Can Mental Illness Be Prevented in the Womb?(npr.org)
npr.org
Can Mental Illness Be Prevented in the Womb?
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/22/498843225/can-mental-illness-be-prevented-in-the-womb
25 comments
I wouldn't be surprised one bit.
Very downvotable anecdote here but...
My mom is a vegetarian and was before/during pregnancy. This was before prenatal fish oil and DHA/EPA supplements were all the rage. I'm vegetarian myself, live an overall healthy lifestyle, and have struggled with depression and mental fog more often than not.
After starting taking a high quality fish oil and multivitamin I've felt much better when it comes to clarity and outlook.
There are a ton of vitamins, minerals, and components that play a huge role in being mentally fit. Some obvious, and the troubling part, some rather not so obvious.
Very downvotable anecdote here but...
My mom is a vegetarian and was before/during pregnancy. This was before prenatal fish oil and DHA/EPA supplements were all the rage. I'm vegetarian myself, live an overall healthy lifestyle, and have struggled with depression and mental fog more often than not.
After starting taking a high quality fish oil and multivitamin I've felt much better when it comes to clarity and outlook.
There are a ton of vitamins, minerals, and components that play a huge role in being mentally fit. Some obvious, and the troubling part, some rather not so obvious.
Some mental illness can be prevented by interfering with development in the womb, surely. Some cannot, surely. Genetics are not something you can medicate away, completely. When we can modify the genes early enough, we still have to deal with what is genetically missing or weak.
It's worth noting that in the case of identical twins, with one having schizophrenia, the other twin is only 50% likely to develop it as well. This would suggest that genetics are not the sole determining factor, at least in schizophrenia.
Or that the diagnosis of schizophrenia is not measuring the underlying disease state. Schizophrenia is one of those episodic diseases where each acute phase causes accumulated damage. You would expect that a small environmental trigger experienced by one twin to compound to a large difference in disease outcome.
50% is a massive correlation, as far as typical hereditary causes go.
Yes, but it shows that genes are not the only factor. It implies that 50% of people with a "schizophrenia gene" might never develop the disease.
Some cannot, surely.
You are making a massive assumption. We have no idea what can and cannot be influenced in the womb. Study of such things is in its infancy. Just because it hasn't been done before in human history does not mean it cannot be done. If that were true, then we would not have gone to the moon and we would not be discussing this article via internet.
You are making a massive assumption. We have no idea what can and cannot be influenced in the womb. Study of such things is in its infancy. Just because it hasn't been done before in human history does not mean it cannot be done. If that were true, then we would not have gone to the moon and we would not be discussing this article via internet.
Tay-Sachs is an example which is not influenced by the womb.
Really? I would like to see links to solid, well designed studies proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I have a genetic disorder. I am well read on the topic.
I have a genetic disorder. I am well read on the topic.
Shirley you can't be serious...
Can you screen for abusive parents before they've actually had a child?
(responding to the headline, not the article)
(responding to the headline, not the article)
Children who have been abused themselves are more likely to be abusive. But it is still a minority of them who are abusive and this does not explain why some people who were not abused as kids are abusive. Furthermore, some kids from bad homes are incredibly committed to making sure their kids get something better, the way some children of alcoholics simply will not touch a drop of alcohol.
The future is unwritten. We all make choices. I would rather be asking how we can give parents more support generally and improve outcomes generally than be trying to come up with some kind of Minority Report-esque means to find people guilty of things they haven't yet done, thus may not actually do. It is possible to push people into bad behavior by putting them in a position where it doesn't matter what they do, they are presumed guilty. This is part of why things like racism and classism are such big problems.
The future is unwritten. We all make choices. I would rather be asking how we can give parents more support generally and improve outcomes generally than be trying to come up with some kind of Minority Report-esque means to find people guilty of things they haven't yet done, thus may not actually do. It is possible to push people into bad behavior by putting them in a position where it doesn't matter what they do, they are presumed guilty. This is part of why things like racism and classism are such big problems.
> trying to come up with some kind of Minority Report-esque means to find people guilty of things they haven't yet done
I don't actually want to do that, I probably shouldn't have worded that comment the way I did.
What I wanted to point out is that a large part of mental illness prevention would be, well, figuring out how to subject people less to situations which create it. It's probably more effective than supplements.
I don't actually want to do that, I probably shouldn't have worded that comment the way I did.
What I wanted to point out is that a large part of mental illness prevention would be, well, figuring out how to subject people less to situations which create it. It's probably more effective than supplements.
Mental illness has two components. Brain chemistry or health is one. Social crap is the other. The article addresses a factor in the first category. Even if someone is treated extremely well, if their brain is impaired by nutritonal deficiency or disease, they won't think right. These are both important factors and not really interchangeable.
You have a valid point with regards to mistreatment being causative. But being kind does not cure nutrient deficiencies per se. Supplements can cure that piece.
You have a valid point with regards to mistreatment being causative. But being kind does not cure nutrient deficiencies per se. Supplements can cure that piece.
Sure.
There's a tragic loop that some women get into, and it causes very great harm.
They were abused as children. They develop mental illness, and maybe substance misuse. They fall into abusive relationships, and get pregnant. They have the first child, and come to the attention of child protective social services, who do what they can to keep the mother and child together but who eventually feel they need to remove the child. The woman goes into grief, which makes the mental illness and substance misuse worse, which increases the risk of further pregnancy. She's already known the child safeguarding, and they get involved again, and they remove that child.
This cycle can happen many times. Some family lawyers report dealing with mothers who've had eight children taken.
So, for some children, we know the mother needs intensive support and help, and is not getting it from existing drug and alcohol and mental health and other services.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/are-we-faili...
> It is now well understood that women whose children are taken from them by social services will frequently keep having babies to replace those they have lost. Subsequent babies are often each removed at birth. Some women have had four, five, six and more children removed; infants can be subject to interim care orders and removed from their mothers from the moment they are born. Some family solicitors and barristers report dealing with cases involving babies eight, nine and 10.
https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/social-life-...
> The removal of successive children by social workers from their parents seems to be an increasingly recognised problem. Between 2007 and 2014, more than 7,000 mothers, many of them young, were involved in repeated care cases.
14,000 children, at least.
Everybody loses here. The women are obviously victims. The children taken into care are victims, because even in England the prospects for looked after children are not great. The social workers have significantly increased workload. The courts have extra expense.
The spend to save figures for providing better mental health treatment and psycho-social support are impressive, but no-one wants to do it.
They were abused as children. They develop mental illness, and maybe substance misuse. They fall into abusive relationships, and get pregnant. They have the first child, and come to the attention of child protective social services, who do what they can to keep the mother and child together but who eventually feel they need to remove the child. The woman goes into grief, which makes the mental illness and substance misuse worse, which increases the risk of further pregnancy. She's already known the child safeguarding, and they get involved again, and they remove that child.
This cycle can happen many times. Some family lawyers report dealing with mothers who've had eight children taken.
So, for some children, we know the mother needs intensive support and help, and is not getting it from existing drug and alcohol and mental health and other services.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/are-we-faili...
> It is now well understood that women whose children are taken from them by social services will frequently keep having babies to replace those they have lost. Subsequent babies are often each removed at birth. Some women have had four, five, six and more children removed; infants can be subject to interim care orders and removed from their mothers from the moment they are born. Some family solicitors and barristers report dealing with cases involving babies eight, nine and 10.
https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/social-life-...
> The removal of successive children by social workers from their parents seems to be an increasingly recognised problem. Between 2007 and 2014, more than 7,000 mothers, many of them young, were involved in repeated care cases.
14,000 children, at least.
Everybody loses here. The women are obviously victims. The children taken into care are victims, because even in England the prospects for looked after children are not great. The social workers have significantly increased workload. The courts have extra expense.
The spend to save figures for providing better mental health treatment and psycho-social support are impressive, but no-one wants to do it.
how can they possibly diagnose mental illness in the womb ?
I find the whole thing ridiculous. The vast majority of what people are referring to when bringing up the topic of "mental illness" is the collection of people who can't handle the emotional toll of the world we live in.
People are lonely. The general population is by and large self-centered. There is no sense of community. Daily life involves slaving for someone else doing unfulfilling work that nobody would perform if they had a choice other than "earning a paycheque".
The worst part is that the majority of people who discuss mental illness publicly are not themselves affected by this kind of debilitating sense of there being no meaning to life. And no, having a "family member" or "close friend" who suffers does not make one qualified to talk on their behalf. It's disgusting how self-centered people are, discussing the "mental illness" of their friends or family - the claim is always "because we care" or "we can help them", but the true motivations are entirely selfish.
People are lonely. The general population is by and large self-centered. There is no sense of community. Daily life involves slaving for someone else doing unfulfilling work that nobody would perform if they had a choice other than "earning a paycheque".
The worst part is that the majority of people who discuss mental illness publicly are not themselves affected by this kind of debilitating sense of there being no meaning to life. And no, having a "family member" or "close friend" who suffers does not make one qualified to talk on their behalf. It's disgusting how self-centered people are, discussing the "mental illness" of their friends or family - the claim is always "because we care" or "we can help them", but the true motivations are entirely selfish.
They would first have to define what exactly they mean by 'mental illness' and children getting diagnosed with ADHD has more to do with the pharmaceutical industry selling more drugs than any valid evidence that ADHD actually exists.
Are you implying that ADHD is not a real condition?
If so, what makes you think this is the case?
If so, what makes you think this is the case?
When my dad grew up on a farm, the world was slower and quieter. When I moved back home during my divorce with my two teenaged sons, my parents lived on the edge of town with no cell phones or computers and you could hear a pin drop in their house at night. No one called them ADHD or accused them of suffering from some disorder or suggested their odd lifestyle was accommodation for some condition where they can't cope with distractions. They were just old.
The world has changed and sped up and kids who don't cope with life these days get all kinds of labels. For all we know, they would be fine if they were growing up on a quiet farm with a more organic pace of life and disconnected from our many gadgets and what not -- as was the norm for everyone on the planet not too many decades ago.
If you look at history, each era has some widespread "mental health" issue. Modern peoples consider many of these labels bogus. For example, at one time women were believed to suffer a condition known as "Hysteria" which was treatable with medically induced hysterical paroxysms -- aka orgasms: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201303/hy...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/female-hysteria_n_4...
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/05/hysteria-sex-toy-hi...
You would be well advised to be skeptical of extremely widespread cases of "mental disease" found to be prevalent in a particular generation during a particular time span. In another generation, they are likely to have a different explanation and ADHD may well be a term that only occurs in history books and articles mocking the concept.
The world has changed and sped up and kids who don't cope with life these days get all kinds of labels. For all we know, they would be fine if they were growing up on a quiet farm with a more organic pace of life and disconnected from our many gadgets and what not -- as was the norm for everyone on the planet not too many decades ago.
If you look at history, each era has some widespread "mental health" issue. Modern peoples consider many of these labels bogus. For example, at one time women were believed to suffer a condition known as "Hysteria" which was treatable with medically induced hysterical paroxysms -- aka orgasms: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201303/hy...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/female-hysteria_n_4...
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/05/hysteria-sex-toy-hi...
You would be well advised to be skeptical of extremely widespread cases of "mental disease" found to be prevalent in a particular generation during a particular time span. In another generation, they are likely to have a different explanation and ADHD may well be a term that only occurs in history books and articles mocking the concept.
I get what you mean, but as far as I can see your first two paragraphs only amount to conjecture. I don't see how you can draw any conclusions about ADHD from that.
I do know of these cases, of course, but the field of mental illness is very much different today than what it was in the days of "Hyesteria" - both with regards to diagnostics, and to research. For instance, there are well known structural and functional abnormalities associated with certain mental illnesses - which would seem to imply that the current categorizations aren't completely off.
While you may be right in the technical sense that future research can make our current understanding obsolete, I don't think there's any doubt that some people suffer as a consequence of what is currently conceptualised as a behavioural disorder called ADHD.
I do know of these cases, of course, but the field of mental illness is very much different today than what it was in the days of "Hyesteria" - both with regards to diagnostics, and to research. For instance, there are well known structural and functional abnormalities associated with certain mental illnesses - which would seem to imply that the current categorizations aren't completely off.
While you may be right in the technical sense that future research can make our current understanding obsolete, I don't think there's any doubt that some people suffer as a consequence of what is currently conceptualised as a behavioural disorder called ADHD.
Saying future generations will see it differently does not deny that people are genuinely suffering currently. I have two special needs sons. Their issues have benefited tremendously from dietary changes, among other things.
"ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children"
http://simonsobo.com/adhd-and-other-sins-of-our-children
http://simonsobo.com/adhd-and-other-sins-of-our-children
Should be 'inadequate choline', I think.
I remember there was a rat study done showing that unborn pups whose mothers received choline supplements at about two thirds full term had superior memories in later life, possibly referred to here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980409080807.h...