{"id":20618,"date":"2013-06-11T00:01:07","date_gmt":"2013-06-11T05:01:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=20618"},"modified":"2013-06-10T15:13:35","modified_gmt":"2013-06-10T20:13:35","slug":"as-if-a-pregnant-woman-doesnt-have-enough-things-to-worry-about","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2013\/06\/11\/as-if-a-pregnant-woman-doesnt-have-enough-things-to-worry-about\/","title":{"rendered":"As if a pregnant woman doesn’t have enough things to worry about…"},"content":{"rendered":"

…there’s an entire industry<\/a> devoted to the cause of warning pregnant women about possible, potential, unknown dangers all around them:<\/p>\n

The only other real option is to take the position held by Joan Wolf, author of the excellent study about contemporary risk thinking, Is Breast Best? Taking on the Breastfeeding Experts and the New High Stakes of Motherhood<\/em>. Wolf has explored how, in the US, pregnant women are frequently told: everything is potentially risky; you have control over fetal development, but we do not know how; actions that you think are innocuous are probably harmful, but we cannot tell you which ones; things you do or do not do might be more problematic at certain times in pregnancy, but we do not know when; what you do or do not do can produce disastrous or moderately negative effects, but we cannot predict either one.<\/p>\n

Wolf\u2019s assessment is that the only rational response is not a call for more information of this kind; rather, it is to recognise that there is far too much of it already. While science can tell us important things, what we need to come to terms with is the inevitability of risk, the fact that people do risky things all day long (in that there are outcomes of actions over which we do not have total control), but this is just life. It is not a problem, and we do not need to be \u2018informed\u2019 or \u2018empowered\u2019 about it.<\/p>\n

The other sort of argument made by the critics of the RCOG<\/acronym> report was that instead of \u2018raising awareness\u2019 of the theoretical risks of everyday chemicals, more advice and information should be given to pregnant women about \u2018real harm\u2019. Hence, instead of just focusing on making it clear to the RCOG what they should do with their report, the critics have engaged in a sort of \u2018my risk is bigger than your risk\u2019 competition. In the discussion so far, the risks we apparently really understand and should be even more informed about have included all the old chestnuts: coffee, alcohol, cigarettes and stress.<\/p>\n

Indeed, an interesting \u2018my risk is bigger than your risk\u2019 theme is developing when it comes to \u2018stress\u2019. Here, the entirely legitimate point that it is not reasonable to worry people and cause anxiety for no reason has morphed into a claim about the apparently overwhelming evidence that \u2018stress\u2019 endangers the developing fetus. In reality, as the US sociologist Betsy Armstrong has explained, the \u2018science\u2019 supporting the idea that stress in pregnancy is a problem is far more contentious than such objections assume. The wider public discourse about this issue demands robust criticism not endorsement because of its scaremongering qualities. In any case, given that a pregnant woman can no more avoid \u2018stress\u2019 in her life than a she can a pre-prepared ham sandwich, it is worth asking quite where this line of argument takes us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

…there’s an entire industry devoted to the cause of warning pregnant women about possible, potential, unknown dangers all around them: The only other real option is to take the position held by Joan Wolf, author of the excellent study about contemporary risk thinking, Is Breast Best? Taking on the Breastfeeding Experts and the New High […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,28],"tags":[374,39,43],"class_list":["post-20618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health-science","category-media","tag-children","tag-junkscience","tag-women"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-5my","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20618","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20618"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20618\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20621,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20618\/revisions\/20621"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}