This was discussed on The Wright Stuff today and is about to come up on the ITV News.
Pregnant women who smoke are to be offered cash or shopping vouchers as an incentive to quit.
Personally I think it's a ridiculous idea.
Surely the fact that you are carrying an unborn child that you have the responsibility for and the choices you make while pregnant can affect their lifelong health and well being is enough to make you quit cigarettes???? I say this as a smoker who gave up as part of planning a pregnancy. Personally it would send huge warning signs to me if I was involved with social services and saw a pregnant woman who would give up the **** for personal financial gain but not for the well being of their child. I would think here is a woman who does is not willing or able to put their own needs above their child's.
If this is true it sends out totally the wrong message and I am personally appalled.
Surely the fact that you are carrying an unborn child that you have the responsibility for and the choices you make while pregnant can affect their lifelong health and well being is enough to make you quit cigarettes???? I say this as a smoker who gave up as part of planning a pregnancy. Personally it would send huge warning signs to me if I was involved with social services and saw a pregnant woman who would give up the **** for personal financial gain but not for the well being of their child. I would think here is a woman who does is not willing or able to put their own needs above their child's.
If this is true it sends out totally the wrong message and I am personally appalled.
Women should stop smoking during pregnancy, and stay stopped after the child is born for theirs and the childs health. Ideally the people around them would too.
But planned pregnancies are different from a poor woman, already struggling, perhaps with other children and less than supportive partner finding herself pregnant. Its not always the best news for them and isn't necessarily accompanied with thoughts of a bright future.
Women should stop smoking during pregnancy, and stay stopped after the child is born for theirs and the childs health. Ideally the people around them would too.
But planned pregnancies are different from a poor woman, already struggling, perhaps with other children and less than supportive partner finding herself pregnant. Its not always the best news for them and isn't necessarily accompanied with thoughts of a bright future.
I take all your points on board - quitting smoking must be difficult at the best of times, even with supportive friends and family. I was anxious not to gain too much weight during pregnancy, but my appetite (especially towards the end) was huge. It was difficult to keep food intake to a minimum - I can only imagine how much more difficult the situation must be when your body isn't craving fuel, but an addictive drug!
However, in the situation you outline above, I can't see how £400 would make the woman's situation easier. Sure it might buy a pram and car seat - but if she lacks support at home and if her friends smoke, if she's stressed anf unhappy, how will money take those problems away? I'd argue that unless she changed her social circle she'll take up smoking again once the baby is born, and half the aim of the project will have failed.
Instead of financial rewards for individuals, I think it would be a better idea to create a support club or group. A bit like Slimming World for smokers - motivational talks, little treats and peer to peer support from other mums who are quitting. The woman gets emotional and practical support and also meets likeminded people who may become friends. For the cost of helping 10 smokers (£4000) you could hire a group co-ordinator and even arrange workshops or therapies as little rewards (like manicures or shoulder massages or something to help them relax). Give them real support, not a bribe.
If it is supposed to be an incentive then the fact that having a healthy child is not incentive enough means they shouldn't be having children in the first place.
And the health of your child is somehow less important than £400 in Iceland and Mothercare vouchers?
If you can fight your addiction for £400 why not for free?
I think you're putting words in my mouth there. The health of the child is paramount which is why if this scheme has been shown to increase quit rates then the results of the study bear further investigation.
I'm glad posts here seem to be split fairly equally between the "if it works..." pragmatists who appear to have actually read the article and the punishment at all costs brigade who appear to be disagreeing with it on principle. Perhaps we should be sure that in punishing these women for being bad mums we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by punishing the children as well.
I take all your points on board - quitting smoking must be difficult at the best of times, even with supportive friends and family. I was anxious not to gain too much weight during pregnancy, but my appetite (especially towards the end) was huge. It was difficult to keep food intake to a minimum - I can only imagine how much more difficult the situation must be when your body isn't craving fuel, but an addictive drug!
However, in the situation you outline above, I can't see how £400 would make the woman's situation easier. Sure it might buy a pram and car seat - but if she lacks support at home and if her friends smoke, if she's stressed anf unhappy, how will money take those problems away? I'd argue that unless she changed her social circle she'll take up smoking again once the baby is born, and half the aim of the project will have failed.
Instead of financial rewards for individuals, I think it would be a better idea to create a support club or group. A bit like Slimming World for smokers - motivational talks, little treats and peer to peer support from other mums who are quitting. The woman gets emotional and practical support and also meets likeminded people who may become friends. For the cost of helping 10 smokers (£4000) you could hire a group co-ordinator and even arrange workshops or therapies as little rewards (like manicures or shoulder massages or something to help them relax). Give them real support, not a bribe.
I suppose it depends on how you see it. I prefer to see it as an incentive rather than a reward. And that £400 could indeed make a huge difference financially and psychologically.
I understand that this is offered as part of a programme so I expect there is support there to stop smoking. Changing the social circle, removing themselves from supportive family and friends would be detrimental at such a time, but changing behaviour within that circle and that in turn learning and changing would be more beneficial for more people including the child.
The point was made on the Wright Stuff that outlets would probably see it as a marketing opportunity so the vouchers could actually cost less. But if not £400 is nothing compared to the health of the baby in the womb, and if there's also a change in the wider social environment its money well spent.
No. £400 should be given to those of us who wait until we can afford to provide children with a good life before having them and are willing to put them first without the incentive of free stuff.
No. £400 should be given to those of us who wait until we can afford to provide children with a good life before having them and are willing to put them first without the incentive of free stuff.
Some people would never have children if they had to wait until the perfect financial situation. And in the meantime, what about that child and their future?
There are so many more reasons. I confess I feel sick at the thought of a mother inhaling a **** and all those disgusting toxins and poisons going into her baby too. When I was on the ante-natal ward I met a mother who freely admitted to taking cocaine whilst pregnant. (Just the once, so that was presumably okay. ) I didn't know where to look. It's hard not to be judgemental, but you get so protective over your own baby, it's hard to imagine somebody else knowingly harming theirs.
The woman from RCM on the BBC talked about the scheme as a way of getting mothers to quit smoking for good, so that children grow up in smoke-free households and are less likely to become smokers themselves. Whilst I think it's a laudable aim, I think it's going to take a hell of a lot more than £400 to 'incentivise' mothers into quitting. If they're doing it for the money they're doing it for the wrong reasons, and won't be as committed as those who do it for theirs and their baby's health.
It's hard to suggest a solution though. You can't guilt-trip or emotionally blackmail hormonal pregnant women, so all you're left with is educating them, and how many women would willingly go to parenting classes?
The problem as I see it is that the women who need educating are the very ones who will reject it.
So incentives and creative thinking appears to be the way forward. If it works, even for a quarter then that's progress....of sorts.
No. £400 should be given to those of us who wait until we can afford to provide children with a good life before having them and are willing to put them first without the incentive of free stuff.
In a perfect ideal world, meanwhile back to reality.
I suppose it depends on how you see it. I prefer to see it as an incentive rather than a reward. And that £400 could indeed make a huge difference financially and psychologically.
I understand that this is offered as part of a programme so I expect there is support there to stop smoking. Changing the social circle, removing themselves from supportive family and friends would be detrimental at such a time, but changing behaviour within that circle and that in turn learning and changing would be more beneficial for more people including the child.
The point was made on the Wright Stuff that outlets would probably see it as a marketing opportunity so the vouchers could actually cost less. But if not £400 is nothing compared to the health of the baby in the womb, and if there's also a change in the wider social environment its money well spent.
I never mentioned removing women from family and friends - just adding to the support available.
You talked about a hypothetical woman with a 'less than supportive partner', the stress of other children and 'friends who are smokers' - in that situation I'd argue that changing (or rather adding to) the social circle could only be beneficial.
But yes, in some cases, yes, I do believe people may need to change their behaviour in certain circumstances. If you only smoke when out on the town with certain friends, and those friends won't stop smoking in front of you, remove yourself from temptation until willpower means you can say no to a cigarette. (And you avoid the effects of passive smoking too!)
I think it's naïve to assume that offering a financial incentive to one person will have a wider effect; especially as those in a supportive role have nothing to gain financially.
Group support would cost less per head, meaning that more people can be treated. There's no way every expectant smoker could be offered £400, so I'd far rather the needs of the many be met, rather than those of a few living in a targeted area.
The bams wont change.... if you have to be bribed to stop smoking for Your Own babies sake.... they ll take the money and continue blowing harmful chemicals all over the baby once its born... these types of mothers dont care and must be laughing their heads off at this idea.
I never mentioned removing women from family and friends - just adding to the support available.
You talked about a hypothetical woman with a 'less than supportive partner', the stress of other children and 'friends who are smokers' - in that situation I'd argue that changing (or rather adding to) the social circle could only be beneficial.
But yes, in some cases, yes, I do believe people may need to change their behaviour in certain circumstances. If you only smoke when out on the town with certain friends, and those friends won't stop smoking in front of you, remove yourself from temptation until willpower means you can say no to a cigarette. (And you avoid the effects of passive smoking too!)
I think it's naïve to assume that offering a financial incentive to one person will have a wider effect; especially as those in a supportive role have nothing to gain financially.
Group support would cost less per head, meaning that more people can be treated. There's no way every expectant smoker could be offered £400, so I'd far rather the needs of the many be met, rather than those of a few living in a targeted area.
You've misread it, I said removing themselves. Which if you are from a family of smokers, and your partner and friends also smoke and you try to change that circle as you suggested then you are essentially removing yourself from the people who are there for you. They may not be the most supportive but if they're all you know then isolating yourself is not going to be helpful. That is what I mean by social circle, a night out once in a while with smoking friends is a different situation.
Smokers, are higher in numbers in socially deprived areas. That isn't because they are the only areas being marketed or sold to. Smoking is more often than not taken up (or not) because of peer pressure and the normalisation / acceptability of it in the society in which you live. Smoking related illness and treatments are also higher in those areas leading to higher costs.
If people smoke from the example being set around them, then no its not so naive to assume that if you change that example less people will smoke including less expectant mothers. And using pregnancy and the health of the baby as an opportunity to do that, while at the same time protecting that unborn child is the perfect time to try. Only time will actually tell if it does have a wider effect.
Smoking cessation groups, free prescriptions, education and increased awareness already exist and aren't working. Pregnancy isn't enough to stop some. This programme has shown promising results so why not try it.
No. £400 should be given to those of us who wait until we can afford to provide children with a good life before having them and are willing to put them first without the incentive of free stuff.
The ability to provide children with a good life has very little to do with being able to "afford" it... A happy, secure, stable life is down to the attitude and values of the parent(s) not how much money they have.
You've misread it, I said removing themselves. Which if you are from a family of smokers, and your partner and friends also smoke and you try to change that circle as you suggested then you are essentially removing yourself from the people who are there for you. They may not be the most supportive but if they're all you know then isolating yourself is not going to be helpful. That is what I mean by social circle, a night out once in a while with smoking friends is a different situation.
Smokers, are higher in numbers in socially deprived areas. That isn't because they are the only areas being marketed or sold to. Smoking is more often than not taken up (or not) because of peer pressure and the normalisation / acceptability of it in the society in which you live. Smoking related illness and treatments are also higher in those areas leading to higher costs.
If people smoke from the example being set around them, then no its not so naive to assume that if you change that example less people will smoke including less expectant mothers. And using pregnancy and the health of the baby as an opportunity to do that, while at the same time protecting that unborn child is the perfect time to try. Only time will actually tell if it does have a wider effect.
Smoking cessation groups, free prescriptions, education and increased awareness already exist and aren't working. Pregnancy isn't enough to stop some. This programme has shown promising results so why not try it.
.
Like most pregnant mothers, I gave up alcohol. My partner, family and friends carried on drinking. I did sometimes remove myself from late nights out with friends. Did I feel removed from or less supported by them? Of course not.
And sometimes women DO need to isolate themselves from negative influences. It doesn't mean cutting people out of their lives - it's as simple as leaving the room when a partner smokes or not going outside with colleagues for a **** break. Surely that's common sense anyway, to avoid passive smoking?!
Your partner might quit to help you, or at least avoid smoking in the same room as you. Your friends, mother in law, brother, sister, colleagues etc won't quit just because you are being given £400 in vouchers. It's not going to happen.
We shouldn't be targeting individuals and bribing them. That may temporarily change their behaviour, but it won't change their attitude. Kid is born and they start smoking again, and the child suffers from years of passive smoke.
The way forward is to target everybody. Get them young, educate and educate until the message sinks in. I know my opinion won't be popular with smokers, but it needs to be made anti-social, in the same way drink driving is, in the way under-age drinking is regarded in America. Stop people from lighting up that first cigarette and breed a generation of non-smokers. Anti-smoking measures are working slowly, as numbers are definitely on the decline (even if people choose to vap instead), but it's a long-term solution.
There are better ways to spend the money - on prevention for one. Because if this scheme takes off, what next? Bribing obese people to lose weight? Bribing drug users to quit? Bribing self-harmers to stop cutting?
The long-term danger is that would create a culture of entitlement in which people refuse to take responsibility for their health unless there is a financial carrot dangling in front of them.
NO-other people should not be responsible for another's health/lifestyle choice.
While Midwives/nurses experience a pay frieze and all sorts of awful working conditions and often staying late after long days with no breaks, why should the money go to this daft idea? They are adults after all and if they are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to take responsibility for the pregnancy they have gone ahead with.
If they choose to attempt to stop, great, there will be support, if not, they wll have to live with it.
NO-other people should not be responsible for another's health/lifestyle choice.
While Midwives/nurses experience a pay frieze and all sorts of awful working conditions and often staying late after long days with no breaks, why should the money go to this daft idea? They are adults after all and if they are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to take responsibility for the pregnancy they have gone ahead with.
If they choose to attempt to stop, great, there will be support, if not, they wll have to live with it.
Other people are responsible for other people's health all the time.
I do think people need to get past the indignation and consider that, in the trials in Scotland, offering vouchers did reduce the number of women smoking whilst pregnant. That can only be a positive thing. £400 is not very much money in the grand scheme of things, certainly far cheaper than treating babies for disorders caused by smoking.
Other people are responsible for other people's health all the time.
I do think people need to get past the indignation and consider that, in the trials in Scotland, offering vouchers did reduce the number of women smoking whilst pregnant. That can only be a positive thing. £400 is not very much money in the grand scheme of things, certainly far cheaper than treating babies for disorders caused by smoking.
Well they chose to start smoking, don't see why they should get rewarded for it, I think there are far better places for the money to go to.
Other people are responsible for other people's health all the time.
I do think people need to get past the indignation and consider that, in the trials in Scotland, offering vouchers did reduce the number of women smoking whilst pregnant. That can only be a positive thing. £400 is not very much money in the grand scheme of things, certainly far cheaper than treating babies for disorders caused by smoking.
400 pounds is about 6 weeks worth of cigarettes at a packet a day, so why would people be motivated to give up for seven or eight months for the same reward? Why not just point out the savings they'd make on giving it up, and help them to envisage the items they could buy with the money?
The vouchers are only a tiny part of the cost. All the appointments and tests to check they have genuinely stopped would cost far more than 400 pounds. The women involved in this trial were only tested three times, so between the tests people could easily have continued smoking. It was a poor area, and the temptation is high for people to lie when faced with an incentive of several hundred pounds.
This was a deliberately skewed trial, because it involved a financial incentive in a poor area. They'd have had to offer it to a range of people from different financial circumstances to get meaningful statistics. Also, without more stringent tests, all they've proved is that women from a generally economically deprived area are capable of giving up smoking for at least a few days if they have the incentive of shopping vouchers.
I personally think that if someone isn't motivated to stop smoking for their child, or to save money, then they're unlikely to do so for some shopping vouchers. And trying to ensure that people have genuinely stopped smoking is going to be pretty well impossible.
No they should be publicly shamed and humiliated. In fact you have given me an idea for a new facebook group or blog, where people can upload pictures/vidros of pregnant smokers drinkers caught in the act.
No they bloody well shouldn't need to be bribed with cash to stop potentially harming their unborn children!
I think this is an outrageous proposal.
I completely agree. I think it's disgusting that it takes the promise of freebies to stop a mother doing what she should have done in the first place. Absolute joke.
Comments
Surely the fact that you are carrying an unborn child that you have the responsibility for and the choices you make while pregnant can affect their lifelong health and well being is enough to make you quit cigarettes???? I say this as a smoker who gave up as part of planning a pregnancy. Personally it would send huge warning signs to me if I was involved with social services and saw a pregnant woman who would give up the **** for personal financial gain but not for the well being of their child. I would think here is a woman who does is not willing or able to put their own needs above their child's.
If this is true it sends out totally the wrong message and I am personally appalled.
Women should stop smoking during pregnancy, and stay stopped after the child is born for theirs and the childs health. Ideally the people around them would too.
But planned pregnancies are different from a poor woman, already struggling, perhaps with other children and less than supportive partner finding herself pregnant. Its not always the best news for them and isn't necessarily accompanied with thoughts of a bright future.
I take all your points on board - quitting smoking must be difficult at the best of times, even with supportive friends and family. I was anxious not to gain too much weight during pregnancy, but my appetite (especially towards the end) was huge. It was difficult to keep food intake to a minimum - I can only imagine how much more difficult the situation must be when your body isn't craving fuel, but an addictive drug!
However, in the situation you outline above, I can't see how £400 would make the woman's situation easier. Sure it might buy a pram and car seat - but if she lacks support at home and if her friends smoke, if she's stressed anf unhappy, how will money take those problems away? I'd argue that unless she changed her social circle she'll take up smoking again once the baby is born, and half the aim of the project will have failed.
Instead of financial rewards for individuals, I think it would be a better idea to create a support club or group. A bit like Slimming World for smokers - motivational talks, little treats and peer to peer support from other mums who are quitting. The woman gets emotional and practical support and also meets likeminded people who may become friends. For the cost of helping 10 smokers (£4000) you could hire a group co-ordinator and even arrange workshops or therapies as little rewards (like manicures or shoulder massages or something to help them relax). Give them real support, not a bribe.
If it is supposed to be an incentive then the fact that having a healthy child is not incentive enough means they shouldn't be having children in the first place.
ETA: yeah, basically what Danny_Girl said.
I'm glad posts here seem to be split fairly equally between the "if it works..." pragmatists who appear to have actually read the article and the punishment at all costs brigade who appear to be disagreeing with it on principle. Perhaps we should be sure that in punishing these women for being bad mums we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by punishing the children as well.
I suppose it depends on how you see it. I prefer to see it as an incentive rather than a reward. And that £400 could indeed make a huge difference financially and psychologically.
I understand that this is offered as part of a programme so I expect there is support there to stop smoking. Changing the social circle, removing themselves from supportive family and friends would be detrimental at such a time, but changing behaviour within that circle and that in turn learning and changing would be more beneficial for more people including the child.
The point was made on the Wright Stuff that outlets would probably see it as a marketing opportunity so the vouchers could actually cost less. But if not £400 is nothing compared to the health of the baby in the womb, and if there's also a change in the wider social environment its money well spent.
Some people would never have children if they had to wait until the perfect financial situation. And in the meantime, what about that child and their future?
The problem as I see it is that the women who need educating are the very ones who will reject it.
So incentives and creative thinking appears to be the way forward. If it works, even for a quarter then that's progress....of sorts.
In a perfect ideal world, meanwhile back to reality.
I never mentioned removing women from family and friends - just adding to the support available.
You talked about a hypothetical woman with a 'less than supportive partner', the stress of other children and 'friends who are smokers' - in that situation I'd argue that changing (or rather adding to) the social circle could only be beneficial.
But yes, in some cases, yes, I do believe people may need to change their behaviour in certain circumstances. If you only smoke when out on the town with certain friends, and those friends won't stop smoking in front of you, remove yourself from temptation until willpower means you can say no to a cigarette. (And you avoid the effects of passive smoking too!)
I think it's naïve to assume that offering a financial incentive to one person will have a wider effect; especially as those in a supportive role have nothing to gain financially.
Group support would cost less per head, meaning that more people can be treated. There's no way every expectant smoker could be offered £400, so I'd far rather the needs of the many be met, rather than those of a few living in a targeted area.
You've misread it, I said removing themselves. Which if you are from a family of smokers, and your partner and friends also smoke and you try to change that circle as you suggested then you are essentially removing yourself from the people who are there for you. They may not be the most supportive but if they're all you know then isolating yourself is not going to be helpful. That is what I mean by social circle, a night out once in a while with smoking friends is a different situation.
Smokers, are higher in numbers in socially deprived areas. That isn't because they are the only areas being marketed or sold to. Smoking is more often than not taken up (or not) because of peer pressure and the normalisation / acceptability of it in the society in which you live. Smoking related illness and treatments are also higher in those areas leading to higher costs.
If people smoke from the example being set around them, then no its not so naive to assume that if you change that example less people will smoke including less expectant mothers. And using pregnancy and the health of the baby as an opportunity to do that, while at the same time protecting that unborn child is the perfect time to try. Only time will actually tell if it does have a wider effect.
Smoking cessation groups, free prescriptions, education and increased awareness already exist and aren't working. Pregnancy isn't enough to stop some. This programme has shown promising results so why not try it.
.
The ability to provide children with a good life has very little to do with being able to "afford" it... A happy, secure, stable life is down to the attitude and values of the parent(s) not how much money they have.
Like most pregnant mothers, I gave up alcohol. My partner, family and friends carried on drinking. I did sometimes remove myself from late nights out with friends. Did I feel removed from or less supported by them? Of course not.
And sometimes women DO need to isolate themselves from negative influences. It doesn't mean cutting people out of their lives - it's as simple as leaving the room when a partner smokes or not going outside with colleagues for a **** break. Surely that's common sense anyway, to avoid passive smoking?!
Your partner might quit to help you, or at least avoid smoking in the same room as you. Your friends, mother in law, brother, sister, colleagues etc won't quit just because you are being given £400 in vouchers. It's not going to happen.
We shouldn't be targeting individuals and bribing them. That may temporarily change their behaviour, but it won't change their attitude. Kid is born and they start smoking again, and the child suffers from years of passive smoke.
The way forward is to target everybody. Get them young, educate and educate until the message sinks in. I know my opinion won't be popular with smokers, but it needs to be made anti-social, in the same way drink driving is, in the way under-age drinking is regarded in America. Stop people from lighting up that first cigarette and breed a generation of non-smokers. Anti-smoking measures are working slowly, as numbers are definitely on the decline (even if people choose to vap instead), but it's a long-term solution.
There are better ways to spend the money - on prevention for one. Because if this scheme takes off, what next? Bribing obese people to lose weight? Bribing drug users to quit? Bribing self-harmers to stop cutting?
The long-term danger is that would create a culture of entitlement in which people refuse to take responsibility for their health unless there is a financial carrot dangling in front of them.
all this is funded then?
BECAUSE YOU KNOW .....
While Midwives/nurses experience a pay frieze and all sorts of awful working conditions and often staying late after long days with no breaks, why should the money go to this daft idea? They are adults after all and if they are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to take responsibility for the pregnancy they have gone ahead with.
If they choose to attempt to stop, great, there will be support, if not, they wll have to live with it.
Other people are responsible for other people's health all the time.
I do think people need to get past the indignation and consider that, in the trials in Scotland, offering vouchers did reduce the number of women smoking whilst pregnant. That can only be a positive thing. £400 is not very much money in the grand scheme of things, certainly far cheaper than treating babies for disorders caused by smoking.
Well they chose to start smoking, don't see why they should get rewarded for it, I think there are far better places for the money to go to.
I think this is an outrageous proposal.
I thought the same
400 pounds is about 6 weeks worth of cigarettes at a packet a day, so why would people be motivated to give up for seven or eight months for the same reward? Why not just point out the savings they'd make on giving it up, and help them to envisage the items they could buy with the money?
The vouchers are only a tiny part of the cost. All the appointments and tests to check they have genuinely stopped would cost far more than 400 pounds. The women involved in this trial were only tested three times, so between the tests people could easily have continued smoking. It was a poor area, and the temptation is high for people to lie when faced with an incentive of several hundred pounds.
This was a deliberately skewed trial, because it involved a financial incentive in a poor area. They'd have had to offer it to a range of people from different financial circumstances to get meaningful statistics. Also, without more stringent tests, all they've proved is that women from a generally economically deprived area are capable of giving up smoking for at least a few days if they have the incentive of shopping vouchers.
I personally think that if someone isn't motivated to stop smoking for their child, or to save money, then they're unlikely to do so for some shopping vouchers. And trying to ensure that people have genuinely stopped smoking is going to be pretty well impossible.
I completely agree. I think it's disgusting that it takes the promise of freebies to stop a mother doing what she should have done in the first place. Absolute joke.