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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] yanjuk|9 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] costcopizza|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jack9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stri8ed|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] HiroshiSan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|9 years ago|reply
(responding to the headline, not the article)
[+] [-] Mz|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] DanBC|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] wwggggoi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] developer2|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] walter_bishop|9 years ago|reply