Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Prats of The Week - Booze and The Pregnant Woman

Prats of The WeekOur old chums from NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence - often featured on this site - see label at end of this article) have put their jack boots on again.

This time they have waded into the debate over drinking whilst pregnant.

NICE have decreed that pregnant women should drink nothing at all whilst pregnant, most certainly not during the first three months of pregnancy.

Now, here's why this edict is bollocks:

1 Women have been drinking for millennia during pregnancy, in moderation there is no damage or risk to the baby.

2 Given that for the first few weeks of pregnancy many women do not even know that they are pregnant, how the fark are they meant not to drink during the first 3 months?

3 Here is the clincher, NICE admit that their advice is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Hoisted by their own petard, Nanny's chums admit that they now issue edicts without any scientific backing!

Good grief, they'll be telling pregnant women not to smoke next!

NICE, well deserving Prats of The Week!

14 comments:

  1. I am glad that Nanny now puts a tag line on every advert for alcohol that says "Enjoy (name of brand or alcohol) sensibly" without this message from Nanny, I would probabley drink myself stupid:-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous2:38 PM

    Perhaps at the next round of elections the ballot papers will have the advice line "Vote sensibly"?

    Followed by

    WARNING: Politics is bad for your health and wealth!

    ReplyDelete
  3. john rimmer2:41 PM

    "Here is the clincher, NICE admit that their advice is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever."

    Reminds me of the line in the 'Brass Eye' satire about the non-existen drug 'Cake': "Thre's no evidence for it, but it's true."

    ReplyDelete
  4. grumpy3:10 PM

    What implications does this 'advice' (shortly to become law, no doubt) have for those women who become pregnant while/because they are drunk?
    Enforced abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  5. One can only imagine what NICE might say about "The Joy of Lard."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:03 PM

    Are you really claiming that there is no such thing as foetal damage from the mother habitually drinking alcohol?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:23 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Are you really claiming that there is no such thing as foetal damage from the mother habitually drinking alcohol?

    4:03 PM



    What unambiguous evidence is there about levels of alcohol consumption and foetal damage compared to other reasons for foetal damage?

    I could Google I suppose but it sounds like you have the definitive references already so you could save me the time and potential confusion from finding other results than yours.

    I doubt that getting legless every night or even regularly as a pregnant lady is a good idea but then again a number of other things may not be good ideas either. The point, surely, is that there is risk but not certainty and, as Ken points out (point 2), the advice is almost impossible to implement UNLESS all women stop drinking any alcohol especially if they are intentionally attempting pregnancy.

    In the even I suspect that most women seeking pregnancy with an IQ higher than the Delta level probably apply caution anyway, unless the relaxation that alcohol can provide offers them the only means of attaining pregnancy in the first place.

    On the basis that NICE have already observed that their recommendation are not based on any scientific and measured evidence they too may well be grateful for your references.

    Absent strong evidence if we merely accept any 'self evident' advice and edicts the chances are we will be concentrating on the wrong thing 95% of the time, the other five percent being not unreasonable purely by chance.

    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dixon of Dock Green11:30 PM

    To Anonymous at 4.03 pm:

    (Yawn) Oh go away and wrap a lamppost in bubblewrap.

    I hope you are not a man, but if you are write a letter to the Radio Times. They like men like you. With Only Odd Sensitivities Enriched.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ukipwebmaster12:42 AM

    Have you barred Darling yet?:
    http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/03/banned-update.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous8:01 AM

    Hi Anonymous (4:03 PM).

    I do like your type.

    Whether it's a case of everyone blindly agreeing with Nanny until one person chooses to disagree (Ken),

    or everyone blindly agreeing with Ken until one person chooses to disagree (you).

    I find it a breath of fresh air in both cases!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anom

    Re "Are you really claiming that there is no such thing as foetal damage from the mother habitually drinking alcohol?"

    RTFQ, as my old accounting lecturer would tell me.

    What I said was:

    "in moderation there is no damage or risk to the baby."

    I didn't say "habitually"

    QED!

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  12. Alcohol is a drug, and like all drugs is harmful in overdose. However for those suffering with certain medical conditions (ie post heart attack)up to one unit of alcohol taken daily (especially if it's in the form of red wine) has been found to be beneficial. However should the daily allownce be saved up and taken all in one go, it isn't. It's all a matter of proportion - something Nanny lost sense of ages ago. Perhaps we should label drink with the recoomended dose, with the warning that it is dangerous to exceed the stated dose? (Tongue very much in cheek). Oops, Nanny might take my suggestion seriously!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous11:04 AM

    The other anonymous's weasel reply is more significant than just arguing for sake of, however...

    Quoting...
    Are you really claiming that there is no such thing as fetal damage from the mother habitually drinking alcohol?
    End quote.

    This is the pathetic diatribe the worms of this kind always trot out and the answer - as always - is no - because you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove there is NO risk in anything. So should everything be banned?

    EVERYTHING in life is a judgment call, and some people make bad judgments. You cannot do anything directly about it - if you suppress bad judgment in one place it will turn round and get you somewhere else - as in the banning of things on 'no scientific evidence'.

    The way to improve things is by the difficult path of providing everyone with better information rather than mindless scare stories, and better education so they can make proper use of the information in forming their own judgments.

    Not by Nanny telling us what to do - for then what will we do if Nanny gets it wrong? (Not that Nanny will ever admit she is wrong, even when she directly contradicts herself.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well Nanny can't always be wrong.

    I think its best when pregnat a woman should not drink, smoke or even swear.

    ReplyDelete