£400 for Prernant Smoking Mothers to Give Quit

zagfles

Mojisola wrote: »

So you would remove the children?

Yes, if they can't provide their child with a safe environment. And pubs with smokers in has been deemed an unsafe environment by the law, even though people have a choice whether to visit them or not. Clearly hypocritical to subject children to such an environment when they have no choice.

Or maybe instead of banning smoking in pubs, the govt should have offered customers £400 to visit the pub and not smoke while there.

JustOnce

Mojisola wrote: »

In an ideal world, they shouldn't but there is another person involved.

The money will ensure that the babies are healthier than they would be if their mothers kept smoking.

Maybe so, but the fact of the matter is, people do continue to smoke when pregnant, so therefore intervention is required; this one appears to demonstrate evidence it works, so this is obviously a good use of funds.

themull1

What if i pretend to smoke, but i don't really, could i still have £400?

JustOnce

zagfles wrote: »

Are they tested at the start to prove they are smokers in the first place? If so, how long would someone need to smoke for to "pass" this test? Anything to stop them starting up smoking again after the final test?

If they start smoking again at the end of the intervention is irrelevant. This intervention is about reducing harm to the unborn child.

zagfles

JustOnce wrote: »

If they start smoking again at the end of the intervention is irrelevant. This intervention is about reducing harm to the unborn child.

It doesn't end at birth. It ends at "34-38 weeks". Also, doesn't harm to a child matter once born?

JustOnce

zagfles wrote: »

It doesn't end at birth. It ends at "34-38 weeks". Also, doesn't harm to a child matter once born?

Smoking during first trimester is a particularly associated with causing birth defects.

Also, smoking during pregnancy generally is associated with a huge increase in having a stillborn. I'm pretty certain the average compassionate human being thinks it's worth spending £400 to try and save a baby's life, or reduce the risk of the baby being born with a birth defect.

Perhaps people should think of in another way. A wonder drug has been invented, although it's not 100 percent guaranteed to work, smoking-expectant-mothers who take it, may reduce some of the risks associated with smoking during pregnancy. It costs £400 for the medication, plus the administrative costs.

If this were in drug form and it cost £400 over the course of a pregnancy, would people still be on here causing such a fuss?

zagfles

JustOnce wrote: »

Maybe so, but the fact of the matter is, people do continue to smoke when pregnant, so therefore intervention is required; this one appears to demonstrate evidence it works, so this is obviously a good use of funds.

It's not obvious at all. They've failed to consider the wider picture. What other things would it "work" for? Perhaps criminals should be paid not to reoffend instead of being sent to prison? Perhaps domestic abusers should be paid not to abuse again?

The idea of rewarding someone for stopping doing what they shouldn't be doing in the first place is fraught with moral hazard. It's rewarding them for being bad in the first place. And if reward is shown to work, why wouldn't it work to encourage the initial bad behaviour which they can then "reform"?

JustOnce

zagfles wrote: »

It's not obvious at all. They've failed to consider the wider picture. What other things would it "work" for? Perhaps criminals should be paid not to reoffend instead of being sent to prison? Perhaps domestic abusers should be paid not to abuse again?

The idea of rewarding someone for stopping doing what they shouldn't be doing in the first place is fraught with moral hazard. It's rewarding them for being bad in the first place. And if reward is shown to work, why wouldn't it work to encourage the initial bad behaviour which they can then "reform"?

It does work for prisoners. The people who came up with this intervention didn't just make it, it's based on solid theory and its a variation of token economy.

You actually gave some good suggestions there. Perhaps you should consider a career in behaviour modification

See the wiki for an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_economy

zagfles

JustOnce wrote: »

Smoking during first trimester is a particularly associated with causing birth defects.

Also, smoking during pregnancy generally is associated with a huge increase in having a stillborn. I'm pretty certain the average compassionate human being thinks it's worth spending £400 to try and save a baby's life, or reduce the risk of the baby being born with a birth defect.

So what about paying £400 to stop her aborting? That would save the baby's life. Good idea? If not why not? Surely you compassionate enough to want to save a baby's life?

Perhaps people should think of in another way. A wonder drug has been invented, although it's not 100 percent guaranteed to work, smoking-expectant-mothers who take it, may reduce some of the risks associated with smoking during pregnancy. It costs £400 for the medication, plus the administrative costs.

If this were in drug form and it cost £400 over the course of a pregnancy, would people still be on here causing such a fuss?

No. Because that doesn't create the same moral hazard. There's no benefit to be gained by being bad in the first place.

JustOnce

zagfles wrote: »

So what about paying £400 to stop her aborting? That would save the baby's life. Good idea? If not why not? Surely you compassionate enough to want to save a baby's life?
No. Because that doesn't create the same moral hazard. There's no benefit to be gained by being bad in the first place.

Fair enough, why not pay her £400 to stop her aborting.