-hand smoke' was in play would have happened anyway, so this will cause additional guilt and suffering on the part of the parents.
Finally, let me do a bit of Victimhood Poker for once and point out that a far greater risk factor is how many grandparents the parents of the child have in common.
It's as bad as the US
54 minutes ago
16 comments:
"Finally, let me do a bit of Victimhood Poker for once and point out that a far greater risk factor is how many grandparents the parents of the child have in common."
I take it we're talking of inbreeding here?
I hear abortion can harm the unborn child as well, oops sorry thats a foetus not an unborn child, so that's okay then.
SW, got it in one.
G, I'm a humanist and a feminist. The key issue is the upper limit, there is a huge moral difference between the morning after pill and a termination after twenty weeks. So by all means, let's reduce the upper limit; but the quid pro quo has to be making it a lot easier in the first few weeks.
Smoking is not good for anyone. It's a relatively new phenomena in western history. It only really came into fashion in WW1.
It's prohibition has been remarkably successful and puts lie to claims that we can do nothing but be liberal with cannabis and heroin. At the very least the official line shows some glaring inconsistencies.
Of the positive effects of prohibition for non-smokers Peter Hitchens puts it far more eloquently than I ever could in his article which I will link in the next comment.
I've lost count of the number of ex smokers who are more evangelical about the benefits of prohibition than those who have never been addicted to the stuff.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/03/i-was-wrong-on-cigarettes-but-believe-me-im-right-on-cannabis-.html
EK, each to his or her own, say I.
"G, I'm a humanist and a feminist. The key issue is the upper limit, there is a huge moral difference between the morning after pill and a termination after twenty weeks. So by all means, let's reduce the upper limit; but the quid pro quo has to be making it a lot easier in the first few weeks."
A reasonable point. Late term abortion is pretty difficult to justify, my sister-in-law, who was a nurse in the Army has a story to tell about that which would make you want to cry. Our legislators know of this slaughter and do not bat an eyelid.
Anyway, off topic.
G, it's not off topic at all. I know about these horror stories, and frankly, I'd rather not know.
But surely the point about "risk" and making people aware of it is to be scrupously honest - declare validated risks - not speculative risk - once you get into the arena of braodcasting speculative, and in the worst case, fabricated risk, and it then gets "found out" people then tend to be sceptical of if not just ignore ALL the "risk" messages - so the real risks get ignored along with the fabricated ones - that is the real danger and despite that the unavowed abolitionists who masquerade as "health advice charities" continue to show they care little or nothing about "people's health" and more about "their mission", because they just carry on spewing out "made up" or "disingenously interpreted" (often by people employed off the back of funds provided directly or indirectly by US) garbage.
The real point of this is the quote in that BBC article from the obstetrician:
It is vital that women are made aware of the possible risks associated with second-hand smoke and alert those around them of the impact it could potentially have on the health of their unborn baby.
In other words, they want pregnant women to bully smokers.
PH makes it clear why it isn't 'each to his own' and it's not the argument that you think it is.
EK, personally, I think smokers have dug their own grave. Enough of them were inconsiderate bastards with no thought for the non-smoker to make this backlash inevitable. However that doesn't either excuse all the hypocrisy and bullshit that surrounds the anti-smoking campaign and the sort of nanny state "people must be protected from the consequences of their own folly" crap spouted by Peter Hitchens. If the state really wanted to stop people indulging in activities dangerous to themselves, it would ban driving.
"EK: Smoking is not good for anyone. It's a relatively new phenomena in western history. It only really came into fashion in WW1.
It's prohibition has been remarkably successful and puts lie to claims that we can do nothing but be liberal with cannabis and heroin. At the very least the official line shows some glaring inconsistencies."
I will refer to the wonderful TV series BULLSHIT for my answer. (not an exact quotation)
in a truly free country, what I choose to put into MY body is my own fucking business!!
Then seeing as you won't read the article I've linked for you I'll quote part of it from memory:
"Smokers will endure a slow and lingering death inflicting more suffering on those around then than they experience themselves. They will deprive dependents of funds and physical support."
The revenue raised from tobacco tax for the NHS doesn't really square either. Especially when one considers just how much tobacco is bought with welfare money.
"What I choose to put in my own body is my own fucking business" is rather simplistic.
If you smoke in my vicinity then what you put in your body also ends up in (and on) my body.
It's not nice. It really isn't.
Prohibition is good and prohibition is fair. I was here before it and I'm here now. And it's one of the few positive things about modern Britain.
I recommend that you read the Hitchens article.
EK, I did read the PH article. He provides nothing new in the way of logic or facts, he's perfectly entitled to his opinion and I'm perfectly entitled to ignore him.
"Smokers will endure a slow and lingering death inflicting more suffering on those around then than they experience themselves. They will deprive dependents of funds and physical support."
That's their business, not the business of the state.
Prohibition has happened because a lot of people didn't like breathing other people's cigarette smoke, (whether it harmed them is irrelevant, they didn't like it) and didn't like their clothes smelling of other people's cigarette smoke. The health arguments are just a casus belli.
Prohibition is still an unwarranted infringement of our liberties, but given that so many smokers are selfish, inconsiderate bastards, it's probably the only way.
Post a Comment