Ethics poll: addicted mothers-to-be

Classic case of combative policy. You choose a social ill and declare war on it. This makes everyone feel good and righteous and makes you look good for the general public, especially since those who will be negatively impacted are by definition involved in this social ill, and thus aren't very credible.

The problem is, it doesn't work.

Attacking a situation like this focus on the symptom, not the root causes. It draws a line in the sand - you are with us or against us - driving the parties involved further apart, making cooperation impossible, and success harder. Worst of all, it ignores the fact that those involved in the problem are human beings and suffering directly as a result of their own actions.

This approach is a result of the philosophy that human beings have free will and are wholly responsible for their own situations and actions. This is blatantly false. Humans are a product of their environments - all evidence points to this. While this cannot remove responsibility for their actions, it encourages compassion, rather than hatred and attack.

As with any combat, combative policy can only be won in one of two ways: coming to an agreement with the opposition, or eradicating them entirely.

This cannot be an option in social policy.

There is no one solution that applies and provides a good outcome.

The only ethical solution is to review each case individually and then decide each on it's merits.

This is difficult to implement of course, first it would be necessary to identify as many as possible (all if possible) pregnant women who are addicted and likely to cause harm to their unborn child etc.

In practice this would require the development of some guidelines for these decisions plus a register of all such women. This is doable if there is the political and social will.

I voted "unsure" on this one because of word "gaoled". If some sort of compulsory detention other than gaol, eg, properly run instituton within health system were used, my vote would be yes, on grounds that, where serious parental neglect is proven, the state has responsibility to intervene on behalf of defenceless children. One could add the subsidiary and perhaps hard hearted argument for detention that the healthier children likely to result from maternal detention in this case would subsequently be less of a burden on the state/society. A final argument in favour of yes: children born to such a mother would necessarily be notified to child protection services and the mother's participation in parental effectiveness training should be a condition of her ongoing right to parent.

If you assume that gaoling the mother would work (which I find unlikely from a practical perspective - ie smuggling drugs into gaol or a mother going through detox and causing self-harm to her and her baby by becoming mentally unstable)then the ethical question becomes do you put the interest of a defenceless child ahead of a selfish mother who's actions will harm the child?. In theory the ethical response would be "yes, gaol the pregnant mother" however the grey area is the line which defines "drug addicted" or "alcoholic" - ie do you gaol a pregnant woman who takes a sip of wine at a church service? Like the internet filter debate too much power would be given to too few and in practice this would cause more harm than good.

What crime has been committed? Should you also the jail the bloke who impregnated a woman in such condition for willful misconduct? If she is withdrawing, seeking medical help to reduce intake and abstain she is committing no crime.

How do you deal with every miscarriage? Do the parents have permission to charge the system with murder?

How would you ascertain the affects of the sheer trauma of being jailed on the mind and therefore hormonal balances of the pregnant woman?

What if she suicides?

The mere discussion of such a revolting topic is nothing short of communistic. Lord forbid any of your family end up on drugs or with alcohol problems and get impregnated by a careless illwilling bastard in a system that would even consider such a thing.

Disgusted.

70% of women drink alcohol at some time when pregnant.

The father bears the overiding responbility for a women while pregnant, if she is 'using' his duty is to seek and insist upon the use of medical assistance. If she doesn't comply he can press charges. There is already law in place to deal with this.

In a world dominated by men, justified as superior, said to be the "stronger" sex and provider, the woman is solely to blame.

Many people who over use or abuse drugs and alcohol have a developed state of self focus which is provoked mostly by heinous and childhood abuse, to place blame and responsibility on a person already in such a state of self-destruction, is nothing short of ignorant and irresponsible.

Next they'll suggest microchipping babies in case one gets kidnapped, never mind the risks of cancer or other diseases with an unknown cause for the other 20,000 babies.

and by the way, what's the meaning of this statement:

"As with any combat, combative policy can only be won in one of two ways: coming to an agreement with the opposition, or eradicating them entirely."

For heaven's sake Australia is not at war with it's own people. GOOD GOD MAN.