We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
£400 for Prernant Smoking Mothers to Give Quit
Comments
-
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.
Also, morals are not really that important. It's the outcome that's important here. And there's no evidence it's a moral hazard. Did you check the link I posted? It shows this isn't something someone has just pulled out thin air, its based on robust science =]0 -
Of course it works. That's not the point.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
The point is whether the behaviour of someone who isn't "bad" in the first place would be modified. If a "token" can modify someone behaving badly to behave well, then surely it can also modify someone who behaves well to behave badly so they can then "reform" and get the token.
In which case it's all a waste of time.0 -
Of course it works. That's not the point.
The point is whether the behaviour of someone who isn't "bad" in the first place would be modified. If a "token" can modify someone behaving badly to behave well, then surely it can also modify someone who behaves well to behave badly so they can then "reform" and get the token.
In which case it's all a waste of time.
I don't know if it's likely to make someone act bad (although I've never seen any literature/science to say this is the case - so that's a good question), but let' have a quick poll if it's likely to make someone act bad.
Has this scheme encouraged you to get pregnant and start smoking?0 -
Ooh, that'll be scientific. :rotfl:I don't know if it's likely to make someone act bad (although I've never seen any literature/science to say this is the case - so that's a good question), but let' have a quick poll if it's likely to make someone act bad.
Yes. Unfortunately my doctor tells me it's physically impossible.Has this scheme encouraged you to get pregnant and start smoking?
Never mind, I think I'll campaign for a similar payment for people who stop smoking at home. After all smoking was banned in enclosed public spaces because it's so hazardous, so clearly we don't want children in similar smokey environments at home. And £400 is a small price to pay for a child's health surely?
Off out to the newsagents. What's the cheapest brand?0 -
Ooh, that'll be scientific. :rotfl:Yes. Unfortunately my doctor tells me it's physically impossible.
Never mind, I think I'll campaign for a similar payment for people who stop smoking at home. After all smoking was banned in enclosed public spaces because it's so hazardous, so clearly we don't want children in similar smokey environments at home. And £400 is a small price to pay for a child's health surely?
Off out to the newsagents. What's the cheapest brand?
That's a great idea. I'm not sure it's a case of campaigning though. If you really want to get your idea of the ground, you need to qualify as either a medical doctor and then specialise in public health; qualify as a health psychologist (that takes around ten years of university level education); do a PhD in similar public health thing (so you people will take you seriously when you apply for jobs; also takes around 7-10 years to qualify). Then, it'll be a case of putting forward a scientifically robust argument (with a good solid probe of the literature to show this will work, what can go wrong etc) to a funding body who will give you the money to pilot your idea.
Then, when you've got scientific evidence to show your intervention works and will save the government money somehow (usually by reducing health care costs), then you can approach whoever deals with this kind of thing in the NHS/government and argue that its a good idea
As for the cheapest brand, I have no idea. But when you find out, let me know as money is a bit tight atm, so I could do with £400. Of course, this will also cost the NHS money in gender reassignment surgery and a number of high controversal, experimental procedures, but it seems worth it for £400 =D0 -
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?What if i pretend to smoke, but i don't really, could i still have £400?
I'm 38 weeks pg and was given a carbon monoxide breath test when I was 7 weeks. I think this is standard practice although it's fairly recent. It can however, also indicate a problem with your boiler etc...
Smoking during pregnancy is associated with a higher stillbirth risk. So is being obese - are they going to offer £££ to obese pregnant women too if they lose x amount of weight?0 -
And of course the great thing about this plan is you can do it again and again. A year after you've given up, start again, give up again. Another £400!That's a great idea. I'm not sure it's a case of campaigning though. If you really want to get your idea of the ground, you need to qualify as either a medical doctor and then specialise in public health; qualify as a health psychologist (that takes around ten years of university level education); do a PhD in similar public health thing (so you people will take you seriously when you apply for jobs; also takes around 7-10 years to qualify). Then, it'll be a case of putting forward a scientifically robust argument (with a good solid probe of the literature to show this will work, what can go wrong etc) to a funding body who will give you the money to pilot your idea.
Then, when you've got scientific evidence to show your intervention works and will save the government money somehow (usually by reducing health care costs), then you can approach whoever deals with this kind of thing in the NHS/government and argue that its a good idea
As for the cheapest brand, I have no idea. But when you find out, let me know as money is a bit tight atm, so I could do with £400. Of course, this will also cost the NHS money in gender reassignment surgery and a number of high controversal, experimental procedures, but it seems worth it for £400 =D
Does it work this way with the pregnancy scheme? If a pregnant mother gives up, then restarts, then gets pregnant again, will she get another £400 for giving up again?
It's like taking hostages. Evidence proves that if you pay ransoms, hostages are more likely to get released. Scientific fact. And who wouldn't pay to save a life? Nobody's that callous surely?
Of course we'll gloss over the possibility that paying ransoms might mean hostage taking in the future is much more likely. The research didn't bother investigating that inconvenient bit.0 -
So let's get this straight - the financial incentive is provided if you test positive for smoking at 7 weeks pregnant but negative at 34-38 weeks?I'm 38 weeks pg and was given a carbon monoxide breath test when I was 7 weeks. I think this is standard practice although it's fairly recent. It can however, also indicate a problem with your boiler etc...
Someone remind me again, when is smoking most dangerous for the unborn child?0 -
Of course we'll gloss over the possibility that paying ransoms might mean hostage taking in the future is much more likely. The research didn't bother investigating that inconvenient bit.
It's easy for them to find that out, they just need to ask people how long they've been smoking. People won't understand why they're asking, so they'll be no incentive to lie.
Whats your approximation of the number of non-smokers who will start smoking and become pregnant in order to get this money?
Do you think it will outnumber the number of people who will actually give up smoking because of this intervention?
Also, if people start smoking to then give up smoking, then really, the child will still come to no harm, no? So it's not really a relevant criticism =]0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards