Travel0 min ago
Should Drinking While Pregnant Be A Crime?
Saw this on Sky News this morning and interested what others think. Should it be a crime and what about other issues like drugs and smoking?
http://
I'm interested to know how they think this could work, would it be from when someone knew they were pregnant (though how can that be proved unless by something official by a GP?) and would it dissuade people from getting official confirmation (addicts or those who don't want to give up) and ante-natal care and how they would police it.
http://
I'm interested to know how they think this could work, would it be from when someone knew they were pregnant (though how can that be proved unless by something official by a GP?) and would it dissuade people from getting official confirmation (addicts or those who don't want to give up) and ante-natal care and how they would police it.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Eve. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No statute should not be the first port of call, we all have both legal and moral responsibilities and by trying to capture the latter within the former we simply end up with complex and confused criminal code, uncertain police action and a reduction in common decency motivated from within rather than fear of prosecution.
In this example would prosecuting mothers who drink excessively help? Presumably they have already done harm to the child before they can be prosecuted and unless the sanction is prison then they may well continue to drink after prosecution of they have addiction issues. Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to try to help these women instead?
In this example would prosecuting mothers who drink excessively help? Presumably they have already done harm to the child before they can be prosecuted and unless the sanction is prison then they may well continue to drink after prosecution of they have addiction issues. Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to try to help these women instead?
It is not a call for drinking whilst pregnant to be banned but for drinking to EXCESS so that the foetus is damaged to be classed as a criminal act. The Appeal Court is hearing a case to determine whether the mother committed a crime as her local authority argued her actions constituted the crime of poisoning under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:
‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony.’
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board argue that the foetus was not 'another person' and do not want to pay out and the Court will decide. So, it is not a call for new legislation but a call for it to fall within current legislation.
‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony.’
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board argue that the foetus was not 'another person' and do not want to pay out and the Court will decide. So, it is not a call for new legislation but a call for it to fall within current legislation.
I don't really see the point. Drinking to access or taking drugs during pregnancy is already monitored by your booking hospital who will refer you to social services and your child can be put on a child protection plan before it is even born which may or may not involve your child being removed when it is born if the situation/problem is bad enough. Social services can also support a woman who is trying to deal with any form of addiction while pregnant.
So effectively there is already a system in place and presuming the possible removal of your child isn't enough to make you stop and think about your actions (it isn't always by any stretch of the imagination), then I fail to see how making it a crime will have any more of an affect
So effectively there is already a system in place and presuming the possible removal of your child isn't enough to make you stop and think about your actions (it isn't always by any stretch of the imagination), then I fail to see how making it a crime will have any more of an affect
JNO, Lord Diplock spoke about the relationship to recklessness in a case involving another section of the same Act,
'In the offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in te section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.'
The argument is whether the foetus was another person within the meaning of the Act.
LUDWIG, your reasoning is flawed since capital punishment was lawful whilst at the same time the deliberate killing of another was unlawful under Common Law.
'In the offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in te section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.'
The argument is whether the foetus was another person within the meaning of the Act.
LUDWIG, your reasoning is flawed since capital punishment was lawful whilst at the same time the deliberate killing of another was unlawful under Common Law.
^ You're probably right Corby. That's the kind of weird logic we humans live with isn't it - It's wrong to unintentionally damage a foetus with smoke, but it's ok to deliberately chop it to bits.
I'm not expressing any paticular pro/anti bortion views here by the way, just making a general observation about the strange anomalies of human ethics.
I'm not expressing any paticular pro/anti bortion views here by the way, just making a general observation about the strange anomalies of human ethics.
Foetal alcohol syndrome is more likely to occur if the mother drinks to excess during the first three months of the pregnancy, a time when it is least likely the mother knows she is pregnant.
Is the law suggesting that women who find out they are pregnant at 12 weeks and know they have been drinking too much should abort the baby?
Is the law suggesting that women who find out they are pregnant at 12 weeks and know they have been drinking too much should abort the baby?
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.