Zero case for lying

The lead story in The Times this morning is really quite extraordinary. To remind you of it:

Women who are pregnant or trying for a baby should stop drinking alcohol altogether, the Government’s leading doctors give warning today.

The new advice radically revises existing guidelines, which say that women can drink up to two units once or twice a week. Fiona Adshead, the deputy chief medical officer, said that the change was meant to send “a strong signal” to the thousands of women who drank more than the recommended limit that they were putting their babies at risk. But she admitted that it was not in response to any new medical evidence.

This is merely the latest instalment of an extremely dangerous development. The public health profession has long seen itself as having a political role in making us behave as it wishes, rather than simply providing us with information.

Now it has moved on to using deceit as a tactic to advance its various causes.

I am a strong supporter of the MMR vaccination. How, now, do I respond to readers who say that the medical profession is quite willing to lie to them when it wants to get its way?

Comments

[Simon Stephenson]

"How, now, do I respond to readers who say that the medical profession is quite willing to lie to them when it wants to get its way?"

You say that the medical profession is just part of the entire socio-political élite who have come to regard honesty as an unnecessary encumbrance to persuasion. And that anyone with their brain in the right place should ensure they possess a considerable quantity of salt, so that they are never left without a pinch to take whenever any supposedly authoritative announcement is made.

The next thing you should say to them is that if we carry on like this the whole structure of our society is going to collapse, and that they should at every opportunity denounce as an evil any deception, spin, misrepresentation or "economy with the truth" that finds its way into the public arena.

[Ismael Klata]

The stupid thing is that the government probably thinks it is pursuing a safety-at-all-costs policy (which at least would be logical, if somewhat spineless) - when what it is actually pursuing is a safety-without-costs policy (which is impossible).

In this case the cost not being taken into account is that many women will be prevented from enjoying the odd glass of wine. It may not seem particularly important per se, but it must be worth something or women wouldn't do it!

You can see the same lack of thought in other safety-oriented policies - road safety doesn't take into account the fact that it takes much longer to get anywhere, child safety doesn't take into account the fact that a generation is growing up with no trust towards adults, money-laundering checks don't take account of the fact that they make everyone's lives a bit more annoying, and so on.

There are ways to strike a proper balance, but pretending that there isn't a balance to be struck is never the right solution.

[David Moss]

Most people would agree with you that lying is wrong. But not everyone.

Someone* wrote the other day that "Conservatives have always adhered to the idea that individuals are responsibile for their acts. And quite right too. Yet there comes a point where this clear moral position becomes a bias against understanding".

Perhaps most people are suffering in this case from a bias against understanding, we have come to that point where Fiona Adshead isn't personally responsible for her actions and it's all rather to do with the "situation" she finds herself in.

In that "situation", moral terms like "lying" have no meaning. There are no moral objects for them to refer to. As a result, people cannot be moral agents. But that is an essential component of being a person. So there are no people. Only a crowd.

And crowds act according to their own unfathomable dynamics. Understood by police-men and by some marketing executives – the good ones, at least – but not the rest of us.

This philosophy may be all sorts of things. But one thing it isn't is Conservative.

* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article1795799.ece

[Holly, Oxford]

Once something has been "proved" it is nigh on impossible to effectively disprove it, however much evidence to the contrary is presented. I have encountered this numerous times over the last three years of my psychology degree at Oxford, and it is an ongoing annoyance to experimental psychology researchers.

This is exactly what has happened in the case of the MMR vaccine. Dr Wakefield produced 'evidence' of a causal link between the vaccine and autism, but there was a significant 'conflict of interest' and his research was not at all impartial - he was carrying out research for the Legal Aid Board, attempting to provide evidence to fight the cases of parents suing the vaccine provider.

But all this brings me round to say that I do not believe that the medical profession is lying to get its way. The MMR scare was just that, a scare, and this latest re-advisal not to drink alcohol in pregnancy is simple common sense. Would any sane parent give their baby a glass of wine before bedtime? That is exactly what drinking in pregnancy is, it is feeding a vulnerable, developing infant a poisonous substance. Abstinence in this case is obviously the best policy, and I am convinced that research will one day emerge supporting this stand point.

In the meantime though, I think the most the government and medical advisory boards should do is present the evidence exactly as it comes, with advice for those not intelligent enough to make up their own minds, but leaving the way clear for sensible people to form rational opinions based on the information they are given. If a large amount of alchohol in pregnancy leads to foetal alcohol syndrome and significant disabilities, it would be logical to conclude that a small amount of alcohol has risk associated, albeit lessened, but there nevertheless.

Unfortunately, I fear, most individuals in this country are either too stupid, too lazy or simply care too little about the wellbeing of themselves or their children, placing hedonic pursuits over health, to bother making any informed decisions about their lives or adhering to any good advice they are given. This is evidently the case as children are still born with foetal alcohol syndrome, drug abuse and crime is still rife, the value of education is being abandoned, and obesity in both adults and children is increasing at an alarming rate.

Maybe a nanny state is needed. People obviously cannot look after themselves.

[Very Angry of Tunbridge Wells]

It is not 'scientists' who are lying here: it is Civil Servants. It is all part of Labour's ethos that the end justifies the means, that any falsehood will do provided it furthers their objectives (c.f. Iraq dossiers).

Unfortunately for Government scientists, by going along with this, they are making the case for getting rid of their own jobs. Why are we paying for these people to lie to us?

Incidentally, the argument that not drinking makes you less likely to conceive is plainly ridiculous. These scientists should get out more.

[KT]

Holly, we're all very impressed that you are studying psychology at Oxford, but with your ability to be so judgmental, I hope that I am never in need of your professional services. Have you thought about the calming effect of a small glass of wine which may prevent high blood pressure, a proven harm to an unborn child?

[Darren, Connah's Quay.]

re HOLLY, OXFORD's comments that "Maybe a nanny state is needed. People obviously cannot look after themselves.", and "Unfortunately, I fear, most individuals in this country are either too stupid, too lazy or simply care too little about the wellbeing of themselves or their children"

Hmmm, "care too little"? Perhaps "not eliminate every last little bit of fun from our lives, in the hope that we may increase our chances (statistically) of living a bit longer" is another way of putting it? It's called balance.

I do agree with her argument that once "proved", an idea is difficult to disprove. Man-made global warming, an unproven theory, being a current example. This is currently being presented as proven, incontrovertible scientific truth. The establishment (politicians, pressure groups, even the UN) taking the view that it's ok to lie to us all, as

a) they will probably be proved right in the end, or

b) what does it matter if they are wrong? They won't suffer, and it gives them an excuse to meddle even further in the way we live our lives.

Truth in public life seems an optional incumberance, and one with which few burden themselves.

It's a shame that the medical establishment are frittering away the legacy of trust that took such a long time to build up, just as the senior ranks of the police force have recently been doing.

Unfortunately, their place as issuers of trustworthy information is being taken by single-issue pressure groups (anti-war groups, environmentalists, anti-MMR goups etc.), hardly the most unbiased or trustworthy of sources.

If democracy is to function as designed, access to unbiased, truthful information is vital.

My hope is that when society adjusts to the 24-hour news overkill, we may become more sceptical, or find a way to demand the truth be told.

Am I too hopeful?

[judy]

When was there ever an assumption that Governments tell the truth? Is anyone really that naive? Our current Government hasn't told the truth since they came to power......about anything. Weapons of mass destruction and low unemployment spring to mind, along with, there is no problem with the current levels of immigration.

[Steve]

Governments are by their very nature evil.

We have to have them for certain things but believing that they are agents for our good is naive and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Until people gain confidence in their own ability to judge situations and create institutions with very limited powers that are made to serve rather than master us things will always degenerate into these kinds of situations.

I long for the day when we have politicians that do what they are told rather they playing lip-service to representing us.

[Charles Robinson]

Holly

While you are studying psychology, you are clearly not studying nutrition. Suggest you stick to the psychology.

It should be noted that professional medical groups have come out saying that sensible drinking should be allowed - in contradiction with the government's stance.

The point of this exercise (as made by other "postees") is that it was set up (effectively) by civil servants, who believe that by pushing a zero tolerance message they will reach the small proportion of mothers who continue to drink too much. Given that this demographic group is unlikely to listen to such warnings, the scare mongering will have done little but create confusion and resentment amongst the rest of the mothers to be.

Fundamentally everything in moderation (nutrition-wise) should be the approach (this applies equaly to fast foods, alcohol etc.). The issue is in educating and indeed convincing those that don't understand this!

[Kathy Hall]

I think this could simply backfire and lead to pregnant women drinking *more* than otherwise, and some more than a safe amount.

Since nobody could possibly believe that the occasional glass of wine does the foetus any harm (or most of us wouldn't be arguing the point) pregnant women may be tempted to ignore all advice on the subject and hence drink too much by any standards.

[CLAIRE SWEENEY]

I am not a regular drinker and would only really drink if at a party or wedding or out for a meal or on holiday.When I first fell pregnant April 2006 I didnt realise as it wasnt planned and I continued to have periods.I found out when 10 weeks pregnant.What concerns me is that during those 10 weeks I drank alcohol as those few weeks included a short holiday, 2 weddings and a few meals out.In light of this announcement of pregnant woman having 0 alcohol I feel concerned.What if it's early days and the pregnancy wasnt planned and you do consume alcohol!

[Janet McGrail]

It is sad that people have to discuss or the government enact laws regarding the health and well-being of individuals:- in this instance alcohol and pregnancy. Those ladies fortunate indeed to have babies or be pregnant or would like to be pregnant, would have I hope, by their own volition, a wish to safeguard the foetus from the harm of alcohol, tobacco, cocaine etc. As a Midwife, I know that all prospective mothers 'are not equal,' and that all prospective mothers do not regard the impending birth with the same degree of enthusiasm. Some individuals will abuse their bodies whatever the circumstances, and some will not. Incidentally, a glass or two of wine does not prevent high blood pressure as 'KT' suggests. There are many reasons for hypertension, and every individual should be encouraged to have an annual physical by their own GP. Or, if they do not have a GP, visit a clinic.

[Brendan]

Isn't it illegal to serve alcohol to people less than 1 year old?

[Kevin Millican]

I welcome this development - perhaps now that the government is interested in the safety of babies in the womb, it will eventually move on to even greater threats to them - like abortion on demand.

[Nikki Freeman]

It is politicians who are lying rather than docotrs. There is no evidence for total abstinence from alcohol in pregnancy. In fact most obstetricians see no harm in a glass or two of wine a week in the third trimester.

This is the nanny state going too far. Please don't confuse government policy makers with doctors.

[Keith Johnson]

Holly believes it is logical that, since a large amount of alcohol is definitely harmful, any smaller amount must be risky to some degree. This is called the "precautionary principle", and it is not logical.

Holly, you mentioned obesity. If you believe that eating large amounts of food causes obesity and thus is definitely harmful, upon this same principal you must conclude that the safest thing is to stop eating entirely.

[Tammy]

I think avoiding or not having alcohol is just common sense. There was another article I read recently at http://pregnancy.more4kids.info/111/healthy-habits-for-pregnant-women/

When it comes to the health of your unborn baby there should be no debate and afterall, what is more important than your unborn baby? Why even think about taking the risk?