jells Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 If you have a pregnant women who intends to carry a fetus to term, but is abusing drugs/alcohol, and it is likely that the baby will be born impaired (fetal alcohol syndrome etc.) ... What kind of stances do ethical and Canadian legal perspectives take? Do they normally give the child to child services after birth or suggest terminating the pregnancy maybe? Etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 If you have a pregnant women who intends to carry a fetus to term, but is abusing drugs/alcohol, and it is likely that the baby will be born impaired (fetal alcohol syndrome etc.) ... What kind of stances do ethical and Canadian legal perspectives take? Do they normally give the child to child services after birth or suggest terminating the pregnancy maybe? Etc... I think Doing right has an entire section on this. It suggests (well flat out says) you really can't do much. I think you cannot suggest the terminate for one thing. This sort of senario must drive some doctors nuts though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsuma Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 That is a really good question. My understanding is that the fetus does not have any rights until it is born. I recall a case where a mother stabbed her unwanted "fetus" that was only a couple of weeks away from term several years ago. Obviously that fetus was closer to an actual child and it sparked alot of debate about whether she could be charged with murder. I have no idea how that ended. But for sure child services would get involved after the child is born in the case of the addict. In my experience (which is limited to just one rotation in obs-gyn) addicts don`t tend to come in for prenatal care. I have not once followed an addict during their pregnancy. They kind of drop in when they are in labour and have no idea how many months they are etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 In my experience (which is limited to just one rotation in obs-gyn) addicts don`t tend to come in for prenatal care. I have not once followed an addict during their pregnancy. They kind of drop in when they are in labour and have no idea how many months they are etc. That's a good version of how it happens, more often, they don't even know they are pregnant/in labour and deliver on the toilet. I know a medic who's been working on the reserve for many years, and he has fished out a newborn out of the toilet on more than one occasion. One woman had already borne 7 children, all of whom were under government care. I'm scared to think of how many of these children may have FAS or other serious problems related to the mother's alcohol abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolvenstar Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Really if you think about it too, if the mother is abusing a substance whether it is legal or not (alcohol vs crack), she most likely won't be fit to care for a child even if she was not using during the pregnancy. It is not like a woman who is abusing substances during her pregancy will suddenly stop after having a baby. Therefore there will most likely be enough evidence of poor parenting after birth to take the child away anyways. What I would like to know is, is it enough for a person to show quantative proof of illicit drug use (ie; have drug traces show up in a blood test), for child services to take your child away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Women who were using drugs or alcohol in pregnancy do not automatically have their child apprehended. Each case is individual and would depend a lot on what other comorbidites there are (like mental illness). If a woman wants to keep her child it can be a great opportunity and motivation for her to get treatment, housing and get her life together. Most programs that cater to women with addiction use a harm reduction approach. While it would be ideal to have women stop using (or if they are narcotic users, to get on to a methadone program) it's much more important to keep to women in contact with regular care. This is most essential for HIV positive women because treating them in pregnancy essentially eliminates fetal transmission of HIV. There are two programs in Vancouver (Sheway and Fir Square) that have been very successful. It's obviously a complicated issue and not as black and white as "you use, you lose your child" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolvenstar Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 It's obviously a complicated issue and not as black and white as "you use, you lose you child" No it really isn't but in the case of a woman getting pregnant because she is selling herself for drugs, there isn't a high rate of turnarounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 No it really isn't but in the case of a woman getting pregnant because she is selling herself for drugs, there isn't a high rate of turnarounds. I'm not really sure what your point is here. Firstly, not all women with addictions are working in the sex trade. Secondly, yes addiction is hard to treat, but does that mean you don't try? Pregnant women with addictions need access to non-judgmental care where the threat of apprehension is not always hanging over them. Yes absolutely social workers are involved and often children are apprehended. But the goal is for the women to get clean, get housed and get to a place where it's safe for them to keep their children. I've seen both extremes: a woman with 6 kids, all in foster care, and she is still using; a woman who became pregnant, got clean, kept her child, has a job, and is doing amazingly well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svp2k5 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I believe that this very case was taken to court in Manitoba years ago (I may be mistaken with the specifics... I learned about this several years ago). I believe the case involved a drug addicted women and the authorities were trying to charge her with assualt (or something similar, can't really remember). I believe that the real issue is whether the fetus has rights or not. In Canada, the fetus has no rights until it is born and is viable. This lawsuit was percieved as an attempt by the pro life groups to reopen the discussion on whether abortion should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I believe that this very case was taken to court in Manitoba years ago (I may be mistaken with the specifics... I learned about this several years ago). I believe the case involved a drug addicted women and the authorities were trying to charge her with assualt (or something similar, can't really remember). I believe that the real issue is whether the fetus has rights or not. In Canada, the fetus has no rights until it is born and is viable. This lawsuit was percieved as an attempt by the pro life groups to reopen the discussion on whether abortion should be illegal. I think you are right. In the end that case reaffirmed the supreme material rights over the fetus. These case always get dragged back to the abortion debate - which is kind of annoying. You can be pro-life or pro-choice and still think that either the child has potentially "rights" (or whatever else you want to call them) so shouldn't be harmed (the former) or the mother made a choice and now that has consequences (the latter) so the fetus should be afforded some level of consideration. Other positions are CERTAINLY possible as well (I am trying to the exact opposite of lumping people into particular camps here ) Not every debate about mother/fetus senarios needs to be pulled back to the obviously polarized abortion debate. Gives us zero middle ground to discuss anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.