From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: My wife drank during her pregnancy and the baby lived!
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:08:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <brein-121092101037@128.149.100.150> brein@gpvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Barry Rein) writes:
>Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I still believe, however, that the
>issue is far from settled.

I intended to communicate that with my reply.  I intended to present
the evidence I knew of, rather than make any firm conclusions, in order
that people be able to make an informed decision of their own.

>There were a number of steps of conjecture taken to arrive at the
>recommendation to not drink at all.  One must first agree that the shutdown
>of the fetal blood supply shown in the baboon study occurs in humans.

I don't believe that this is particularly problematic.  Baboons are
reasonably close to the human family tree.  If a few other animals
were to show the same effect, I'd be satisfied.  One could also use
ultrasound of the cord in humans to demonstrate the effect; however,
it would be hard to get such a study past a human subjects review board.

>Then
>it would have to be shown that this shutdown has deleterious effects on the
>embryo or fetus.  This would require a well conducted study which, I am
>sure, could be designed.

It seems to me that you have three choices:

1) An epidemiological study.  It seems to me that the obvious confounding
variables, plus the presence of fetal alcohol syndrome, make this sort
of study pretty dubious.  One also has to deal with the problem that most
heavy drinkers strongly understate their alcohol consumption.  Nonetheless,
this should be done, if it hasn't already been.

2) A study with controlled administration of alcohol.  Good luck getting
_that one_ past the human subjects review board...

3) An animal study.  The last best hope.  The trouble is defining ``social''
and ``occasional'' drinking for an animal.  I think there is some hope
of progress here.

>  Now must we debate the value of a recommendation based on
>evidence which is tenuous at best.  I don't want to get in a discussion
>which will necessarily boil down to the psychology of risk assessment.

I don't think the evidence is as tenuous as you do.  But I agree that
there is little value in debate without further empirical evidence.

>Ultimately drinking while pregnant is an individual choice.

I certainly wasn't advocating legislation.

>... who is to say that the the pleasant feeling engendered
>by the occasional glass of wine does not have beneficial effects which
>outweigh physical and psychological stress of self-denial?

Aren't there other ways to get similar beneficial effects?

>I fully agree with your last statement.  Apparently many people consider a
>pregnant woman's body to be public property.  In such cases of public
>contempt a blunt rejoinder of "mind your own business" is certainly called
>for.

Being a Unitarian, I rarely get to say this, but I will: AMEN!

>If what you said is true, the fetus is most susceptible to damage during
>the first trimester.  The pregnancy is not externally visible during this
>period.  Theoretically then, a woman could drink a pint of bourbon a day
>until she started to show, following which she could ostentatiously abstain
>in public, and bask in public approval while carrying a FAS basket case.

Ironically, yes.  Except that the public will probably withhold its
approval anyway.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med