SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Up to one-third of pregnant women do not believe cannabis is harmful to their fetus, according to a new review by UBC [(The University of British Columbia)] researchers.
In some cases, women perceived a lack of communication from their health care providers about the risks of cannabis as an indication that the drug is safe to use during pregnancy.
The findings are outlined in a new review, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, in which UBC researchers sought to identify the latest evidence on women's perspectives on the health aspects of cannabis use during pregnancy and post-partum and whether their perceptions influence decision-making about using the drug.
"Our research suggests that, over the past decade, more women seem to be using cannabis during pregnancy than ever before, even though evidence of its safety is limited and conflicting," said lead author Hamideh Bayrampour, assistant professor in the UBC department of family practice and affiliate investigator at BC Children's Hospital Research Institute. "As many jurisdictions around the world, including Canada, legalize cannabis, it's becoming increasingly important for public health officials to understand perceptions of cannabis use and to increase awareness of the health concerns around its use, especially for pregnant women."
Journal Reference:
Hamideh Bayrampour, Mike Zahradnik, Sarka Lisonkova, Patti Janssen. Women's perspectives about cannabis use during pregnancy and the postpartum period: An integrative review. Preventive Medicine, 2019; 119: 17 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.002
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:13PM (3 children)
If a woman wants to do things that might be harmful to the fetus, and doesn't want government regulation prohibiting such bad choices, then please don't expect society to pay for the child's birth defects.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @02:25PM (2 children)
Does this include having a child in the first place?
When the NDIS was put in (look it up) a couple of disabled people said that it was great because their children would be covered.
Run that through again. Society, read: stupid arguing dick measuring politicians, put in this safety net for people who were disabled. Okay. All good so far? We are "rich" so the theory is that we can pay to provide for these people. The method sucks but the theory is sound. Pity we can't afford it, but that is a different problem.
Fine.
But.
We already have generational dole bludgers. Going back five generations in some families.
Two people announcing an intention to bring (what is most likely) disabled children into the world because society will pay for it boils my blood.If they want children then fine. They can pay for them. Just like anyone else.
If someone is unlucky enough to be hit by a car then sure we should help.
If people decide to walk in front of a car or push others then no we shouldn't.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:50AM (1 child)
I get what you are going for there but what about those tax exemptions parents get per kid. I mean i love my three little deductions but i am also fine if we get rid of the child deduction to take the burden of raising kids from the state.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 26 2019, @02:37PM
What now? How does this make any sense? What is taxed is the household income of a family unit. The tax bracket is determined by the earnings of that unit, divided by the number of people in that unit. The child just added one more person to that unit, so the tax bracket is lower per person, so it should be taxed less. Diapers are not tax deductible idiot - we simply pay less percentage tax if we earn less. Have you ever seen a tax return? Retard.