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.
That they can quote these funds as political do-goodism and while keeping a straight face is amazing.
Of course, this now classic justification for government interference upon smokers was used just a few weeks back in Californina. . .the 'healthcare fund for children' was quoted as another good reason for Californina to up it's ante on the price of cigarettes - and of course, bundled in with. . .'because we think it is good for smokers to have their cigarrettes be cost prohibitive as it discourages new smokers. . .'
OMG, the hypocrisy of it all. . .while sliding down the slippery slope of ursurping citizens' rights. . .
But then, that is what Liberalism is all about. . .
Meantime, many of these same protesters of cigarette smoking, would probably vote as well and in a heartbeat. . .to legalize marijuana. . .and probably think giving alcohol to the 'addicted homeless' is a great idea. . .
Lucille Ball HAD to smoke all the way through her pregnancy on "I Love Lucy". Their major sponsor was Philip Morris, and it would have been hazardous to her (financial) health NOT to smoke.
I would be a lot more confident in the honesty of this study, had it been applied to births of 40 years ago, when the smoking rate was double.
I would expect the I, along with my kids and tens of millions of others would exhibit a similar percentage of anomalies. Which we don't.
Corelation is not causation. Doctors, on principle, choose to remain ignorant of scientific statistics.
Dear admins,
Please delete this irrelevant, mean-spirited and homophobic post!
< /sarc >
Don't be silly.
Obviously, that poor couple was surrounded by smokers.
Second hand smoke. Isn't it obvious?
You obviously did not read anything I posted regarding this ...... even the 78% increase risk they claim is not statistically significant. If they were talking about an increased risk of over 200% it would be a different story, because then it would start being in the realm of a significant increase in risk.
When I read articles such as "new findings" from groups hired to elevate the status of professionals (who can't for obvious reasons toot their own horns in fear of diminishing their "professional status")....makes me wonder what the agenda is here.
Could it be the notoriety in the last decade or so of "cosmetic surgery" being performed with far more advertising and promotion than the less grand "plastic" surgery - dedicated professionals who repair all manner of nature's whims such as birth defects or deformities, or on victims of disease, fire and accident, etc.
Perhaps it is time for the "Plastic Surgeons" to make the news and this little study fits right in. The stats may not tell the whole story of course and as pointed out smoking was generally accepted for millions of pregnant women who bore beautiful babes....
I have a feeling we are witnessing a public relations campaign.... no doubt due its time for recognition, but it may suffer a "flame out" from rational arguments by people who have been life-long smokers, or who were born of women who were.
Before the new discoveries of harmful things such as lead paint and asbestos, we all apparently survived for the most part intact.... I wonder what disease the internet will give us....except addiction! :o)
I'm sure once you read that name you recall the effects this "tranquilizer" had on millions..
Smoking doesn't even come close to what Thalidomide did...
Actually it is a refutation.
No "as though" about it. It clarifies the silliness of the 78% increase BS. A 78% increase of a 0.02% incidence is meaningless.
I have an old boyfriend who had webbed toes. I wonder if his mom smoked.
Meantime, many of these same protesters of cigarette smoking, would probably vote as well and in a heartbeat. . .to legalize marijuana. . .and probably think giving alcohol to the 'addicted homeless' is a great idea. . .
LOL GOOD ONE, Metesky!! :-D
Remember that most people don't believe in numbers anyway.
No way, he was from New York. Those Yankees don't eat okrah, that's for us southerners.
"they cut off the excess digits soon after birth"
Really?
"she gave birth to four ten fingered children."
Sounds more like a genetics thing than a result of smoking.
My contention is, if tobacco use is such a threat to society, initiate the Constitutional process to pass an amendment to bar it; perhaps it will be more successful than alcohol prohibition, but I doubt it. Of course this has not been done because tobacco taxes have been such a cash cow for the state and federal governments (talk about addiction!). Short of that, all due consideration must be placed on the fact that a governmental entity is trying to regulate a legal activity on private property. Now, I'm not questioning a government's right to do so; I'm glad that local rules prevent my neighbors from establishing a shooting range in the yard of our relatively dense, suburban community.
The regulation of these activities, however, should be as limited as possible. Given review of the above-mentioned WHO study and copious amounts of personal experience, it is my opinion that the vast majority of anti-smokers are primarily that way out of annoyance or dislike, or out of misinformation. Establishing laws regulating behavior because of personal taste and faulty data is embarking on a slippery slope few of us want.
And your proof of that statement?
I despise Philip Morris more than most of the anti-smoker organizations, but I findthat pretty hard to believe.
>>>Lucille Ball HAD to smoke all the way through her pregnancy on "I Love Lucy". Their major sponsor was Philip Morris, and it would have been hazardous to her (financial) health NOT to smoke.>>>
So what was the excuse the other 2 packs a day?
Not that I'm judging, I smoke. Just that I don't believe it was for ole Phillip Morris.
You're ruining the moonbats' fun.
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.