From: hatunen@netcom.com (David W Hatunen)
Subject: Re: Drug Addicted Infants
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:47:54 GMT

I apologize for not responding  to billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com ( bill nelson) 
and his response to my posting sooner. Before responding, I want to pro-
vide some personal background. Jan & I are foster parents in the San 
Francisco Program for Medically Fragile Infants. As such, we receive
babies into our home immediately upon their release from the
hospital (as early as nine days old). Thus, we suffer through all
of the drug-withdrawal periods with the child.

We keep the child until the natural parents are able to care for 
the child themselves, or the child is placed in long-term foster
care or is adopted.

Forget any foster parent horror stories. We normally provide a
real home for two children at most at a time. 

Without our program, these medically fragile babies would have to
remain in a medical facility. The effects of the home envronment
have been very positive for the child.

In the last six years we have provided a home for about eight
infants with extenuating medical problems who were prenatally
exposed to drugs.

DAVE:
>: Unfortunately, crack has not yet been around long enough to know
>: for sure about long-term effects. Also, the probability that
>: a crack baby will also suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or
>: the effects of other drugs is fairly high. (Not to mention that
>: drug-using mothers are at some risk of HIV, which may be passed
>: on tothe infant.)

BILLN:
>Wrong. Some of the so called crack babies are in school. They do
>not show any impairment - in any way. Also, crack is only cocaine.
>It is not a magical new drug for which the effects are unknown.

Actually, San Francisco has found it necessary to provide special
classrooms specifically for children who were prenatally exposed to
drugs... usually cocaine/crack.

To say that crack is ONLY cocaine is to make light of a serious
problem. Crack is so intense that it must be considered in a
different league. Effects that were barely noticable from cocaine
become devastating with crack.

BILLN:
>Whether the mother takes crack, or not, has nothing to do with
>whether the baby will suffer from other drug effects. That all
>depends on what the mother consumes. Just because the foetus is
>exposed to cocaine does not make it any more vulnerable to FAS.

Quite true. But as other posters have pointed out, my point was that
there is an indirect connection. Here in SF it is evident that if
an addict can't get the drug of choice, the addict goes for the
next-best, quickest pain-killer -- generally alcohol. Since a
pregnant addict is rarely thinking about her unborn baby, the
baby gets zapped.

Furthermore, many women will engage in sex to obtain drugs or
the money for drugs, regardless of term of pregnancy. In 
addition to the possibility of HIV infection by needle, there
is exposure through sex.

These are the babies we get. We have had babies whose mothers
were on cocaine/crack, heroin, and alcohol, in all combinations,
AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY. This indicates their lack of concern for
welfare of their child. And yes, we have had HIV-infected infants
in our care.
 
DAVE:
>: It does appear that the crack addiction is finally overcome by
>: the babies, after a really agonizing third month. There is also
>: a later occurrence of withdrawal symptoms -- we insist -- but
>: it is not completely accepted by the medical community.

BILLN:
>Could you provide some documentation? From what I have seen, there
>is nothing to show this to be true.

So far, there has been precious little documantation in this
thread. Extensive quotes would bog things down. We can be contacted
by Email for more details. See below for a few citations that can
lead to more citations.

Understand, though, that some of our statements come from personal
experience, such as trying to rock to sleep a screaming, trembling
three-month old from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m. every night for weeks and
weeks on end.

DAVE:
>: Unfortunately, too, the crack addiction causes some physical 
>: problems that may be permanent. At this time, I wouldn't be
>: so reckless as to assert that the the very physical brain
>: might not be affected.

BILLN:
>Once again - according to the studies. The crack addiction, if it
>does exist in newborns (which is uncertain), does not cause any
>physical or mental problems. 
>
>How about providing some documentation for this assertion also?
>You are being very reckless in your assertions, which go counter
>to all the medical research that I have read.
>
>Bill

Speaking of documentation, what studies are you referring to?

But see:

-Testimony of Richard P Kusserow, Inspector General, Department
 of Health and Human Services, before the Subcommittee on Human
 Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, on Administrative Costs
 Under the Title IV-E Foster Care Program and Crack Babies
                                                 5 April 1990

-NCAST National News, July 1989 (NCAST = Nursing Child Assessment
 Satellite Training). Cites medical reports of physical defects
 such as GU anomalies, and more often, behavioral and developmental
 effects. The article includes detailed descriptions of these effects.

-New York Times, 17 Sept 1989, "Crack's Toll Among Babies: A Joyless
 View of Even Toys."


Dave and Jan Hatunen  hatunen@netcom.com
-- 
----- DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) -----
---- Daly City CA: almost San Francisco -----
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.college