2016
DOI: 10.7196/sajbl.2016.v9i1.468
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Should drinking during pregnancy be criminalised to prevent fetal alcohol spectrum disorder?

Abstract: The harmful effects of alcohol use during pregnancy have been well documented. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is the collective term encompassing the various clinical diagnoses that can occur in a child who was exposed to alcohol prenatally. The affected child suffers a range of lifelong primary and secondary disabilities. There is no cure for FASD, but it is preventable if women do not drink during pregnancy. Should women be banned from, and/or punished for drinking during pregnancy for the sake of pr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The opinions expressed by these participants are consistent with the current policy discourses to re-contextualise and decolonise FASD policies and reframe the problem of FASD in a way that avoids victim-blaming [33]. This principle supports the argument that drinking during pregnancy should not be criminalised [39]. Rather, women with alcohol problems should be assisted.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The opinions expressed by these participants are consistent with the current policy discourses to re-contextualise and decolonise FASD policies and reframe the problem of FASD in a way that avoids victim-blaming [33]. This principle supports the argument that drinking during pregnancy should not be criminalised [39]. Rather, women with alcohol problems should be assisted.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…In developing the guideline for the prevention and management of FASD, we adapted the World Health Organization’s approach (steps) [38, 39], which we organised in three phases (Fig. 1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrary to reporting alcohol use, report of illicit substance use or noncompliance with a treatment plan among mothers can result in rather severe legal consequences such as loss of child custody and incarceration in the U.S [17]. This is not the case with South Africa to date [18], and potential consequence of reported illicit substance use is assignment of case management by a social worker; however, stigmatization by healthcare professionals on prenatal illicit substance use [19] is potentially the reason of underreported illicit substance use in the current study. Due to low disclosure rate of illicit substance use among pregnant women, the combined verbal and urine screenings are recommended to determine the national prevalence of prenatal substance use; while, verbal screening only captures the prevalence of prenatal alcohol use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, biochemical screenings do not necessarily demonstrate clinical efficacy nor may they be ethically acceptable due to the legal implications of prenatal substance use, at least in the U.S. [17]. Although a severely punitive approach such as loss of child custody does not happen in South Africa [18], fear of exposure to stigmatization by healthcare providers may increase under-reported substance and alcohol use among pregnant women when asked in healthcare settings [19]. A combined use of biochemical screenings with a standard self-report instrument (such as the Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test; ASSIST) is encouraged for identifying substance use in pregnant women [17]; however, little international empirical evidence supports this notion so far.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11,12 Discrepancies between self-reported rate of AOD use and biochemically verified use have been well documented, in which self-reported AOD use generally demonstrated low sensitivity relative to biomarkers, [13][14][15] in part due to fear of judgment. 16 Nevertheless, biochemical screenings do not necessarily demonstrate clinical efficacy nor may they be ethically acceptable due to the legal implications of prenatal substance use, at least in the U. S. 17 Although a severely punitive approach such as loss of child custody does not happen in South Africa, 18 fear of exposure to stigmatization by healthcare providers may increase under-reported AOD use among pregnant women when asked in healthcare settings. 19 A combined use of biochemical screenings with a standard self-report instrument (such as the Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test; ASSIST) is encouraged for identifying substance use in pregnant women; 17 however, little international empirical evidence supports this notion so far.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%