NSW Government to seize babies of mothers who use drugs

[Subaeruginosin]

A friend of mine told me her mother took LSD while pregnant with her, and she is an exceptionally creative, intelligent and innovative thinker and an incredible artist. I don't know her well enough to comment on wether or not she has any deeper detrimental psychological problems that may be linked to exposure to LSD while in the womb, but to me she seems like one of the most sane and grounded people I have met.

My parents used to do foster care, before they broke up when I was just a little fella.

Anyway, there were these two brothers that stayed with us for a few years who had come from hard-core smack addict parents. They were probably only a year and a half a part, one was of a healthy weight, very intelligent and just a levelheaded normal kid in general. The other one was thin and always looked malnourished and quite simply used to act like a feral little animal, he used to run around biting everyone and breaking shit screaming gibberish about nothing, dude had some serious mental issues. Last I saw them, the first one was living with a chick and working full time doing all right. The other one was living in someone’s garage just getting fucked up everyday with little interest in working, last I heard he got locked up at 17 for an armed robbery charge lol. Some milk bar owner wouldn’t sell him cigarettes so he decided to pull a knife on him and take them for free.

My point being, for every story a person can recite where drug use while pregnant caused no or little harm, there’s at least one and probably far more stories where drug use while pregnant did cause some or major harm to the rest of that human beings life.

Personally I don’t care if it’s cigarettes, cannabis, smack or meth (alcohol has the potential to cause more long-term damage to the unborn baby than the lot of them, btw), if you force a helpless innocent life endure that shit for your own selfish purposes and then even refuse to get treatment, then you are a lowlife piece of junkie shit and deserve whatever punishment you get!!

[gilligan]

Ballzac - give me a warnig point, cos its likely coming:..

Well. For the you guys that believe that abstinence is the only way to not harm your unborn kids, how about you remove every carcinogen from your food intake as well then, cos you're HARMING YOUR UNBORN BABY. I guess if you've been eating these, as scrubby so nicely mentions, your mums all obviously got it on with a football team too, you inconsiderate crack whore children.

Better start wearing P2 respirators or SCBA as the stuff in air is HARMING YOUR UNBORN BABY.

Drink only RO water, as the fluoride is probably fucking with your UNBORN BABY.

Get it? Everything is going to kill harm or Maim your unborn baby- unless it doesnt. Yes, abstinence is likely going to Reduce birth defects, but so will minimisation. I said that I don't personally see an issue with a drink/smoke here and there. Scrubby lumped everyone from crackheads to a blue moon smoker in the same bucket, and that's wrong.

Crackheads and full blown alcos are an issue. A drink at a party or a choof one in a while isn't in my book.

in my experience, I've seen no damage to any babies with the confines of my socioeconomic placement. My experience is that this is even with some imbibement in the majority of instances. not extreme as issue notes above, but considered. And I have a lot of mates with kids across a range of ethnicity and personal opinions, so from my perspective, I'm happy to present my view and know its got a background data set.

so i wonder whether there's a connection to baby damage and low Socioeconomic status, have they looked into that?

Scrubby, can you provide any insight as to what happens with the gutter trash babies? Maybe that's why you're so riled up, cos you've been harmed in this way, or youve done it to a child? Again get fucked. I think your comments were uncalled for. I really hope I get the pleasure of meeting you in the future.

[Anodyne]

It's not really relevant to the pro-choice movement, because the pro-choice/pro-life debate is all about whether the foetus is a person or not and whether they should be afforded the protections offered to a person or not.

Yes, I agree that it's not directly relevant. It's just one element that I find disturbing when considering the general direction that this country is heading in: fewer freedoms, more puritanism. I very much doubt this will be the end of it now that we have a Catholic prime minister. Abortion is already (technically) illegal in most states under most circumstances. At the moment, many doctors will ignore this fact to give an unwilling mother a choice to abort for non-medical reasons, but they are sticking their necks out every time they do. How long before it isn't an option at all? How long before both parents are drug tested before they let you leave the hospital with your baby? And why does this law only address one specific type of reckless behaviour? There are plenty of things you can do to fuck up your kid, and most of them have nothing to do with drugs - so why isn't this a general law requiring some kind of competency test for future parents? Could it possibly be because our leaders are a pack of hypocritical puritans?

Also a major point here seems to be opiate-using mums, right? And it seems to be taken for granted that this will fuck up your future-kid, even though the medical evidence for this is a bit sketchy and often ignores other lifestyle factors. So consider this: have you ever experienced serious opiate withdrawal, or seen what it does to a person? Now would you wish that on your unborn child? This is even disputed by doctors - which is more harmful to a foetus, exposure to opiates, or the stress of withdrawals? I know many doctors advocate leaving the mum on maintenance methadone or whatever and then tapering the kid off after they're born.

This same point stands - to a greater or lesser extent - for any kind of substance dependency, illicit or otherwise. Quitting something you have become dependent on is stressful, and stress is bad for mother and child both. This has to be weighed against how harmful those things actually are. Doctors will prescribe drugs like antidepressants, benzoes and painkillers if they believe that it is more harmful not to do so - why can't this same logic apply to recreational drugs?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Anodyne

[ballzac]

Ballzac - give me a warnig point, cos its likely coming:..

I was hoping the threat would defuse the situation . Just remember that you get a limited number of warn points before you're auto-booted (IIRC) so you might want to be careful about squandering them. It's a highly emotional topic for most people, but it's also an important debate to be had, in my opinion, so I don't want to have to lock and report the thread (it's not my part of the forums) just because two members can't behave as civilly as all the other members involved in the discussion.

Edited November 24, 2013 by ballzac

[gilligan]

Civil would be giving equal shares for equal wares...

[bullit]

i got a unfare warn point once!! mayb cause i was new and speaking my mind like bout 4 others in tha conversion[not new to the forum]] but only i got a warn !! LOL old news!

anywho i have four kids like most ya know and my eldest is from my ex which is a hardcore addict but after the courts and shit i couldnt get her [full time]?? @ the time and still now i have been clean but aye ya cant beat MUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited November 24, 2013 by bullit

[Subaeruginosin]

Crackheads and full blown alcos are an issue. A drink at a party or a choof one in a while isn't in my book.

I think the point is Gilligan that truly good mothers who are having a child for the right reasons, don’t spend there pregnancy at parties getting drunk or stoned! If you don’t have the self control to put your unborn babies welfare above your own petty desires, then why should it be trusted that you will put the child’s welfare above your own leisure for the next 20 years?

For the record, I have the same opinion of poor uneducated mothers who use drugs well pregnant and yuppie arsehole parents who put there adolescent children on the street to fend for themselves when the kid turns out differently to how they expected. They should both be banned from having children and forcefully sterilized! Life can be a cold dark existence for people who have had a neglected upbringing; I just don’t understand why it’s still socially acceptable to bring another human being into this world for an individual’s own personal entertainment, like they were a pet puppy or something!

Also a major point here seems to be opiate-using mums, right? And it seems to be taken for granted that this will fuck up your future-kid, even though the medical evidence for this is a bit sketchy and often ignores other lifestyle factors. So consider this: have you ever experienced serious opiate withdrawal, or seen what it does to a person? Now would you wish that on your unborn child? This is even disputed by doctors - which is more harmful to a foetus, exposure to opiates, or the stress of withdrawals? I know many doctors advocate leaving the mum on maintenance methadone or whatever and then tapering the kid off after they're born.

Well, refer to my second paragraph for what I personally think. Though regardless of my personal opinion, the issue of opiate withdrawal while pregnant shouldn't be an issue for the proposed legislation for parents who are actually concerned with the child’s welfare, since they would already be in voluntarily treatment and wouldn't be refusing it.

[Anodyne]

Well, refer to my second paragraph for what I personally think. Though regardless of my personal opinion, the issue of opiate withdrawal while pregnant shouldn't be an issue for the proposed legislation for parents who are actually concerned with the child’s welfare, since they would already be in voluntarily treatment and wouldn't be refusing it.

Er... what do you think "treatment" entails? It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not, withdrawals are still withdrawals, and the foetus is subject to them too.

And what - all pregnancies are planned?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Anodyne

[ballzac]

Er... what do you think "treatment" entails? It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not, withdrawals are still withdrawals, and the foetus is subject to them too.

Any reputable rehab programme will understand the complexities involved here, and treatment does not inherently mean cold turkey. The important thing is that whatever treatment is decided upon is evidence based and focussed on the interests of the child. Avoiding treatment altogether is not in the best interests of the child. Do you think that a pregnant woman who is addicted to opiates is better able to minimise the harm that will be caused to her baby by going it alone, scoring uncontrolled doses off the street, than under the supervision of a skilled addiction specialist?

[Subaeruginosin]

Er... what do you think "treatment" entails? It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not, withdrawals are still withdrawals, and the foetus is subject to them too.

And what - all pregnancies are planned?

Well, when it comes to opiates being treated with methadone under the supervision of a doctor I’m sure it would meet the guidelines of “treatment”.

Oh, btw anyone who is to feebleminded to work out how babies come to be imo have no right whatsoever to be raising a child! That unplanned BS just doesn’t fly for me. I rooted the same women damn near every night for 10 years and managed not to knock her up, specifically because I knew we had a toxic relationship and were not prepared to bring a human being into this world!

Like I said, we are talking about human beings here not pet dogs. If people can’t practice the most simplest possible form of self control, then why should they have the right to raise kids?

[gilligan]

I reckon some of you guys are giving all prospective mothers bad names, and you're living in a fantasy land. Lets put more pressure on people who are embarking on a journey ito te unknown and load them with more baggage that makes them question whether they're fit enough to be parents. Fuck me. It's a personal choice.

Honestly. It's hard enough going into the unknown by having a kid in the first place, and here are you people demonising those that make a decision to imbibe. Sorry, but thats bullshit. you dont know how much they likely agonised over that call in the first place?.. I'm talkig about general populace; avg joesephina normal - not junkie wo-man. TO REITERATE, MY ARGUMENT LENDS ITSELF TO THOSE THAT PARTAKE OCCASIONALLY OF THINGS, not excessive use.

And to classify those that do imbibe as not 'truly good mothers' is about as insulting as you could be. I'm astounded that you have the audacity to state that people are/aren't truly good mothers based on a call they make. Everyone should be mother Mary, huh?

Unreal. To those that have actually had kids. Who of you are/were a party to a not 'truly good mother' pregnancy. Bet my lefty there's a few here.

And for those going to have kids? Well - you let me know when you get there and push through the nine months, or multiples of these for extra kids. If you do it without stumbling, my god, you deserve a medal. Ill even get you one. But if you stumble and have a drink or a smoke I won't be victimizing you, I'll be arm in arm with you, knowing how t feels and trying to support the choice YOU made, cos you'll prob be ripping yourself up inside about having done it.

If you're a junkie tho, well, make your own bed.

Edited November 28, 2013 by gilligan

[Anodyne]

Yeah fair points zac, but good luck with finding an educated, unbiased doctor that will engage in some nice evidence-based therapy. I've never met a single doctor who even understands how buprenorphine works. Not every doctor who prescribes methadone is really a "skilled addiction specialist", but just try explaining that to a judge sometime. There would be no problem with this kind of law if they were based in science, but they really aren't.

Also it'd be really nice if they considered the interests of the mother, as well as the child.

[Anodyne]

Subaeruginosin - I give up. I can't argue against the power of your anecdotes. You win.

[ballzac]

Yeah fair points zac, but good luck with finding an educated, unbiased doctor that will engage in some nice evidence-based therapy. I've never met a single doctor who even understands how buprenorphine works. Not every doctor who prescribes methadone is really a "skilled addiction specialist", but just try explaining that to a judge sometime. There would be no problem with this kind of law if they were based in science, but they really aren't.

Yep, have to agree with you there, and that's why I made it a point early in this thread that it's the principle that I don't have a problem with. There are many problems that can arise in practice. Nonetheless, I think the casual users that Gilligan talks about can suck it up and abstain for a few months, and I think most opiate or alcohol addicts would still be better off under some supervision/guidance than none at all.

Unfortunately, there can't possibly be enough resources to provide top notch treatment for everyone. But if a particular treatment provider caused miscarriage or damage to a child by forcing a quick detox on the patient, that would surely open them up to litigation and would, if nothing else, provide a financial incentive to approach the problem in a more rational and educated way.

 

And to classify those that do imbibe as not 'truly good mothers' is about as insulting as you could be. I'm astounded that you have the audacity to state that people are/aren't truly good mothers based on a call they make. Everyone should be mother Mary, huh?

I personally wouldn't go so far as to say making bad choices makes a person a bad parent. It depends on the severity and frequency of the bad choices, and the intent, as well as the redeeming choices they've made at other times. I don't think there's a parent out there who has made all the right choices every time. Surely, though, part of being a good parent is recognising bad choices as being bad choices, and not making excuses for them.

The question is, would you put #insert substance name here# into your child's IV bag? If not, then it's something you probably should be avoiding while pregnant unless you have a medical condition (which may include addiction) that requires you to take it for the safety of you and your unborn baby.

[Amazonian]

Everyone should be mother Mary, huh? .

I wasn't trying to have a 'holy' (pure) pregnancy,(but I wanted to do the right thing), for me it was easy not to partake in drugs or alcohol because i didn't have any addictions. When i got pregnant, i was all enthusiastic and it was like a new hobby, i was reading all about babies and doing those lame anti natal classes etc... I guess you could liken it to someone just getting into gardening, researching the subject ...cause whats the point in doing it half assed. I don't shun woman who have an occasional indulgence whilst pregnant (maybe not acid or meth or heroin,lol), but the woman who continue to consume copious amounts of hard drugs during pregnancy are just bonkers, i think we all agree on that?!.

I didn't actually make it through my pregnancy drug free... on the last day, there was some pethadine and gas involved,lol (who's to say that isn't damaging to a babies brain?!)

Edited November 24, 2013 by Amazonian

[Sonny Jim]

this is not about toxicology.

this is about giving gov power to hurt us all for no reason other than the consolidation of power/control for gov.

that's where a historical perspective is important to help us remember that--> big gov = BAD

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sonny Jim

[Subaeruginosin]

Subaeruginosin - I give up. I can't argue against the power of your anecdotes. You win.

Yeah, fair enough mate, I do tend to get stuck in my own head at times. But come on, have you guys actually spent much time in (particularly) regional cities around Australia and seen some of these white trash generational welfare families?

It just becomes too much to handle sometimes! It’s like the number one profession around here, 22 year old chicks just breed like rabbits, pop out 6 half retarded kids to 6 different fathers, while just sitting on there arse the whole time sinking piss and doing drugs, then they just collect there huge welfare check once a fortnight to spend on more drugs and alcohol and only provide there kids with what they can score for free from the salvation army.

With population growth and all that, there has to come a time when the government says enough is enough, where not going to just let people rort the system anymore by not treating pregnancy seriously and just having more kids purely for the money that they then just neglect and let run the streets unsupervised, causing mayhem like feral little animals.

To me this is a good start to tackling a much wider problem, without going down the path of mass sterilization, which is seriously what I’d be doing. I ain’t even joking either! If you’re not going to treat having children seriously and have a similar frame of mind about it as Amazonian has described, then why shouldn’t you be scrutinised by the government?

[teamwhy]

The legislation is not that different to what is already in place now. Substance Abuse is already a mandatory report to family services. And if the kid is a risk of significant harm they can get removed.

[-RC-]

Just thought I'd wade in by mentioning something I put in another post somewhere, and that is that mother's milk has endogenous cannabinoids in it. Is there some way the law is going to distinguish between endogenous cannabinoids and those ingested? Let alone DMT...

Also I heard a woman the other day taliking about how in NSW there has been a law established over the death of her unborn fetus which was killed in an accident, I think by someone under the influence. Anyway she had issues with it, most prominently that a baby cannot be a legal entity because it is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother's organism to survive. Although it won't be one day, it is until born, unless our wonderful medical science wants to wrench baby out for strictly legal purposes. As baby is enveloped by mum, ALL interactions with the world must come through the mother 'medium'.

Lastly, I noticed the idea of preconception health has been alluded to a few times. It plays a MASSIVE part in your child's future health, so it is a fair point bringing it up imo. Simply abstaining from whatever, or avoiding exposure to certain toxins once pregnant is not necessarily a fail safe.

Interesting points...

Edited November 24, 2013 by Responsible Choice

[Distracted]

To me this is a good start to tackling a much wider problem, without going down the path of mass sterilization, which is seriously what I’d be doing. I ain’t even joking either! If you’re not going to treat having children seriously and have a similar frame of mind about it as Amazonian has described, then why shouldn’t you be scrutinised by the government?

Because the government can and does get things wrong.

[Anodyne]

Ok, so I know that it seems weird that I'm still arguing about this. It seems such a straightforward thing - how can you argue against less smack-babies? But if, as others have said, this type of thing is already covered by existing child-abuse laws, then what's actually going on here? What is the point of all this?

I believe this might be part of a strategy similar to one used by salesmen/conmen, which is about getting you to agree to a bunch of easy propositions to soften you up for something bigger and nastier down the line. And then they say, "hey, but you agreed with A, and B is really just an extension of A". And then, "hey, you agreed with B..." and so on.

So they start by picking a target that most people will have no problems with bashing, like criminal bikie gangs, or junkie mums. You've heard of gateway drugs? This is a gateway law.

So my problem isn't so much with this law in & of itself. My worry is why are they doing this? What are steps B, C & D? What comes next?

I think the likely casualties will be drug & abortion laws. And they're both already well fucked, so I really hope I'm wrong.

[Sonny Jim]

also, I think the argument that "the gov is just trying to help" is a very ignorant one.

I am sorry to say "ignorant" but it is true and I am guilty of this ignorance as well. There's just no reason at all to suspect the gov wants to help us (not help us die!) when you take ino account the actual things the gov does, has done, will do. The only possible reason to assume the gov is out to help us comes from the gov's propaganda. There are zero reasons to think otherwise when yo actually look into it.

if they cared about the kids. would they?

fake vaccine the kids

water fluoridate the kids

BPA lace the kids

microwave the kids

etc

etc

How can we even think about "gov takes babies at birth because of "drugs"" being anything other than pure, smokeable evil?

how many times throughout history has "gov takes babies at birth because of bullshit reason" turned out to be a good thing?

[Sonny Jim]

the fact that they even suggest it...I mean. Shouldn't they be in prison or something for attempted mass child torture?

I am frightened by the way people think lately.

Like the people I know that had their baby taken for pot, (still gone several years later!) they didn't even really fucking fight it.

like we won't even protect the kids, and we act like we deserve it when the gov comes to hurt us.

we are broken.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Sonny Jim

[Subaeruginosin]

Like the people I know that had their baby taken for pot, (still gone several years later!) they didn't even really fucking fight it.

Obviously they didn't fight it, because a job and a few clean drug tests and they would have had there kid straight back. Yet they obviously just decided to sit on there arse smoking weed instead!

Btw, if there was actually a deliberate evil government plot to kill us off, then why did they force cigarette companies to put warning labels on cigarettes? Why do they spend many millions a year to promote & enforce safety in the workplace? Why does Medicare even exist? Kinda counter productive isn’t it!

Truth is the only conspiracy the governments involved in is by trying to keep us as healthy as possible for as long as possible, so they can eventually raise the retirement age to 95 years old.

Your theories have no bases in logic or any kind of rational thought dude, a population of sick and dying citizens doesn’t help build a healthy and hard working society, which is the goal of all wealthy nations.

Proposals like this are a long-term plan to break the cycle of generational welfare and neglect. Maybe they don’t always get it right, but if you compare our living standards and general health to the majority of the rest of the world, it then becomes very clear that our government is getting a lot of things right and making a serious effort to perfect children from parents who can’t raise them in a healthy environment is one of the things they are doing right.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Subaeruginosin

[Darklight]

 

So they start by picking a target that most people will have no problems with bashing, like criminal bikie gangs, or junkie mums. You've heard of gateway drugs? This is a gateway law.

 

OOh I like that, a gateway law. Can I use that somewhere else?