Drug addicts could be barred from having children

[Guest Warwick Green]

And what do you do if she gets pregnant anyway?

Addicts could be barred from having children or face having them taken into care until they have beaten their habit, under a plan being considered by the Labour Party in Scotland ahead of next year's Holyrood elections.

Duncan McNeil, the senior Labour back bencher, has drawn up a paper which includes the plan, based on a similar scheme in the US, which involves women addicts being given cash to take long-term contraceptives.

Mr McNeil said addicts would be asked to sign a "social contract", banning them from having children until they have beaten their habit. Once the paper is signed, the addicts would get benefits, methadone, and housing.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/65597.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So all you need to do is sign a piece of paper, not have kids and stay stoned at the expense of the state!

I think this welfare state things has gone a little too far.

[FTA Lawyer]

Signing a "social contract" is a psychology-based method of encouraging voluntary compliance...it has none of the compulsory elements of a "ban".

That being said, if cash incentives can prevent addicts from giving birth to horribly damaged babies which will end up costing the state hundreds of times more to care for than the cash incentives themselves, then I'm all for it.

This issue came to a head long ago in a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.).

SCC Judgment

After a mother had three children apprehended and made wards of the state, two of which had been irreparably brain damaged due to her glue-sniffing habbit, the Winnipeg Child and Family Services got a court order compelling the mom to be confined against her will to a hospital / treatment facility to stop her from glue-sniffing during her fourth pregnancy.

The SCC overturned the order saying that the unborn child had no legal rights and that the courts "parental" jurisdiction (to protect those who cannot protect themselves) could not be extended to a fetus. Further, the court found that to dictate a woman's lifestyle to her in the name of protecting her unborn child was too much of a limit on her personal autonomy and could lead to women being confined for things like eating too much or climbing ladders while pregnant etc.

Two judges dissented and tried to impose responsibility on a woman who carries a pregnancy and also tried to do away with the antiquated concept that a child does not exist in law until born alive...but to no avail.

FTA

[Wilber]

We have a friend who is bringing up her infant grandson. Her daughter in law was on drugs when she was pregnant and the kid has all kinds of serious problems including being almost blind. The parents have split and the mother and her family want nothing to do with the kid.

Seems like an OK idea in principal but as Warwick points out, if there are not sufficient consequences for repeat behavior, how can it work?

FTA, I think the SCC judgment just confirms my opinion that most of them don't recognize a real victim when they see one.

[Guest Warwick Green]

...The SCC overturned the order saying that the unborn child had no legal rights and that the courts "parental" jurisdiction (to protect those who cannot protect themselves) could not be extended to a fetus. Further, the court found that to dictate a woman's lifestyle to her in the name of protecting her unborn child was too much of a limit on her personal autonomy and could lead to women being confined for things like eating too much or climbing ladders while pregnant etc.....

On the face of it it sounds a bit rough that a woman can do anything she wants even if it endangers her fetus. But I shudder at the alternative - anti-abortionists calling the police every time they see a pregnant woman drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette.

[FTA Lawyer]

...The SCC overturned the order saying that the unborn child had no legal rights and that the courts "parental" jurisdiction (to protect those who cannot protect themselves) could not be extended to a fetus. Further, the court found that to dictate a woman's lifestyle to her in the name of protecting her unborn child was too much of a limit on her personal autonomy and could lead to women being confined for things like eating too much or climbing ladders while pregnant etc.....

On the face of it it sounds a bit rough that a woman can do anything she wants even if it endangers her fetus. But I shudder at the alternative - anti-abortionists calling the police every time they see a pregnant woman drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette.

I'm not sure it's fair to label the people who would complain as "anti-abortionists"...I support abortions but I am also in favour of the tactic that the child services people used in the case I cited...but that's a bit of an aside...

Here's the thing with your argument...which amounts to the same "slippery slope" reasoning adopted by the SCC on the issue. We draw lines in the sand in every facet of our lives. On one side...legal conduct, on the other...not legal.

To suggest that we couldn't come up with a proper test / procedure that would need to be followed to ensure due process and prevent against major intrusions into the personal autonomy of pregnant women is bordering on embarrassing.

Consider this...we routinely ban alcoholics from possessing, using or consuming alcohol as part of their probation when sentenced for a crime they committed while under the influence...and we routinely put them in jail if they breach this alcohol ban. How is that any different from banning a mother from sniffing glue while she is pregnant?...and then locking her up to force her to stop sniffing glue if she won't comply? Especially where she takes no responsibility for her brain-damaged kids after she expels them from her body and the state is left to care for them?

Why is it that such a blatant disregard for her soon to be children must be completely permitted by the courts because it might be difficult to draw lines?

We could expressly list the circumstances under which a court would be justified in confining someone to protect their unborn child, and we could expressly list things that would not. This does not have to be an all or nothing kind of intrusion.

Consider the following comments from the dissenting judges' opinion:

62 Under existing Canadian law the expectant respondent at her sole discretion could have chosen an abortion. Instead she chose to continue her pregnancy and to continue her glue sniffing which in the past had resulted in two serious and permanently handicapped children being born who are now permanent wards of the state.

63 There are three questions that arise in this appeal. What are the rights of the pregnant woman? Does the unborn foetus have independent rights? Does the state also have a separate right to intervene to prescribe proper medical treatment in the hope of achieving the birth of a healthy child as opposed to standing idly by and watching the birth of a permanently and seriously handicapped child who has no future other than as a permanent ward of the state?

64 The respondent, a young woman, was pregnant for the fourth time. She was addicted to the inhalation of solvent fumes over a long period. Two of her previous children were born permanently disabled as a result of her addiction and are permanent wards of the state.

65 The respondent, on becoming pregnant for the fourth time, made the decision not to have an abortion. She chose to remain pregnant, deliver the child, and continue her substance abuse.

66 In my opinion, the state has an enforceable interest in ensuring, to the extent practicable, the well-being of the unborn child and the appeal should be allowed.

67 Historically, it was thought that damage suffered by a foetus could only be assigned if the child was born alive. It was reasoned that it was only at that time that damages to the live child could be identified. The logic for that rule has disappeared with modern medical progress. Today by the use of ultrasound and other advanced techniques, the sex and health of a foetus can be determined and monitored from a short time after conception. The sophisticated surgical procedures performed on the foetus before birth further belies the need for the “born alive” principle.

93 This means that a superior court, on proper motion, should be able to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to restrain a mother’s conduct when there is a reasonable probability of that conduct causing serious and irreparable harm to the foetus within her. While the granting of this type of remedy may interfere with the mother’s liberty interests, in my view, those interests must bend when faced with a situation where devastating harm and a life of suffering can so easily be prevented. In any event, this interference is always subject to the mother’s right to end it by deciding to have an abortion.

94 The arguments against state intervention are that it improperly interferes with the rights of the mother, that there are innumerable hazards to safe pregnancies, and that the state should not impose health standards on adults without consent. Those arguments are answerable.

95 Once the mother decides to bear the child the state has an interest in trying to ensure the child’s health. What circumstances permit state intervention? The “slippery slope” argument was raised that permitting state intervention here would impose a standard of behaviour on all pregnant women. Questions were raised about women who smoked, who lived with a smoker, who ate unhealthy diets, etc. In response to the query of where a reasonable line should be drawn it was submitted that the pen should not even be lifted. This approach would entail the state to stand idly by while a reckless and/or addicted mother inflicts serious and permanent harm on to a child she had decided to bring into the world.

96 There can be no general formula and each case must be decided on its own facts. However, as a minimum to justify intervention the following thresholds have to be met:

(1) The woman must have decided to carry the child to term.

(2) Proof must be presented to a civil standard that the abusive activity will cause serious and irreparable harm to the foetus.

(3) The remedy must be the least intrusive option.

(4) The process must be procedurally fair.

117 Tremblay v. Daigle, supra, noted that the interests of a foetus are legally protected in a number of circumstances, for example, tort law, child welfare, and inheritance rights: pp. 569-70. A child can sue to recover for damage inflicted upon it while a foetus: Montreal Tramways, supra. A gift devised by will to a foetus will not fail if the testator dies before birth. The rationale of attributing rights to the foetus in these situations is linked to protecting the interests of the child upon its birth. In this sense, the rationale of protecting the child/foetus by the exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction is no different, as it depends on the intention of the mother to carry the child to term. As was stated in Tremblay v. Daigle, at p. 563:

A foetus is treated as a person only where it is necessary to do so in order to protect its interests after it is born.

Protecting the unborn child from having to live its life suffering from severe mental and physical disabilities should meet the test of necessity to “protect its interests after it is born”.

118 Precedent that states that a foetus is not a “person” should not be followed without an inquiry into the purpose of such a rule. In the well-known case of Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, the Privy Council overruled precedent and a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada, [1928] S.C.R. 276, and held that women were “persons” with respect to s. 24 of the British North America Act, 1867. Rigidly applying precedents of questionable applicability without inquiry will lead the law to recommit the errors of the past.

119 Moreover, Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which states in its preamble that:

. . . the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth. . . .

120 The “born alive” rule should be abandoned, for the purposes of this case, as it is medically out-of-date. It may be that the rule has continuing utility in the context of other cases with their own particular facts. The common law boasts that it is adaptable. If so, there is no need to cling for the sake of clinging to notions rooted in rudimentary medical and scientific knowledge of the past. A foetus should be considered within the class of persons whose interests can be protected through the exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction.

Personally, I much prefer the reasoning of the dissent than the majority of the SCC on this issue.

FTA

[Guest Warwick Green]

A lot of nice words written by people sitting on a bench far removed from the realities of life.

In my opinion, the state has an enforceable interest in ensuring, to the extent practicable, the well-being of the unborn child and the appeal should be allowed.

Now just try to write a regulation to that effect.

[FTA Lawyer]

A lot of nice words written by people sitting on a bench far removed from the realities of life.

In my opinion, the state has an enforceable interest in ensuring, to the extent practicable, the well-being of the unborn child and the appeal should be allowed.

Now just try to write a regulation to that effect.

Have you seen the Federal Income Tax Act and its associated Regulations? Where there's a will there's a way...

FTA

[BubberMiley]

Consider this...we routinely ban alcoholics from possessing, using or consuming alcohol as part of their probation when sentenced for a crime they committed while under the influence...and we routinely put them in jail if they breach this alcohol ban. How is that any different from banning a mother from sniffing glue while she is pregnant?...and then locking her up to force her to stop sniffing glue if she won't comply?

I think the difference is the alcoholic was convicted of a crime and refraining from alcohol is part of the sentence. Convicted criminals are forced to give up their rights.

But getting pregnant isn't a criminal offence.

[Guest Warwick Green]

A lot of nice words written by people sitting on a bench far removed from the realities of life.

In my opinion, the state has an enforceable interest in ensuring, to the extent practicable, the well-being of the unborn child and the appeal should be allowed.

Now just try to write a regulation to that effect.

Have you seen the Federal Income Tax Act and its associated Regulations? Where there's a will there's a way...

FTA

Just what we need - more interference in our lives. Regulations on how much booze they can drink, how many cigarettes they can smoke, how often they can go to Mcdonalds. And supposing they are taking prescribed medication that might harm the fetus. Do they need a social worker's permission? And can neighbors snitch on them if they think the woman is doing something to harm the fetus? The anti-abortionists would have a field day ratting on pregnant women.

[FTA Lawyer]

A lot of nice words written by people sitting on a bench far removed from the realities of life.

In my opinion, the state has an enforceable interest in ensuring, to the extent practicable, the well-being of the unborn child and the appeal should be allowed.

Now just try to write a regulation to that effect.

Have you seen the Federal Income Tax Act and its associated Regulations? Where there's a will there's a way...

FTA

Just what we need - more interference in our lives. Regulations on how much booze they can drink, how many cigarettes they can smoke, how often they can go to Mcdonalds. And supposing they are taking prescribed medication that might harm the fetus. Do they need a social worker's permission? And can neighbors snitch on them if they think the woman is doing something to harm the fetus? The anti-abortionists would have a field day ratting on pregnant women.

Look, my point is we can draw the line where it makes sense and is manageable...can anyone put up an argument that shows the down side of making it illegal for a pregnant woman to repeatedly sniff glue throughout her pregnancy? If we can agree on certain conduct as being so clearly harmful to an unborn child that it should be made illegal, then why do we implement no restrictions by arguing that it would be absurd to regulate the number of trips to McDonalds? I don't get that.

What would you say if the expectant mother was ingesting Thalidimide? Should we just let her do it because trying to stop her from taking Tylenol would be silly?

Do you want to raise the deformed brain damaged children...because I know I don't.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

Consider this...we routinely ban alcoholics from possessing, using or consuming alcohol as part of their probation when sentenced for a crime they committed while under the influence...and we routinely put them in jail if they breach this alcohol ban. How is that any different from banning a mother from sniffing glue while she is pregnant?...and then locking her up to force her to stop sniffing glue if she won't comply?

I think the difference is the alcoholic was convicted of a crime and refraining from alcohol is part of the sentence. Convicted criminals are forced to give up their rights.

But getting pregnant isn't a criminal offence.

Right, I know, what I'm saying is that many people, including the SCC have reasoned that we couldn't possibly impose on a pregnant woman by confining her to a hospital to prevent her from harming her unborn child through glue-sniffing...because it opens up the "slippery slope" for us to confine her for doing anything remotely unhealthy like eating too much etc.

My comparison to banning an alcoholic from drinking to prevent him or her from harming others in society shows that we can effectively use the law to prevent a specific harm without being helplessly subject to the infamous "slippery slope".

We have been banning alcoholics from drinking via probation orders for decades...we have yet to see a court order that same alcoholic to stop smoking or lose 20 pounds or not go to McDonalds. It is a fear-mongering argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

In my view, we ought to accept the blatantly obvious fact that physical trauma to an unborn child results in a child who suffers the consequences of the physical truama. Where an expectant mother is willingly inflicting physical trauma on her unborn child through , we ought to take measures to stop such behaviour.

Parliament was fully prepared to make it a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to sniff glue if she does so with the intent of causing a miscarriage (i.e. abortion)...but so long as she intends to give birth to a totally f--cked up baby, we are not prepared to do anything due to the mythical risk that she might later be told she can't drink coffee?!?!

Something is wrong with that.

FTA

[Guest Warwick Green]

Look, my point is we can draw the line where it makes sense and is manageable...can anyone put up an argument that shows the down side of making it illegal for a pregnant woman to repeatedly sniff glue throughout her pregnancy? If we can agree on certain conduct as being so clearly harmful to an unborn child that it should be made illegal, then why do we implement no restrictions by arguing that it would be absurd to regulate the number of trips to McDonalds? I don't get that.

What would you say if the expectant mother was ingesting Thalidimide? Should we just let her do it because trying to stop her from taking Tylenol would be silly?

Do you want to raise the deformed brain damaged children...because I know I don't.

FTA

What "makes sense and manageable" are very nice words but there is no objective test by which to put them into effect. Some people would argue that any alcohol during pregnancy is harmful; likewise smoking. What about a woman who does not eat properly denying the fetus proper nutrition? Who is to say what drugs can be taken and what not? Do we create a huge bureaucracy chasing after pregnant women to make sure they are behaving properly.

You don't need a licence to get pregnant - it's a private matter. And the government should stay out of pregnant women's lives.

[Wilber]

Look, my point is we can draw the line where it makes sense and is manageable...can anyone put up an argument that shows the down side of making it illegal for a pregnant woman to repeatedly sniff glue throughout her pregnancy? If we can agree on certain conduct as being so clearly harmful to an unborn child that it should be made illegal, then why do we implement no restrictions by arguing that it would be absurd to regulate the number of trips to McDonalds? I don't get that.

What would you say if the expectant mother was ingesting Thalidimide? Should we just let her do it because trying to stop her from taking Tylenol would be silly?

Do you want to raise the deformed brain damaged children...because I know I don't.

FTA

What "makes sense and manageable" are very nice words but there is no objective test by which to put them into effect. Some people would argue that any alcohol during pregnancy is harmful; likewise smoking. What about a woman who does not eat properly denying the fetus proper nutrition? Who is to say what drugs can be taken and what not? Do we create a huge bureaucracy chasing after pregnant women to make sure they are behaving properly.

You don't need a licence to get pregnant - it's a private matter. And the government should stay out of pregnant women's lives.

Most pregnant women are under a physicians care, follow that physicians advice and don't use any drugs without that physicians approval. That is reasonable.

Unfortunately it is the often government which gets stuck with the consequences of those lives. It's a interesting subject which can encompass much more than pregnant women. Should society be held responsible for the actions of individuals when those individuals refuse to be responsible for their own actions? Of course we have no choice because it is not the irresponsible who wind up being the victims.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Look, my point is we can draw the line where it makes sense and is manageable...can anyone put up an argument that shows the down side of making it illegal for a pregnant woman to repeatedly sniff glue throughout her pregnancy? If we can agree on certain conduct as being so clearly harmful to an unborn child that it should be made illegal, then why do we implement no restrictions by arguing that it would be absurd to regulate the number of trips to McDonalds? I don't get that.

What would you say if the expectant mother was ingesting Thalidimide? Should we just let her do it because trying to stop her from taking Tylenol would be silly?

Do you want to raise the deformed brain damaged children...because I know I don't.

FTA

What "makes sense and manageable" are very nice words but there is no objective test by which to put them into effect. Some people would argue that any alcohol during pregnancy is harmful; likewise smoking. What about a woman who does not eat properly denying the fetus proper nutrition? Who is to say what drugs can be taken and what not? Do we create a huge bureaucracy chasing after pregnant women to make sure they are behaving properly.

You don't need a licence to get pregnant - it's a private matter. And the government should stay out of pregnant women's lives.

Most pregnant women are under a physicians care, follow that physicians advice and don't use any drugs without that physicians approval. That is reasonable.

Unfortunately it is the often government which gets stuck with the consequences of those lives. It's a interesting subject which can encompass much more than pregnant women. Should society be held responsible for the actions of individuals when those individuals refuse to be responsible for their own actions? Of course we have no choice because it is not the irresponsible who wind up being the victims.

I have no problem with rules governing behavior (within reason) so long as pregnant women are held to the same standard as everyone else.

[Wilber]

We already have rules for behavior which don't hold everyone to the same standard. For example, one reason we have so many hit and run incidents now is because we have made the penalty (the actual penalty, not one of our mythical maximum sentences) for driving impaired greater than for running down a fellow human being and leaving them to die in a ditch.

[FTA Lawyer]

Look, my point is we can draw the line where it makes sense and is manageable...can anyone put up an argument that shows the down side of making it illegal for a pregnant woman to repeatedly sniff glue throughout her pregnancy? If we can agree on certain conduct as being so clearly harmful to an unborn child that it should be made illegal, then why do we implement no restrictions by arguing that it would be absurd to regulate the number of trips to McDonalds? I don't get that.

What would you say if the expectant mother was ingesting Thalidimide? Should we just let her do it because trying to stop her from taking Tylenol would be silly?

Do you want to raise the deformed brain damaged children...because I know I don't.

FTA

What "makes sense and manageable" are very nice words but there is no objective test by which to put them into effect. Some people would argue that any alcohol during pregnancy is harmful; likewise smoking. What about a woman who does not eat properly denying the fetus proper nutrition? Who is to say what drugs can be taken and what not? Do we create a huge bureaucracy chasing after pregnant women to make sure they are behaving properly.

You don't need a licence to get pregnant - it's a private matter. And the government should stay out of pregnant women's lives.

Well, we already dictate which drugs / plants can be legally grown or ingested by the public at large, why can't the same be done for pregnant women in particular? We say by law that a 17 year old (in Alberta) cannot ingest alcohol...what is so difficult about saying by law that a pregnant woman cannot ingest alcohol? Can we enforce / police it with any real measure of reliability? No. BUT if we catch a pregnant woman hammered out of her skull such a law would allow us to make an effort to prevent the poor little bastard from being born with FAS, rather than just watch it happen and say "too bad you didn't have a better mother...but hey, we could hardly be expected to interfere with her private life..."

Are you advocating legalization of crack and crystal meth because it's not entirely clear if viagra is safe?...so we just better leave it as a "private issue" and not attempt to regulate drugs at all?

Pregnancy is hardly private when we have state-funded medical care, welfare, and child welfare systems...particularly in a case where the woman had popped out 3 previous "private products" and summarily handed them over to the government to take care of them.

If a woman wants no government official to be able to tell her that she can't sniff glue throughout her pregnancy, then she damn-well better not look to the government for any of the above services when she produces the severly disabled child that everyone was able to reliably predict she was creating.

Aside from the practical difficulties that you are asserting and the notion of keeping government out of private life...let me ask you a very simple question...what will you say to a severly retarded 10 year old who can't read, speak or walk because his mom abused drugs while pregnant, and we (as government / society) knew it, watched her do it, and decided it was not our place to tell her not to do it?

FTA

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well, we already dictate which drugs / plants can be legally grown or ingested by the public at large, why can't the same be done for pregnant women in particular? We say by law that a 17 year old (in Alberta) cannot ingest alcohol...what is so difficult about saying by law that a pregnant woman cannot ingest alcohol? Can we enforce / police it with any real measure of reliability? No. BUT if we catch a pregnant woman hammered out of her skull such a law would allow us to make an effort to prevent the poor little bastard from being born with FAS, rather than just watch it happen and say "too bad you didn't have a better mother...but hey, we could hardly be expected to interfere with her private life..."

Are you advocating legalization of crack and crystal meth because it's not entirely clear if viagra is safe?...so we just better leave it as a "private issue" and not attempt to regulate drugs at all?

Pregnancy is hardly private when we have state-funded medical care, welfare, and child welfare systems...particularly in a case where the woman had popped out 3 previous "private products" and summarily handed them over to the government to take care of them.

If a woman wants no government official to be able to tell her that she can't sniff glue throughout her pregnancy, then she damn-well better not look to the government for any of the above services when she produces the severly disabled child that everyone was able to reliably predict she was creating.

Aside from the practical difficulties that you are asserting and the notion of keeping government out of private life...let me ask you a very simple question...what will you say to a severly retarded 10 year old who can't read, speak or walk because his mom abused drugs while pregnant, and we (as government / society) knew it, watched her do it, and decided it was not our place to tell her not to do it?

FTA

You raise alcohol - what's acceptable? I asked the question before - one drink a day, three drinks a day? Can she smoke? What drugs can she take? What can she not eat? Do we really want to use our resources to harass pregnant women this way? Will the law be applied the same in Toronto as in Red Deer where community standards are different?

We will have anti-abortionists pushing to have the law applied in a draconian fashion and feminists wanting to get the law overturned. And of course you can be sure that we will find that more mininority women are ones charged under the law -- aboriginals, blacks. There is not a prayer the politicians would touch this with a ten foot pole.

[Charles Anthony]

I look forward to the first set of conjoined twins that set a legal precedent whereby one of the pair consumes or does something that harms both of their lives.

Arguing the laws around pregnant women is starting to get tiresome.

[MightyAC]

The idea in Scotland is that addicts sign a social contract that, amongst other things, prevents them from having children, in exchange for housing and care. Considering the need for free rehab and shelter is far greater than the capacity I think it is a great idea. It's voluntary and it helps society as a whole.

I understand that Warwick and FTA were debating a hypothetical, imposed system and I have to agree with FTA. We regulate all sorts of arbitrary practices why would preventing pregnant women from drinking be any different? We legally limit anyone in Ontario under 19 to zero drinks per day. Cops do not actively look for underage drinkers but if they catch one there is a fine. Why would it be different for pregnant women? I'm not saying it should happen, but it could easily be done.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The idea in Scotland is that addicts sign a social contract that, amongst other things, prevents them from having children, in exchange for housing and care. Considering the need for free rehab and shelter is far greater than the capacity I think it is a great idea. It's voluntary and it helps society as a whole.

I understand that Warwick and FTA were debating a hypothetical, imposed system and I have to agree with FTA. We regulate all sorts of arbitrary practices why would preventing pregnant women from drinking be any different? We legally limit anyone in Ontario under 19 to zero drinks per day. Cops do not actively look for underage drinkers but if they catch one there is a fine. Why would it be different for pregnant women? I'm not saying it should happen, but it could easily be done.

I would take it you would ban all drinking? And I guess smoking and no doubt a huge list of drugs would be prohibited too. And I guess the woman would be required to eat properly as well - notwithstanding the fact that she might not have enough money to maintain what some might consider a nutritious diet.

How would this all be policed? Remember that the argument for this is to protect the fetus so presumably there would have to be mechanisms in place to ensure the law is upheld. It's not like minimum ages for drinking which are quite arrbitrary. In 19 you can drink in Ontario but not in New York. This is supposed to set objective standards for the behavior of pregnant women.

My wife drank - sparingly, like a couple of glasses of wine a week - during her pregnancy. You would make that illegal?

Would doctors who felt women weren't living up these requirements be required to report them to the authorities? Would social workers be permitted to go into the house of any pregnant woman to check on her eating habits.

It would take a mass of regulations to enforce this. Every product would have to be identifed that was either prohibited or which could only be taken in specific amounts.

And what about HIV-positive women? Would they be prohibited from getting pregnant or would there be mandatory sterilization for them?

Conceptually the idea of pregnant women being required to live in accordance with some prescribed government standards might be attractive to some. It wouldn't work in practice though.

[MightyAC]

I would take it you would ban all drinking? And I guess smoking and no doubt a huge list of drugs would be prohibited too. And I guess the woman would be required to eat properly as well - notwithstanding the fact that she might not have enough money to maintain what some might consider a nutritious diet.

I don't want to ban all drinking or smoking, in fact I agree with the decriminalization of pot.

I didn't say I agreed with a law that prevents pregnant women from drinking I just said that I agreed that it could easily be done as most of our laws that regulate behaviour are somewhat arbitrary. I also said I agree with the social contract in Scotland as a means of accessing government aid.

How would this all be policed? Remember that the argument for this is to protect the fetus so presumably there would have to be mechanisms in place to ensure the law is upheld. It's not like minimum ages for drinking which are quite arrbitrary. In 19 you can drink in Ontario but not in New York. This is supposed to set objective standards for the behavior of pregnant women.

How do we police underage drinking? The cops don't actively seek them out they are just fined if they are caught.

My wife drank - sparingly, like a couple of glasses of wine a week - during her pregnancy. You would make that illegal?

I think it was a mistake for your wife to drink a few glasses of wine per week during pregnancy but that's her prerogative. I wouldn't make it illegal...but if the law was in place it would be illegal. If you're wife had wine on her breath and happened to come into contact with the police then she should be fined.

Would doctors who felt women weren't living up these requirements be required to report them to the authorities? Would social workers be permitted to go into the house of any pregnant woman to check on her eating habits.

If a doctor notices alcohol problems then it would have to be serious drinking. It would be nice if we had the social services available to help alcoholic and malnourished mothers to be.

It would take a mass of regulations to enforce this. Every product would have to be identifed that was either prohibited or which could only be taken in specific amounts.

It would just take 1 law. No drinking while pregnant. If you wanted to ban other substances then more laws would have to be added but banning drinking does not have to lead to other bans.

Conceptually the idea of pregnant women being required to live in accordance with some prescribed government standards might be attractive to some. It wouldn't work in practice though.

I don't think the idea is attractive, but it could be done. I do like the idea of a social contract in exchange for state care though. Why waste the spaces on a lost cause? Why not limit the assistance to those willing to be helped and those who really want to get better?

[Guest Warwick Green]

MightyAC, we are not just talking about drinking here so it would a lot more than just one law. I think the original issue was glue sniffing. It's not feasible at all to prohibit pregnant women from using common products like alcohol and tobacco. So long as it is done in the home the law is unenforceable.

I think FTA lawyer, who first suggested this, is talking about egregious situations, the crack or heroin addict. It might be feasible to regulate that although even that would be very controversial and would guarantee more litigation.

For the record, my wife's doctor okayed her drinking during the pregnancy.

[FTA Lawyer]

Aside from the practical difficulties that you are asserting and the notion of keeping government out of private life...let me ask you a very simple question...what will you say to a severly retarded 10 year old who can't read, speak or walk because his mom abused drugs while pregnant, and we (as government / society) knew it, watched her do it, and decided it was not our place to tell her not to do it?

FTA

You raise alcohol - what's acceptable? I asked the question before - one drink a day, three drinks a day? Can she smoke? What drugs can she take? What can she not eat? Do we really want to use our resources to harass pregnant women this way? Will the law be applied the same in Toronto as in Red Deer where community standards are different?

We will have anti-abortionists pushing to have the law applied in a draconian fashion and feminists wanting to get the law overturned. And of course you can be sure that we will find that more mininority women are ones charged under the law -- aboriginals, blacks. There is not a prayer the politicians would touch this with a ten foot pole.

Are you a politician? Your "answer" to my question didn't even attempt to answer my question. What do you say to the kid in my example?

Once you finish that answer, then move on to the rest...

I would take it you would ban all drinking? And I guess smoking and no doubt a huge list of drugs would be prohibited too. And I guess the woman would be required to eat properly as well - notwithstanding the fact that she might not have enough money to maintain what some might consider a nutritious diet.

How would this all be policed? Remember that the argument for this is to protect the fetus so presumably there would have to be mechanisms in place to ensure the law is upheld. It's not like minimum ages for drinking which are quite arrbitrary. In 19 you can drink in Ontario but not in New York. This is supposed to set objective standards for the behavior of pregnant women.

My wife drank - sparingly, like a couple of glasses of wine a week - during her pregnancy. You would make that illegal?

Would doctors who felt women weren't living up these requirements be required to report them to the authorities? Would social workers be permitted to go into the house of any pregnant woman to check on her eating habits.

It would take a mass of regulations to enforce this. Every product would have to be identifed that was either prohibited or which could only be taken in specific amounts.

And what about HIV-positive women? Would they be prohibited from getting pregnant or would there be mandatory sterilization for them?

Conceptually the idea of pregnant women being required to live in accordance with some prescribed government standards might be attractive to some. It wouldn't work in practice though.

Your argument contains a massive leap of logic...why pray tell would legislation pertaining to one substance lead inexorably to the regulation of every possible substance known to man?? The issue is not about setting objective living standards for pregnant women en masse...sure, by imposing one regulation, there is bound to be people lobbying for other regulations to be added, but there is absolutely no logic in saying that we must have a full comprehensive code or nothing at all...that makes absolutely no sense!

With reference to the facts of the SCC decision I have been talking about, my basic proposition is this...

1. Sniffing glue while pregnant is harmful to the unborn child;

2. There is nothing even remotely objectionable about using our legal system to prevent pregnant women from sniffing glue in order to protect the child;

3. We can outlaw pregnant women from sniffing glue

without outlawing them from any other activity or behaviour whatsoever;

4. We ought not allow pregnant women to sniff glue simply because some interest group might then later ask us to outlaw pregnant women from eating french fries. (etc.)

It's a total cop-out...

Any child under 18 (in Alberta) has been outlawed from smoking or drinking...based on your argument, it is necessary that they also be outlawed from eating poorly, not sleeping enough and swimming less than 2 hours after eating, we need "massive regulations" to implement the drinking and smoking ban and we need to fully categorize every substance that a minor might ingest as either legal or illegal (or legal but only up to certain amounts)...IT'S AN ABSURD ARGUMENT!

No one has tried to outrageously extend the law's control over teenager behaviour simply because we have restricted their ability to drink and smoke. There is no reason to believe that if we outlawed pregnant women from drinking or sniffing glue or both that such a "ban" wouldn't operate exactly the same way that it does with minors and alcohol and tobacco.

You keep saying, like the majority of the SCC that even one small restriction on a pregnant woman's behaviour MUST lead to an all-out assault on every aspect of her daily life...I keep saying WHY?...No it doesn't...if you have a particularly objectively harmful behaviour and there is a proper case for outlawing it...then outlaw it.

If someone tries to make you outlaw a behaviour which cannot be easily and objectively defined as harmful then simply say "no, that would be unreasonably intrusive".

FTA

[Wilber]

FTA

A question for you. Can or has a child who is severely handicapped due to a parent taking drugs when pregnant ever sued that parent and if so what was the result? I think they should be able to. I also think they should be able to press charges for assault.