FASD in bio kids....

[Anonymous]

No citation, I was told that about 8 weeks by my doctor, who I had no reason not to trust. Maybe he only said it to me because he really didn't think the 2 drinks I had would cause birth defects. It's pretty scary to see that it can and does.

It does sounds from your citation though that the embryonic stage is separate from the fetal stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drinking before you know you are pregnant doesn't cause FASD, OP (unless you don't know until you are like, 6 months along).

The only kid I drank heavily with (thanks, multiple false pregnancy tests...), is the only kid I have WITHOUT SN. Anecdote, not data, I know. For me, "heavily" is a drink or two a night.

I did know someone growing up whose sister had FASD -- bio sister and they lived with their bio mom. The sister was very significantly affected. The mom was a hard core alcoholic, in and out of AA. So I think they do diagnose it, where it's obvious. Most active alcoholics probably won't keep their kids, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's totally reasonable to assume that a baby born to a woman in crisis (adoption) is much more likely to have FASD. I don't know anyone who drank while they were pregnant. My doctor also said drinking before you miss your period isn't going to cause FASD.

I think you missed where I said that is what I did and my child has FAS. I was told the same thing.

How much did you drink and when did you find out you were pregnant? I've never heard of that before. The placenta doesn't form until 8 weeks, I believe.

Found out at 5 weeks. While I did not think it was much at the time - brunches, girls night out, book club, bachelorette party weekend, trip - I now know that it was.

Was your pregnancy a surprise and potentially you didn't date the pregnancy correctly? Or your period was irregular? I'm sorry PP, that sucks. It sounds like you could not have done anything differently, short of not drinking, because the medical advice out there says you are fine until 8 weeks. Now, I only drank 2 alcoholic beverages that were freaking me out when the doctor assured me it would be fine, but he even said that full blown alcoholics have babies born without FAS. Are you sure that the diagnosis is correct?

yes, a surprise, dated by ultrasound at 5 weeks. It is true that not all exposures cause the same impacts. they do not know why.

You said earlier you didn't know until 7 weeks. So how did you have an ultrasound that dated the pregnancy at 5 weeks? Almost no one gets ultrasounds that early, particularly when it's a surprise pregnancy (in part because almost no one has symptoms that early).

[Anonymous]

I think that there is definitely bias in diagnosing, but it runs both directions.

I have 3 kids, one of whom is adopted. My adopted biological child of a relative who died along with her husband in an accident, so I know a lot more about his early history than I might if he was a kid from foster care. Their death was not caused by their own alcohol consumption, and she and her husband were wonderful parents.

One of my bio kids has mild ADHD, and my adopted kid has symptoms of PTSD, related to losing his parents and some difficult times when he was in the care of another relative before coming to us. Both conditions have symptoms that overlap with FASD, but there also common symptoms of FASD that each of them don't have.

When my bio son was evaluated, I think there might have been one question in the paperwork, but I just wrote "no alcohol use", and no one took it any further. No professional, since the evaluation, has questioned it. I can say "He has ADHD" and they just write it down.

My adopted kid, on the other hand, I am asked over and over again how I know that the symptoms aren't alcohol or drug related. How can I be sure? Is it possible he has both FASD and PTSD? Usually, this is from people who haven't even started evaluating him, so it's that he behaves more like FASD than his brother. It's just that they see that he's adopted, and it opens up the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No citation, I was told that about 8 weeks by my doctor, who I had no reason not to trust.

Maybe there is a follow-up question to ask your doctor about this.

Anonymous wrote: Maybe he only said it to me because he really didn't think the 2 drinks I had would cause birth defects. It's pretty scary to see that it can and does.

It does sounds from your citation though that the embryonic stage is separate from the fetal stage.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

It's the same organism, just before or after a fairly arbitrarily-chosen point in time. Yes, the risks of alcohol as a teratogen differ depending on what organs are being formed or going through certain stages of development, but alcohol can have problematic effects in utero throughout the pregnancy.

In fact -- and I'm going to emphasize this not to be a jerk, but because it is important -- alcohol exposure in the first eight weeks of development is MORE likely to cause severe problems than exposure after that, although there is no "safe" time for such exposure.

e.g.,
"During the fetal stage, prenatal alcohol exposure still has the potential to negatively impact development, but much less than the massive developmental defects that can result from exposure during the embryonic stage."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's totally reasonable to assume that a baby born to a woman in crisis (adoption) is much more likely to have FASD. I don't know anyone who drank while they were pregnant. My doctor also said drinking before you miss your period isn't going to cause FASD.

I think you missed where I said that is what I did and my child has FAS. I was told the same thing.

How much did you drink and when did you find out you were pregnant? I've never heard of that before. The placenta doesn't form until 8 weeks, I believe.

Found out at 5 weeks. While I did not think it was much at the time - brunches, girls night out, book club, bachelorette party weekend, trip - I now know that it was.

Was your pregnancy a surprise and potentially you didn't date the pregnancy correctly? Or your period was irregular? I'm sorry PP, that sucks. It sounds like you could not have done anything differently, short of not drinking, because the medical advice out there says you are fine until 8 weeks. Now, I only drank 2 alcoholic beverages that were freaking me out when the doctor assured me it would be fine, but he even said that full blown alcoholics have babies born without FAS. Are you sure that the diagnosis is correct?

yes, a surprise, dated by ultrasound at 5 weeks. It is true that not all exposures cause the same impacts. they do not know why.

You said earlier you didn't know until 7 weeks. So how did you have an ultrasound that dated the pregnancy at 5 weeks? Almost no one gets ultrasounds that early, particularly when it's a surprise pregnancy (in part because almost no one has symptoms that early).

Took positive preg test at five weeks, ultrasound at 7 weeks, which let me figure out I was 5 weeks at time I took test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's totally reasonable to assume that a baby born to a woman in crisis (adoption) is much more likely to have FASD. I don't know anyone who drank while they were pregnant. My doctor also said drinking before you miss your period isn't going to cause FASD.

I think you missed where I said that is what I did and my child has FAS. I was told the same thing.

How much did you drink and when did you find out you were pregnant? I've never heard of that before. The placenta doesn't form until 8 weeks, I believe.

Found out at 5 weeks. While I did not think it was much at the time - brunches, girls night out, book club, bachelorette party weekend, trip - I now know that it was.

Was your pregnancy a surprise and potentially you didn't date the pregnancy correctly? Or your period was irregular? I'm sorry PP, that sucks. It sounds like you could not have done anything differently, short of not drinking, because the medical advice out there says you are fine until 8 weeks. Now, I only drank 2 alcoholic beverages that were freaking me out when the doctor assured me it would be fine, but he even said that full blown alcoholics have babies born without FAS. Are you sure that the diagnosis is correct?

yes, a surprise, dated by ultrasound at 5 weeks. It is true that not all exposures cause the same impacts. they do not know why.

You said earlier you didn't know until 7 weeks. So how did you have an ultrasound that dated the pregnancy at 5 weeks? Almost no one gets ultrasounds that early, particularly when it's a surprise pregnancy (in part because almost no one has symptoms that early).

Took positive preg test at five weeks, ultrasound at 7 weeks, which let me figure out I was 5 weeks at time I took test.

That makes sense. I'm sorry, PP. Part of the broader picture that's relevant is how normalized binge drinking has become, and that's not good for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Plenty of teetotalers have children with special needs, too. Don’t assume that mothers of kids on the spectrum drank during their pregnancies. What an evil way to blame the Mom! Shame on you, OP. Now, not only do I have to worry about busybodies judging my parenting skills, I also have to worry that they think I’m a drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of teetotalers have children with special needs, too. Don’t assume that mothers of kids on the spectrum drank during their pregnancies. What an evil way to blame the Mom! Shame on you, OP. Now, not only do I have to worry about busybodies judging my parenting skills, I also have to worry that they think I’m a drunk.

Shaming people with alcohol addiction isn't cool, either. Shame on you, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of teetotalers have children with special needs, too. Don’t assume that mothers of kids on the spectrum drank during their pregnancies. What an evil way to blame the Mom! Shame on you, OP. Now, not only do I have to worry about busybodies judging my parenting skills, I also have to worry that they think I’m a drunk.

Shaming people with alcohol addiction isn't cool, either. Shame on you, too.

It’s worse to make assumptions about mothers that you don’t even know, merely because their child doesn’t fit the “norm”. Let’s all blame Mom for her child’s struggles!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that there is definitely bias in diagnosing, but it runs both directions.

I have 3 kids, one of whom is adopted. My adopted biological child of a relative who died along with her husband in an accident, so I know a lot more about his early history than I might if he was a kid from foster care. Their death was not caused by their own alcohol consumption, and she and her husband were wonderful parents.

One of my bio kids has mild ADHD, and my adopted kid has symptoms of PTSD, related to losing his parents and some difficult times when he was in the care of another relative before coming to us. Both conditions have symptoms that overlap with FASD, but there also common symptoms of FASD that each of them don't have.

When my bio son was evaluated, I think there might have been one question in the paperwork, but I just wrote "no alcohol use", and no one took it any further. No professional, since the evaluation, has questioned it. I can say "He has ADHD" and they just write it down.

My adopted kid, on the other hand, I am asked over and over again how I know that the symptoms aren't alcohol or drug related. How can I be sure? Is it possible he has both FASD and PTSD? Usually, this is from people who haven't even started evaluating him, so it's that he behaves more like FASD than his brother. It's just that they see that he's adopted, and it opens up the question.

I have two kids who were adopted, one of whom has diagnosed ADHD -- no one has ever mentioned the possibility of FASD, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of teetotalers have children with special needs, too. Don’t assume that mothers of kids on the spectrum drank during their pregnancies. What an evil way to blame the Mom! Shame on you, OP. Now, not only do I have to worry about busybodies judging my parenting skills, I also have to worry that they think I’m a drunk.

Shaming people with alcohol addiction isn't cool, either. Shame on you, too.

It’s worse to make assumptions about mothers that you don’t even know, merely because their child doesn’t fit the “norm”. Let’s all blame Mom for her child’s struggles!

Are you seriously defending shaming people with addiction? WTF? I think it's pretty sh*tty to make assumptions about them. Let's all blame the woman who started drinking at age 12 because it helped her survive being raped by her step-father!

[Anonymous]

FAS isn’t diagnosed because people don’t identify that they drank. It Often presents like ADHD/ASD. One of the maby reasons we are seeing an increase in ADHD/ASD diagnosis.
Xoxo Autism mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FAS isn’t diagnosed because people don’t identify that they drank. It Often presents like ADHD/ASD. One of the maby reasons we are seeing an increase in ADHD/ASD diagnosis.
Xoxo Autism mom

And maybe the increase is due to virus exposure, pesticides, chemicals, air pollution, genetic abnormalities, etc.? Hypothesizing a link between alcohol and ASD/ADHD where none has been proven unfairly places blame on Moms. Now, everyone will assume that the mothers of children with issues drank while pregnant. This is infuriating! Women need to stand together and call out stupidity when it shows up on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FAS isn’t diagnosed because people don’t identify that they drank. It Often presents like ADHD/ASD. One of the maby reasons we are seeing an increase in ADHD/ASD diagnosis.
Xoxo Autism mom

Is this a conclusion you just came up with on your own, because it sounded right?

Or do you really not know about the very good research into effectively distinguishing amongst these diagnoses in the established screening and diagnostic tools?