Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the that-explains-a-lot dept.

A new study claims that women who use acetaminophen during pregnancy are more likely to have a hyperactive child.

Acetaminophen is also known as paracetamol and by the brand name Tylenol. It is used as a pain reliever and fever reducer and is often bundled into other medications. It has been in the news the last few years because of the risk of overdose and liver damage, and a lot of combination children's medicines that include it have been removed from the market because of the risk that parents may not understand and may overdose the child with the combination medicine and a separate dose of acetaminophen.

the researchers discovered that a mother using acetaminophen at 18 weeks of pregnancy was associated with a greater chance of her child becoming hyperactive or developing conduct problems. At 32 weeks into pregnancy, a mother's use of acetaminophen was linked to higher odds of her child having emotional symptoms, conduct problems and hyperactivity symptoms.

"It is important to note there are no studies demonstrating a causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse effects on child development," said Marc Boston, a spokesman for McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the maker of Tylenol.

Acetaminophen has long been considered safe for use during pregnancy.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:29AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:29AM (#389447) Journal

    Pot being "legal" is a far cry from the status of prescription drugs which are routinely pushed by deep-pockets corporations.

    While it is true that dozens, maybe hundreds, of smaller corporations and businesses stand to make money off of pot, Monsanto isn't going to make billions off of pot. Smith-Klein doesn't stand to create an empire with pot. In fact, many of the huge corporations are losing money with the legalization of pot. I've read a couple of articles which cite decreased usage of pain meds in the states which have legalized pot. Potentially, a person can cultivate a couple of plants in their own garden, process them, and keep a stash of their own, at almost no cost. No one is cooking their own acetiminophen in their home kitchen.

    Side benefit for taxpayers, Medicaid is saving money in states where pot is legal.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:37AM (#389451)

    Yeah, but the bigger issue is public safety, not profits that corporations might or might not make. I doubt that TV ads for Tylenol (which fewer and fewer people even see nowadays) can stack up against social pressure to smoke weed at parties or on dates, that many teens and young adults experience.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:52PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:52PM (#389583)

      In that context you should be comparing it to alcohol - which is already legal in all 50 states and well known to be *extremely* dangerous when used irresponsibly - far more so than cannabis, which has not yet been shown to have any serious risks even at extreme exposures, despite decades of attempts to find or manufacture such evidence.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:02PM (#389607)

        That's a fair comparison, but it has already been proven that alcohol use is so customary within society (except for certain places like Utah) that a prohibition is completely impractical. Once a right has been given, and used for many generations, it is tough to take it away.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 18 2016, @05:50PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 18 2016, @05:50PM (#389665)

          I would argue that the overwhelming failure of the "Drug War", despite the massive resources allocated to it, and appalling militarization of the police force and abridgment of the rights of everyday citizens performed in its name, suggests that prohibition is completely impractical regardless of whether the particular substance in question previously enjoyed widespread social acceptance or not.

          Archaeology suggests that humanity has embraced mind-altering substances of many stripes since long before records were kept. It seems unlikely that anything will substantially curb that tendency, and even we could it's not clear that there's any real benefit to doing so, except for those whose benefit from an invasive erosion of personal liberties.