Posted on 01/09/2006 8:19:48 AM PST by billorites
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill. – Women have yet another reason to stop smoking while pregnant. In the largest study of its kind, plastic surgeons found smoking during pregnancy significantly elevates the risk of having a child with excess, webbed or missing fingers and toes, according to the January issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery®, the official medical journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). In fact, the study found that smoking just half a pack per day increases the risk of having a child born with a toe or finger defect by 29 percent. “Reconstructive surgery to repair limb, toe and finger abnormalities in children represents a large portion of my practice – it is the most common issue I treat,” said Benjamin Chang, MD, ASPS member and study author. “Parents would ask why this happened to their child, but I didn’t have an answer. This study shows that even minimal smoking during pregnancy can significantly increase the risk of having a child with various toe and finger defects.”
Researchers examined the records of more than 6.8 million live births in the United States during 2001 and 2002, finding 5,171 children born with a digital anomaly where the mother smoked during pregnancy but did not suffer from other medical complications, such as heart disease, diabetes or high blood pressure.
The study authors discovered pregnant women who smoked one to 10 cigarettes per day increased the risk of having a child with a toe or finger deformity by 29 percent. The more a woman smoked, the higher the risk became. Women who smoked 11 to 20 cigarettes a day raised the risk 38 percent, and women who smoked 21 or more cigarettes per day raised the risk 78 percent.
Known as polydactyly, syndactyly and adactyly, these deformities are the most common congenital limb abnormalities. Polydactyly is the presence of more than five digits on the hands or feet. Syndactyly is having fused or webbed fingers or toes. Adactyly is the absence of fingers or toes.
Webbed fingers or toes occur one in every 2,000 to 2,500 live births and excess fingers or toes occur one in every 600 live births. Webbed fingers or toes occur twice as often in boys and are more common in Caucasians than African Americans. Excess digits, however, are 10 times more common in African Americans and are only slightly prevalent in boys. Nevertheless, the majority of these defects occur without any family history and most causes are unknown which has lead researchers to investigate environmental causes, such as smoking, for these anomalies.
“The results of this study were interesting. We suspected that smoking was a cause of digital anomalies but didn’t expect the results to be so dramatic,” said Dr. Chang. “Smoking is so addictive that pregnant women often can’t stop the habit, no matter what the consequences. Our hope is this study will show expectant mothers another danger of lighting up.”
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons is the largest organization of board-certified plastic surgeons in the world. With more than 6,000 members, the society is recognized as a leading authority and information source on cosmetic and reconstructive plastic surgery. ASPS comprises 94 percent of all board-certified plastic surgeons in the United States. Founded in 1931, the society represents physicians certified by The American Board of Plastic Surgery or The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
I don't mean it was in her contract necessarily; I'm sure that she was a voluntary smoker. However, in histories of the show I've read (yeah, old TV trivia, love it), they were careful to show Lucy and Desi smoking as often as feasible on the show due to who the sponsor was.
I agree---I was a mom in the late fifties and sixties,there were huge families in my neighborhoosd,many moms and dads smokesd and I never even HEARD of these "digital anomalies".
This is absolute hogwash.
.
I saw a documentary from the U.K. once on the effects of that drug. Terrible for the kids - but at least they had wonderfully bright minds and took on their handicape like soldiers. I felt sorry for their mothers knowing they must have guilt for taking the "safe" drug. Some tranquilizer..
give you anxiety for the rest of your life regarding your child.
Talking about old movies - I love Turner's channel even though I don't like him...but many of the old actresses smoked in their scenes...but they didn't inhale.
Bette Davis is one who mastered getting the smoke up through her nostrils and then blowing it out her mouth...gag gag..... how sexy was that ??? I guess it
was glamorous to smoke then - sort of daring and worldly?
There could be other commonalities among the mothers that had children with these birth defects yet they ALWAYS blame the smoking.
Maybe they all drank coffee.
Maybe they all chew gum.
Maybe they are all brunettes.
Maybe they all watch 20 hours of TV a week.
The list goes on.....................
Lucille Ball was a smoker in the years of I Love Lucy, as was Desi Arnaz, and the pair didn't think twice about lighting up on camera, any more than, say, Edward R. Murrow (who made them---and anyone---look like occasional smokers) or (later) Rod Serling did.
But Lucy actually didn't smoke her sponsor brand, Philip Morris, on the air. The skinny: The country loved Lucy but Lucy loved her Chesterfields. To keep herself satisfied without starting a war with her sponsor, she simply emptied out Philip Morris packs and filled them with her own Chesterfields, thus being able to pick up a Philip Morris pack on camera, pleasing her sponsor, while smoking what she preferred.
This wasn't exactly unusual in those years. She may or may not have picked up a hint from an earlier, classic-radio era CBS ad exec named Victor Ratner. Ratner had to deal with reps from all four major cigarette brands (at that time: Camel, Philip Morris, Chesterfield, and Lucky Strike), but his personal preference was Camel. His solution: He kept two cartons of each brand in his drawer, and he would hand the visiting rep a pack of the rep's brand to smoke while in Ratner's company . . . while Ratner picked up his own open pack of the same brand and smoke the Camels he had substituted inside the pack. (He was probably very careful not to light the end on which the brand stamp appeared on the cigarette paper.)
Edward R. Murrow ran into a bit of a tight spot at one point in the 1950s, when one of his television shows was sponsored by a cigarette maker whose product wasn't his regular brand of cigarette. This sponsor (I forget which cigarette make), according to Murrow biographer Alexander Kendrick, actually tried at one point to force Murrow to make its brand his off-the-air brand. Murrow didn't mind smoking their brand on camera (remember: Murrow without a cigarette in his hand was something like Elvis without the curling lip in those years), but he refused to let even his sponsor command his off-the-air preferences.
That would make sense considering the era - but is entirely different than what you first said.
I have no doubt the studio made sure the smoking was on film, it may very well have been in THEIR contract with PM that the product be shown.
Great stories!
It is incredibile how debilitated a population it takes for Liberalism to thrive. . .
If we ever get a Dimrat President. . .count on the same here; that is the only way they can keep their power. And people wonder how it is. . .why it is; that people give up their Freedom.
It is just a question of how well-done you like your frog meat. . .
It is incredible that this 'study' will travel around info channels and be offered as if it was worth more than the time to say it. . .
A 78% increase in abnormalities is neither significant nor insignificant. If the number of observations is large enough and the quality of the data good enough then the difference is significant. Without those qualifications a 1000% difference may not be singnificant.
No it is not a refutation at all.
If 2% of 10,000,000 live births are abnormal that would be
200,000 babies a 78% increase would be 356,000 or an additional 156,000 babies. This is a big difference.
A 78% increase in a rate of return on an investment is a gigantic difference.
They do seem to terrify and mystify.
The increase of abnormalities may or may not be significant at 78%..........but an increased risk of 78% is totally insignificant.
This article discusses increased risk...............and the numbers are insignificant when discussing increased risk.
Fortunately I avoided the habit. That does not make me any less sinful or mean I have fewer bad habits than most smokers. It is a habit that is extremely hard to control and is a social nuisance which could be easily avoided.
Where did you come up with 2%?
Any proper study controls for all other variables. Whether this one did or not I could not tell you without reading the full writeup. While it sounds like it is a correct conclusion I could not tell you for sure that it is. It could be just the observations of this one doctor which may be anomalous or total bs.
My mother smoked when she was pregnant with me (1960) but I was lucky. All eleven of my fingers are normal.
If we started banning all social nuisances, our problems would be somewhat more profound than second hand smoke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.