Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Smokers to be banned from fostering and adopting by councils

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 November 2008
COUNCILS in Scotland are pushing ahead with plans to ban smokers from fostering or adopting babies and young children, raising fears it may become more difficult to find them loving homes.
Authorities in Falkirk, Stirling and Clackmannanshire hope the proposed policy will protect the under-fives and other vulnerable young people from the harmful effects of passive smoking, which include increased risk of cot death, pneumonia, bronchiti
s, asthma and ear diseases.

The number of children needing placements in foster and care homes or with adoptive parents in Falkirk has risen from 172 in August 2006 to 244 in August 2008.

Falkirk Council will decide its policy next Tuesday. If it is passed, smokers will be banned from adopting or fostering any child under five or those with a disability or respiratory problems, asthma or heart disease.

The policy also rules that children from non-smoking families should not be placed with families who smoke.

All older children who are able to express a view must be given a choice about being placed with a smoking family.

Falkirk has around 80 young people who need to be found foster or adoptive parents, and opinions are divided between foster carers and health campaigners as to whether the plans intrude on personal freedoms and may deter prospective parents from coming forward.

The move comes after a blanket ban on smokers becoming foster carers was passed this week in the London borough of Redbridge.

Margaret Anderson, head of services for children and families at Falkirk Council, said many Scottish councils were taking similar measures.

She told The Scotsman: "We are making these recommendations because of the very strong advice from the British Association for Adoption and Fostering and the Fostering Network that this is best practice."

She said many issues had to be taken into consideration, but in her experience few foster parents or prospective parents were smokers.

Health bodies are backing the council's stance. Gordon Brown, public affairs manager for Asthma UK Scotland, said: "A child's welfare should be paramount when taking any decision which affects their health, and for those with asthma the effects of smoking can be deadly.

"It can increase the risk of an asthma attack, permanently damage someone's airways and block the benefit of some asthma medicines.

"We know that children whose parents smoke are 1.5 times more likely to develop asthma and we consider it vitally important to reduce this risk to children."

Childcare agencies have pointed out that councils find themselves in very difficult positions.

Maggie Mellon, a spokeswoman for Children 1st Scotland, warned that by focusing on parents, the council could be seen to be judging adults rather than protecting children.

She said: "You can be a smoker and a good parent, the thing is not to inflict the smoking on the child.

"What is the lesser of two evils – a child stuck in a care home or a loving parent who commits to never smoking in the house?

"A middle road would be to get the parent to guarantee not to smoke in the house.

"But where do you draw the line? Councils have a statutory duty of care to the child and are probably worried about being sued years down the line, after a foster carer allowed a child to smoke who subsequently developed health problems."


PROFILE

THE British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) published medical guidelines last year which are being taken up by a growing number of councils across Scotland.

These warn that children are particularly susceptible to the effects of second-hand smoke due to their small lungs and airways, and immature immune systems. Children are consequently more likely to develop respiratory and ear infections. According to BAAF, children will also breathe in more harmful chemicals per pound of bodyweight.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 November 2008 1:31 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 00:18:51
(this story moving on from england, same answer)


Quite Ridiculous!,...
...When they are, 'crying-out' for, "foster carers"!

Children have been brought up with Adults who smoke, for donkey years now, and their Children, DON'T follow suit, and "Smoke"!

Furthermore! Children that have/had Adults for Parents, that Smoked, DON'T just develop illnesses from smoking Adults, or over half of us would not be here today!

THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION, IS A NONSENSE!

Next you will have to have a 'Licence' to have Sex!, or to be allowed to Live atall!





2

glen urquhart,

glasgow 07/11/2008 00:26:23
Strange that junkies with heroin/methadone and other drugs in their homes are generally allowed to keep their kids but smokers - who presumably can smoke outside their homes rather than inside - won't be allowed to foster.
3

Had_Enough!,

Argyll 07/11/2008 00:33:32
My Mother fostered around 50 kids in her life and adopted 2. She smoked. My adopted brother and sister ARE my brother and sister. Does anyone else think the councils have bu gger all to do but make up new rules to keep our eye off their real failings?
I am a smoker with kids of my own who DON'T breathe my smoke. I wouldn't even bother fostering now as the red tape is just nonsense now. Sorry children.
4

Papa? Nicole! Papa?,

07/11/2008 00:36:53
And there was me thinking there was a shortage in foster carers...

Oh well, best put the kids into some sort of shelter or home then...
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 01:04:28


Thing is! IT WONT STOP AT THIS!!

NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT>>>>>>>>>>INFINITY!

A Few To Ponder over,


CANT FOSTER A CHILD, IF YOU ARE,...'FAT'!

CANT FOSTER A CHILD, IF YOU 'DRINK ALCOHOL OCCASIONALLY'!


CANT FOSTER A CHILD, IF YOU, 'WORSHIP BUDDHA'!

CANT FOSTER A CHILD, IF YOU, 'ARE NOT POLITICALLY CORRECTED'!

CANT FOSTER A CHILD, IF YOU, 'DON'T GO TO CHURCH!


IS IT ANY-WONDER, We see diabolical conditions that children are kept in, in other Countries, such as Turkey's "Children's Homes" as shown on television yesterday on,...

...ITV1, "TONIGHT: Undercover Special"?

I will try to find a link to the programme's, content and paste it below.


6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 01:15:00


We don't want end up like this, because of 'Stupidities'! such as a, 'parent who smokes' but who has soo much love and dedication, to Children, but who now is discriminated on!



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/last-nights-tv-tonight-undercover-special-itv1br-credit-crash-britain-bbc2-997599.html


7

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 07/11/2008 01:38:40
Don't let the poor wee ones outside as they inhale fumes from cars, buses,chemicals pouring forth from Grangemouth refineries. Goodness me. I don't smoke but I would never condemn anyone who does.
8

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 07/11/2008 01:42:11
And to condemn children from loving foster homes is a mortal sin. There is after all worse things than smoking.
9

Tim85,

Lancs, England 07/11/2008 02:31:49
Ah, the inevitable 'next logical step'.

The tobacco control movement, although it has long been bankrupt morally, is beginning to enter into its decline. There is simply little need or demand for their existence since they bullied, whined and harassed the smoking ban into law. Tobacco control are simply attempting to prolong their influence with the old adage which every authoritarian has resorted to at one point or another - "Think of the children". Hence the recent debate on banning smoking in cars carrying children.

Of course, after every single victory, anti-smokers have demanded the law go further. A couple of decades ago, "all they wanted" were non-smoking cinemas and flights. Fast forward twenty years later and "all they want" is a smoke-free world, including in every private home.

Let's not deceive ourselves. The anti-smoking fanatics will use this policy of banning smokers from fostering to legislate against biological parents who smoke. We have already seen obese children taken into care. If you refuse to live a state-mandated appropriate lifestyle, then you are a target.


"But where do you draw the line? Councils have a statutory duty of care to the child and are probably worried about being sued years down the line, after a foster carer allowed a child to smoke who subsequently developed health problems."

Daft comment, Maggie Mellon. Even direct tobacco related illnesses, such as lung cancer, have been unsuccessful in litigation. The "we're covering our behinds" line was nebulous as regards the smoking ban and is equally falsifiable now.

Also, it's important to note, for anyone who believes the 'evidence' on passive smoking - despite its numerous flaws and general overall weakness - that even the US Surgeon General's report of 2006 dismissed any possibility that exposure to second-hand smoke during childhood entails an increased risk of contracting cancer or heart disease in later life.


"We know that children whose parents smoke
10

Tim85,

Lancs, England 07/11/2008 02:32:24
"We know that children whose parents smoke are 1.5 times more likely to develop asthma and we consider it vitally important to reduce this risk to children."

Why haven't incidence rates of childhood asthma decreased in common with exposure to second-hand smoke? Why do they continue to increase dramatically and alarmingly year on year?
11

jamurai,

07/11/2008 02:37:10
This is shocking....if the government thinks it is so bad, have the guts to ban it completely!
12

jamurai,

07/11/2008 02:41:58
When are they going to ban smokers from keeping their own kids!!! Surely these kids (though lucky enough to be with their own parents who can love and care for them)have the right to their health too!!! Ludicrous.
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 02:48:09


doublescotch ~7/8,

Hi, nice to see you online again!

I am staying online at the moment, even though this extreme difficult time, one of us must stay strong, and keep normality, as Suzanne is broken into small pieces at the moment.

In life, the one thing that I treasure the Most, is my Love that I have for others, needed more than ever at this time.
This is why I think this is a really bad mistake to make, on potential "Foster Parents", because it IS the Love they will give to others, that will,...
...'Build Foundations' and Never be forgotten, and passed on to others, to make our World, 'A Better Place'

Need I say More?

To deny that Love, because of 'Cigarettes' is ridiculous, the picture is far bigger than this, none of us are 'Perfect', but to Love others, as in fostering Children, sounds prey 'Perfect' to Me, no-matter the Potential Parents that Smoke.

Best Wishes,

Charlie x

14

drunken proffet,

Tassy 07/11/2008 04:01:47
A good bit of the weird legislation coming into the everyday world is due to the fear of litigation. If you got off the "American Standard" and redeveloped the home grown one of forty years ago, you may find life getting back to normal.
15

doublescotch,

U.S.A 07/11/2008 04:29:02
#13 Charles, I was out on the campaign trail. My man lost but that's okay.We all need to be shaken up now and then. Mr Obama is our President-Elect and we all must honour and keep him in our prayers as he has a very hard job in front of him.
I know Suzanne must be in shattered state now.Your love for her can and will make her whole.
I am outraged that anyone would deny children a safe haven over smoking. Yes I agree with you without love we are nothing and no-one said it better than St.Paul
I only hope all these do-gooders who will deny the children homes, take them into their home and love them and tuck them in at night and read stories to them. Take Care,
Darling Old Wife x
16

fife runner,

07/11/2008 06:03:07
if people wnat to foster then surely they can make an effort to give up the weed. Or are they too selfish to do this. Let us not forget the kids in all of this. They are the innocents and do not have a say. To put them in a house of smokers may not be to their liking even apart from the debate on the risks of passive smoking.

If people wnat to smoke that is their right. Do not make it uncomfortable for the kids though. Surely if they really care they would give up.
17

fife runner,

07/11/2008 06:06:36
children always sem to be forgotten in any debate. Seems adults wnat to do what they want and never mind the consequences for the children's well being.

IF YOU WANT TO FOSTER GIVE UP SMOKING OR IS THIS ASKING TOO MUCH. SHOWS HOW ADDICTIVE THE WEED IS.
18

fife runner,

07/11/2008 06:14:46
all this moral blackmail about love for the poor kids make me a bit annoyed. It is double speak for give us the kids and let us do what we want. You only have to go to the house of a amoker to feel how uncomfortable the atmosphere is. Even if you disbelieve passive smoking is harmless. Smokers cannot understand this.
19

The real dracula,

07/11/2008 06:39:40
Ask the foster kids what they want. No doubt some are in care because they have come from families where a lot worse than smoking has happened.
I'm quite sure they would rather be in a loving supportive family who smoke than in a children's home.

Someone mentioned fat that's is already one of the issues people can be turned down for fostering , as is past history of mental illness.(inc depression)

What next parents who are too skinny , too poor , wrong colour , wrong religion.

All this is doing is affecting the kids.

Ban political correctness and our society would improve tenfold
20

SouthernSkye,

Bonnie Bonn 07/11/2008 07:13:18
I'm not sure about this at all. It cannot just be taken as a "you smoke? no fostering". I smoke but only outside, never in enclosed spaces. Would this still be seen as an issue if a foster carer/parent only smoked outside? Should such people also be checked that they do not drink alcohol (or only do so within the advised limits)? Should over weight people be ruled out also as they are not going to offer the child a healthy life style? Or those with a particular illness?

More is the likleyhood of poorly informed natural parents being a "health hazard" to their own offspring than, I would have thought, those with enough extra love to offer to a child/children.
21

yockel,

07/11/2008 07:27:54
Enough to make you start smoking I say.
22

Douglas,

Bathgate 07/11/2008 07:49:48
Smokers banned from Fostering, how long can it be before they're banned from XXXXing? :o)
23

Dave,

Western Isles 07/11/2008 08:04:20
Quite right too. They must also ban foster carers who drink (no matter the quantity) as well. And ban carers who undetake anything else that is deemed to be bad or naughty in Victorian Scotland such as sex and having an opinion.

24

drunken proffet,

Tassy 07/11/2008 08:26:10
Doublescotch. Diesel fumes, chemical factory discharge, not so serious in the UK but in Australia and the USA where the temperatures rise above their flashpoint, extremely serious and no real defence. Add to that deodorant aerosols, some perfumes and household cleaners and you have a nice merry mix. I smoke and agree with the kind of effort I need to make to avoid polluting other folk's air, however lets be fair the present day pollution in every household is not 100% tobacco smoke.
25

sam the god,

07/11/2008 08:49:24
Like I have always said our political masters are ar*eholes.
26

The Tin Man,

07/11/2008 09:33:09
All people identified from their ID card as being under 21, caught smoking on CCTV, must be 'rounded-up and marched to the armoured car for DNA sampling...
27

,

07/11/2008 09:51:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 09:56:25
"We know that children whose parents smoke are 1.5 times more likely to develop asthma and we consider it vitally important to reduce this risk to children."

Oh really?? So that would explain the fact that instances of asthma in kids has risen in recent times, despite the fact that smoking has declined would it?

Why can people not realise it when they are being told blatant lies?
29

Dave,

Western Isles 07/11/2008 09:58:30
There is a positive correlation between using cleaning products in the home and childhood asthma (google away to find out).

Therefore, ban any foster parents who clean thier home with products other than carbolic soap and lemon juice from looking after kids. Stands to reason.
30

DaveK,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 10:37:39
Smokers should be castrated or banned from having sex so that nothing results from their ashy loins. I'm going to write to my MSP and suggest this, once I've had this ciggie.
31

brownlie,

07/11/2008 10:37:53
I have two foster children who have been living with us for ten years and eight years and are regarded, and regard themselves, as part of my family.

If this rule came into effect and I smoked, even if it was not in their presence, would they take these children away from "their family" and place them with strangers.

Yes, I know you can say stop smoking but, apart from an invasion of my right to live as I chose - when I did stop smoking I know how difficult, and for some, impossible, it is to stop.

Surely, they would be better getting foster-carers to give an assurance that they will not smoke where it could, in any way, affect children. As it is, as foster carers, we have to give an assurance that childrens' health and safety is of paramount importance.
32

brownlie,

07/11/2008 10:40:09
As a post-script to #31 I have also taught my children to speak Gaelic - is this allowed under Scottish law or is it classed as un-natural cruelty?
33

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 10:47:16
"I have also taught my children to speak Gaelic..."

I teach my children to ignore stupid propaganda.
34

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 11:28:04


Well if I have anymore children, they will join me in the,......

......'Peoples Revolutionary Army' to fight the good fight against the dictators that decide such stupidities, and as the 'cannons' go off, 'clouds off smoke' will fill our skys, until we get some commonsense back into our lives,

So take a deep breath, when when Fuel Head, leads us to the wars against humanity.
35

BeeGee,

07/11/2008 11:28:07
What happens when the children are smokers as may be the case do non-smoking foster carers have the right to ban the children?

A very simple and cost effective solution

http://www.sharp.co.uk/page/airpurifierhow

If the foster parents are a bit overweight, will they ban them next as being unfit to look after children?

At a car owner, will foster parents be banned from fostering in case they have an accident and the child get injured?

36

4thbridge,

fife 07/11/2008 11:59:59
I regularly drive past a communal home catering for vulnerable youngsters, who presumably, would be able to choose whether or not they move out and into a home with or without smokers. There is usually a member of staff (or two) outside puffing away in all weathers. If passive smoking is an issue, then employers should remember that these workers are returning to their posts and breathing out fumes for some time after each 10 minute session!!!!! What would the employers say if the young people in care revolted and siad we don't want these staff to care for us- we want the same rights as we would have when rehomed!!!!!! WHAT A MESS!!
37

Unimpressed one,

07/11/2008 12:12:08
Typical pc brigade pi*sh. No regard for kids' welfare only indulging health scare fantatics.
38

MikeT,

07/11/2008 12:19:49
Put all parentless children into Council run homes, where they are almost certain to start smoking, many commit crimes and can be abused.
39

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 12:31:42
I can't be the only one pondering over the mismatch between the criteria for foster parents and the criteria for natural parents.

On the one hand, we allow people who are clearly unsuited to parenthood to keep control of their children: witness the appalling number of children abused and killed each year within the bosom of their own family. On the other hand, we expect any and all foster and adoptive parents to be squeaky clean paragons of virtue with flawless lifestyles.

Are there so many foster parents queueing up that we can afford to be so choosy?

Has anyone done an analysis of the relative risks of being fostered in a smoking household and remaining in council care? Which is worse for a child in the long run? If that analysis hasn't been carried out, then this judgement is woefully premature.

Petrolhead: how are your anger management classes coming on? It seems that you still have some way to go.
40

Tim85,

Lancs, England 07/11/2008 12:40:15
The injunctions to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and the "right of not" (i.e., the right not to breathe others tobacco smoke, the right not to be assaulted by a drunk on a night out).

The unification of both strains of thought represents a curious combination of aspects of German Nazism (kids) and Italian fascism (right of not).
41

Tim85,

Lancs, England 07/11/2008 12:41:44
Dave, 29 - also ban foster carers from keeping any pets.
42

Starkravingsane,

Edinburgh 07/11/2008 13:35:29
How many of these children come from homes where parents smoke? What if only one of the foster parents smoke - what about the rights of the non-smoking partner - or will they have to live apart?
This is ridiculous. Do we want these children to be rehomed or not?
Where will it end? There are precious few of us that tick all the required boxes as it is.
43

fife runner,

07/11/2008 13:52:12
just because if otherwise they would not have a good home to go to does not mean they have to be put anywhere.

what we have in most if not all the above pro smokers postings is the fact that pro smokers are no longer acceptable as adopters or foster parents and smokers cannot accept that. If smokers or their apologists want the right to kill themselves their habits should not be foisted on others. Also it is well known that children of parents who smoke are more likely to take it up. The same then may also apply to youngters taken in to care of smokers.

Are smokers also honestly saying they would not smoke in the house? If the pro smoking group FOREST are to be believed they tell us that smoking in the home has increased since the smoking ban. No thought there of not smoking at home. Either FOREST are wrong or many here are telling lies if they say smokers would go outside.

If smoking is harmless to others are you really saying that if you had kids you would happily puff away over babies or at meal tables at home for eg. If it is harmless or does not cause a bad atmosphere in the home why do some smokers go outside their homes to smoke. Seems a bit daft if it does not cause problems.
44

doublescotch,

U.S.A 07/11/2008 14:33:44
#43 I think you are being a bit obtuse. There are more pollutants in and around the house than cigarette smoke. I think most people on this blog are unhappy about the 'do as I say or your privilages will be taken away' Then it is a minority telling the majority what to do and think. We then become a totalitarian society. If that is how you want to live, then I pity you.
45

MikeT,

07/11/2008 14:38:59
#43 fiferunner. Would you prefer a child put into a local care home where nearly all the other children smoke and where children cannot be prevented from going out to commit crimes?
46

Belinda-2,

07/11/2008 14:38:59
Fiferunner

You should be asking yourself whether children are more likely to smoke if they remain in care, than if they are fostered out.

'Pro-smokers are no longer acceptable as adopters or foster parents': says who? Says a handful of councils? Even they are not going so far as to say that smokers cannot foster under any circumstances. Redbridge Council in London, which kicked off this debate in the national press, will not enact their policy for nearly 15 months: does this indicate that they REALLY see secondary smoke as an unacceptable health hazard? Of course not: they can deal with it now, provided people are warned of the dangers of smoking in front of severely asthmatic children, for example.

I took part in a radio debate last night on this topic. In three hours, only one person phoned to congratulate Redbridge council. Most protested the tone of the presenter: his answer to whether the smoking policy was a good idea was: you have to obey it because it's 'the law of the land' (inaccurate because he was describing local council injunctions). Admitting that many council workers were inexperienced in understanding many people's problems, that he himself was a smoker, that he thought smoking should be permissible in separate rooms in pubs and separate compartments on trains, he lapsed into saying: just do what the council tells you. YOU are depriving children of a loving home by not quitting, when told to do so by the council.

I did not count the callers to the show but they kept on coming between 10 and 1 am. Many but not all were foster carers.

What is a pro-smoker anyway, Fiferunner ... someone who is not implacably opposed to smoking? Doesn't it occur to you that some 'pro-smokers' might also be non-smokers?

47

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 07/11/2008 14:50:42
Charles Linskaill

Charles, Charles, CHARLES!

You must calm down or you will give yourself a coronary of a hernia.

We know you feel strongly on matters concerning children and their wellbeing and welfare but you must temper your outbursts before your DYW is rendered a widow.

#22 Douglas from Bathgate

I laughed when I read your post. Just to clarify at tad, do you mean "effing", old chap?
48

fife runner,

07/11/2008 15:35:50
#46 if smoking is not hazardous why not smoke in front of athsmatics? Pro smokers lobbiests FOREST say smoking is on the increase in homes and kids are being subjected to it due to the ban. If they did not see passive smoking as a hazard then why mention this fact at all in their argument against smoking in public places? I take it you know about FOREST?

The SUN news paper is the best seller so are you saying the majority agree with it?

The smoke ban was enacted after the majority agreed with it including amny smokers. Over 75% of smokers agreed with it.

Why cannot smokers give up if they care so much or is it a case of we care but not that much.
49

fife runner,

07/11/2008 15:40:44
sorry being a bit obtuse re the SUN correlation
50

fife runner,

07/11/2008 15:44:00
#35 being obese should be a ban also. It shows a disregard in majority of cases ( some are so due to ill health) for good diet or lifestyles. So would they subject kids to their unhealthy lifestyles?
51

fife runner,

07/11/2008 15:45:36
it is obviuous what we are seeing here. Smokers or their apologists still angry at the public ban still wnating to have their cake and eat it too.
52

doublescotch,

U.S.A 07/11/2008 15:51:47
#51 How do you feel about homosexuals fostering and adopting? Would you deny them the right to give a child a safe haven?
53

Media 1,

cape town 07/11/2008 16:05:51
No fostering if you are a loving and caring smoker - but if your a non smoking ex convict or a deceitful politician or a war mongering President then your in -

It makes you wonder who the people behind such rules are..who are these people?
54

MikeT,

07/11/2008 16:31:01
fife runner. You haven't answered my question. Would ban a loving, caring, smoker from fostering children?
55

fife runner,

07/11/2008 16:50:03
yes because if they cared that much they would stop smoking. Shows they do not care that much. Cigs mean more than the kids.

52 I believe kids need a father and mother figure. A black youth was interviewed during the week and i was surprised when he said one main reason he and his pals get into trouble is the lack of a father figure. That is not to say people who become single mums through eg divorce cannot do a good job.
56

fife runner,

07/11/2008 16:50:24
so do they really love the kids that much?
57

JT,

07/11/2008 17:12:35
This is only the start of it, I heard last week that a couple got rejected as potential parents as they were overwirght. So does this mean that those natural parents who are overweight and overfeed their kids are seperated? No I dont think so. Its just the jobsworth who would rather see kids in care rather than a loving home.
58

MikeT,

07/11/2008 17:21:20
#55 fife runner. So you would rather have children put into local authority homes, where most (if not all) of the other children are smoking. They are also free to go out and commit crimes and are often abused.
This shows your regard to the health and safety of children. Shame on you.
59

BeeGee,

07/11/2008 20:20:41
According to an article in the Daily Mail earlier this week: "Smokers could be completely banned from fostering children under controversial proposals branded health 'fascism' by opponents. Redbridge in East London is believed to the first council in the country to consider a total ban on foster carers who smoke, no matter how old the child they want to look after. It says the tough rules are needed to protect children from the effect of passive smoking, and to stop them taking up the habit from carers who they see as their role models. ...fostering organisations said they did not believe occasional smokers should be banned, at a time when there is a national shortage of 10,000 foster carers."

According to the article: "Michael Stark, the council's cabinet member for children's services, ... said he was acting on NHS advice which said those who breathe in second-hand smoke are at the same risk as those who smoke themselves...".

A professor at Cancer Research UK was quoted as stating that childhood exposure to secondhand smoke causes childhood cancer: "Director of tobacco studies at Cancer Research UK, Professor Richard West, said: 'Smoking around children can exacerbate asthma, increase childhood cancers and make them more susceptible to respiratory problems.'"

Several groups expressed opposition to the policy: "Neil Rafferty of smokers' rights group Forest branded those who wanted to ban smokers from being carers as 'health fascists'. 'There are many millions of smokers who would make brilliant foster parents,' he said. 'It's really troubling. Next they'll be banning obese people for setting a bad example. Where will it end?'"

"The Fostering Network, which represents most of Britain's carers, advised that a ban should only be placed on carers of children under the age of five - advice that most councils follow."

"A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'The health and well-being of looked-after children is paramount an
60

BeeGee,

07/11/2008 20:21:54
and we do, of course, want children to be protected from the harmful effects of smoking. Whilst our regulations do not ban smokers from becoming foster carers, smoking is certainly an issue which we would expect fostering providers to take into account as part of the approvals process.'"

The Rest of the Story by Prof Mike Siegel

The idea of banning smokers from being foster parents because they may set a bad example for their children is a dangerous one. While foster children should be protected from harmful behavior, it is not the appropriate role of the fostering agencies to cast moral judgments on the legal behaviors of potential parents, especially when the issue is the assumption of health risks by that individual.

As the spokesperson for Forest pointed out, this is conceptually a slippery slope. The same argument could be applied to ban obese people from becoming foster parents. It could also be applied to deny the right to foster children to individuals based on religion or sexual orientation. It is indeed scary to think about where this could lead next.

Given the apparent shortage of foster parents in England, it is unfortunate that smokers will categorically be denied the opportunity to foster children, even if they are potentially loving, caring, responsible parents and especially if they are willing to minimize their children's smoke exposure by, for example, smoking outside.

The argument that this policy is necessary in order to protect children from secondhand smoke does not hold water. The policy applies to all smokers, even if they agree to refrain from smoking in the presence of their children. It applies even to occasional smokers, who might only smoke when their children are not around or might even smoke only when they are outside of their home.

While a sensible policy would take all of these factors into account as part of the decision, a categorical rejection of any individual who smokes appears to be motivated as much by a di
61

BeeGee,

07/11/2008 20:22:57
disdain for smokers as by a legitimate concern for the well-being of the children. After all, with a severe shortage of foster parents, is it really better to deny children foster care or keep them waiting longer just to avoid having to place them with an individual who has made the decision to smoke and even if that individual agrees to refrain from smoking in the child's presence?

Does it make sense to categorically deny the opportunity to be a foster parent to all smokers, even when the children in question may be adolescents who are much less susceptible to the respiratory health effects of secondhand smoke (e.g., pneumonia, bronchitis) and who may even smoke themselves? Can you imagine a 16-year-old smoker being told she has to wait longer to be placed in foster care because the prospective parent is a smoker and she needs to be protected from secondhand smoke, even as she herself puffs on a cigarette?

It is also unfortunate that the policy is being justified based on false scientific claims. It is untrue that "those who breathe in second-hand smoke are at the same risk as those who smoke themselves." I have thoroughly debunked this myth, which is still being disseminated by many anti-smoking groups.

The claim that secondhand smoke exposure causes childhood cancer is unsupported by the bulk of the scientific evidence, and for this reason, the California EPA and the U.S. Surgeon General have not linked tobacco smoke exposure to childhood cancer (even though the Surgeon General told the public that breathing in tobacco smoke for 30 minutes sets the cancer process in motion).

Ironically, Forest's prediction that banning obese people from being foster parents will be next does not appear to be too far off the mark. An article in yesterday's Daily Mail reports that
a social services agency in England has taken seven children away from their parents because the children are obese. This is scary, especially because obesity is largely hereditary and obese
62

BeeGee,

07/11/2008 20:24:15
This is scary, especially because obesity is largely hereditary and obese parents are much more likely to have obese children. They may, in fact, not be able to control their children's weight. It is scary to think that the government may take away your children for a factor over which you as a parent have no control!

About Prof Michael Siegel

He is a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health.He is a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health.With 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. His areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions.

63

BeeGee,

07/11/2008 20:26:09
Now the good news.. the truth will be revealed in January 2009

The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) will hold its first world Conference on January the 27th and the 28th, 2009. Because of its prominence in these times, tobacco prohibition was chosen as the theme of the inaugural conference. Unfortunately, the denormalization of smoking comes at the expense of many citizens' rights and it sets a very dangerous precedent, along with causing immediate and devastating economic repercussions.

The conference "Smoking Bans and Lies", will be held at The European Parliament Building in Brussels. Subjects presented for discussion at the gathering will include: the impact of smoking bans, passive smoking exposure studies, the pharmaceutical lobby and the politics of prohibition.

TICAP includes more than 20 organizations from all over the world who share the conviction that prohibitions are a threat to democracy and a free society. Once an individual's right to choose is eliminated, special interests are enriched and state intrusion is tremendously augmented.

With this conference, TICAP intends to lay the foundations of an active, world-wide opposition to the expansion of a political trend that uses questionable science and public health institutions as vehicles to control citizens.

For further information: www.antiprohibition.org

TICAP Press Office: pressoffice@antiprohibition.org

64

Decent,

07/11/2008 21:27:42
Charles - I'm so sorry to hear your wife is bad - you seem such a lovely person and I agree with all your comments (on this thread)
Dave - Very well put.
Fife runner - away and bile ur heid.
65

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 07/11/2008 21:42:39
Charles Linskaill

I went through the postings too quickly to realise that your DYW is not feeling well. My thoughts are with you and with her at this time.

There seems to be a lot of fervent smokers posting today. Smoking is a filthy, cancer-ridden, disgusting habit that shows a lack of self-control on the part of the smoker and their breaths smell like smokey cigarette butt containers - as do their clothes, their hair, their skin, their very being.

The postings are self-serving by these fervent smokers - just as those by non-smokers - but at least we non-smokers will not suffer an agonising death from lung cancer which can spread like wildfire to other organs of the body.

If only smokers had the intelligence and willpower to give up their addiction they may not have their lives cut short by this insidious practice.
66

Decent,

07/11/2008 21:50:59
Tim - You still have a decent chance of getting lung cancer. This is not totally attributed to smoking. Do you live in the real world? If you had the intelligence to be a decent person instead of an old ranting fat Canadian tw*t we all would not need to suffer so much.
67

Selgovae,

07/11/2008 22:08:39
"Smoking is a filthy, cancer-ridden, disgusting habit that shows a lack of self-control on the part of the smoker and their breaths smell like smokey cigarette butt containers - as do their clothes, their hair, their skin, their very being."

Ahh! I love the smell of intolerence.
68

Fergle,

07/11/2008 23:12:03
good on the councils its about time bad foster carers were stopped from raking in the money. Other habits and areas of concern merit the same attention for example drinking, swearing, internet dating, unhealthy diets, filthy houses, skimming allowances and being stupid.
69

Decent,

07/11/2008 23:18:55
Ay there's bad foster carers - but smoking should't be an issue. If that your family name I assume you've had experience?
70

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 08/11/2008 02:40:50
#66 "Decent"

You, sir or madam, are definitely INDECENT!

I am NOT old, I am NOT fat, I DO NOT rant, and I am certainly NOT a "tw*t".

Perhaps you got your own self mixed up with mine.

If you want to argue with the big boys, then at least have the decency to be less insulting and offer some facts and statistics and logical reasoning.

In all the aforementioned criteria you are sorely lacking.

Get a life, get an education, get off your lardar*se, and be coherent and pondered in your mental aberrations about other posters.

Have pleasant dreams.
71

Thomas Laprade,

08/11/2008 07:13:51
Doesn't it occur to everybody that politicians love to control and manipulate our behaviour.
They are in office to serve us, not the other way around.

http://smokersclubinc.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
www.tobaccosmokersofcanada.ca
72

Belinda-2,

08/11/2008 10:30:23
#70

I wouldn't go so far as to insult you, but the fact is that you are wrong in your assumption that non-smokers don't get so-called smoking related problems. I now know of two smokers who have been in hospital with heart conditions and reported that they were a minority on their wards: most people there were non-smokers. The first person in my life who died of a stroke at 48, a market gardener was a never-smoker; her husband, a builder and amateur sailor, died of cancer in his early 1960s, was another lifelong never-smoker.

As for answering a query about a government policy with subjective and insulting generalisations about people you have never met ... well actually I don't think you are one of the 'big boys', do you?
73

Belinda-2,

08/11/2008 10:31:09
Oops ... in his early sixties ...
74

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 08/11/2008 12:55:52
As usual on this blog site, we see the mix of prejudice, ignorance and half-truth which trivialises a serious subject.

Tobacco smoke is a mixture of hundreds of different molecules many of which have effects on the human body ranging from short term harmless effects to long term lethal effects.

It is entirely fatuous to argue otherwise - the evidence is quite beyond reasonable doubt. However, that does not mean the everyone who smokes will be harmed or that non-smokers will entirely escape.

The unavoidable facts are that the probability of these effects increases with exposure to smoke inhalation - sometimes to a very significant degree. That means that everyone has to pay their money and take their choice!

Since there is very clear evidence that children in smoking households have more asthma, more chest infections and more hospital admissions, it makes perfect sense for local authorities (who are legally obliged to reduce risks to children in their care) to set reasonable conditions on potential foster/adoptive parents.

Of course other children still get asthma and non-smokers still get lung cancer - that is because these are multi-factorial conditions with many contributory factors, but that doesn't affect the unalterable facts the smoking increases the incidence and severity of a multitude of diseases.

Grow up and stop trying to confuse fact and comment sense with emotion, obfuscation, and irrelevance.
75

Belinda-2,

08/11/2008 15:55:03
Just out of interest Dr Findlay, can you explain just how confounding factors are accounted for in the claim that smoking families experience more hospital admissions, and how asthma rates are high in spite of declining smoking rates over the last 30 years.
76

Steve Hartwell,

Toronto, Canada 08/11/2008 18:30:20
Hmmm, let's see - the baby boomer generation which still healthily comprises about 25 % as still the largest segment of 'western' nations which grew up in a perpetual cloud of second hand tobacco smoke - should be all dead - according to anti-smoker claims today - so, does that mean 100s of millions of baby boomers alive and healthy today are just a figment of everybody's collective mass hysteriatric imagination ?
77

MikeT,

08/11/2008 19:15:45
Dr Findla states 'probability'. That is what a lot of so called 'experts' say. Probablity is not fact.
As Belinda says the smoking rate has come down over the last few decades and yet asthma rates have greatly increased. This is almost certainly due to the increase in the vehicles on our roads.
78

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia, USA 09/11/2008 10:37:57
Gordon Brown noted that "We know that children whose parents smoke are 1.5 times more likely to develop asthma and we consider it vitally important to reduce this risk to children." and Dr. Finlay feels it makes "perfect sense to set reasonable conditions" (such as, presumably, not smoking).

What would Gordon Brown and Dr. Finlay then have to say about something roughly 300% worse for childhood asthma as smoking? Clearly that would have to constitute an absolute killer for foster parenting!

That killer would be if the foster parents had an outdoor pool or allowed their child to play for even one hour a week in an outdoor pool. See:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26885698/

If the study is correct and one hour a week leads to a 400% increase in asthma, then that would be eight times as deadly (+400% vs. +50%)as the experience of a child living for (24x7)= 168 hours in a smoking household. Incorporating that eightfold increase would indicate that one hour of pool exposure is as likely to doom a child to asthma as sticking the poor child in a home with smoking parents for 1,344 hours.

I would imagine that both Gordon Brown and Dr. Finlay might call for outright capital punishment for any parent that dares to let their child near a pool! Just to be consistent of course.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
79

DaveA,

Room101 10/11/2008 15:10:56
DR Finlay:

I hope you enjoy this peer reviewed medical study on Asthma from January 2008. It seems like a lot of Antis you make all these claims based on opinion rather than fact. Also you mentioned other "deadly" molecules, I would presume benzene and polonuim, each found in tobacco. Alas if you were in a room 100 m3, sealed and unventillated, to reach danger levels you would need to be surrounded by 13,300 amd 750,000 smokers respectively. URL on request. I quote from the NZ Asthma study:

"Smoking linked to reduced allergic sensitization

By David Holmes

21 January 2008

J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 121: 38-42

MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand. Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that "the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy." The authors write: "We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.

"These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever." They conclude: "The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. "Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them."


http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html

80

Rob Simpson,

10/11/2008 17:41:40
This is typical blinkered anti-smoking thinking. Can councils REALLY afford to suddenly declare 25% of potential foster parents unsuitable?

Is life in institutional care REALLY better than a loving environment with people who happen to smoke?

If this was REALLY about the children and not an opportunistic and callous ( as ultimately it's the children who'll suffer) way of further demonizing smokers then a simple clause asking foster parents to smoke outside would be sufficient.

Anyone who endorses this policy because it'll be good for the children clearly hasn't thought it through.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.