Debunking Meth Myths
Doctors' Letter
At the end of July,
2005 more than ninety of America's leading
physcians, scientists, researchers, and treatment specialists in the
field of addictions, under the sponsorship of the group Physician
Leadership for National Drug Policy (PLNDP), issued an open letter to
the news media calling them to task for "alarmist and unjustified"
reporting on so-called "meth babies." The text of that letter follows:
To Whom It May Concern:
As medical and
psychological researchers, with many years of experience studying
prenatal exposure to psychoactive substances, and as medical
researchers, treatment providers and specialists with many years of
experience studying addictions and addiction treatment, we are writing
to request that policies addressing prenatal exposure to
methamphetamines and media coverage of this issue be based on science,
not presumption or prejudice.
The use of stigmatizing terms,
such as "ice babies" and "meth babies," lack scientific validity and
should not be used. Experience with similar labels applied to children
exposed parentally to cocaine demonstrates that such labels harm the
children to which they are applied, lowering expectations for their
academic and life achievements, discouraging investigation into other
causes for physical and social problems the child might encounter, and
leading to policies that ignore factors, including poverty, that may
play a much more significant role in their lives. The suggestion that
treatment will not work for people dependant upon methamphetamines,
particularly mothers, also lacks any scientific basis.
Despite
the lack of a medical or scientific basis for the use of such terms as
"ice" and "meth" babies, these pejorative and stigmatizing labels are
increasingly being used in the popular media, in a wide variety of
contexts across the country. Even when articles themselves acknowledge
that the effects of prenatal exposure to methamphetamine are still
unknown, headlines across the country are using alarmist and
unjustified labels such as "meth babies."
Just a few examples come from both local and national media:
- CBS NATIONAL NEWS, "Generation of Meth Babies" (April 28, 2005)
- ARKANSAS NEWS BUREAU, Doug Thompson, "Meth Baby Bill Survives Amendment Vote" (Mar. 5, 2005)
- CHICAGO
TRIBUNE, Judith Graham, "Only Future Will Tell Full Damage Speed Wreaks
on Kids" ("At birth, meth babies are like `dishrags'") (Mar. 7, 2004)
- THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, Lance Pugmire, "Meth Baby Murder Trial Winds Up" (Sept.5. 2003 at B3)
- THE SUNDAY OKLAHOMAN, "Meth Babies" (Oklahoma City, OK; May 23, 2004 at 8A)
- APBNEWS.COM, "Meth Infants Called the New "Crack Babies" (June 23, 2000).
Other
examples include an article about methamphetamine use in the
MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE that lists a litany of medical problems
allegedly caused by methamphetamine use during pregnancy, using
sensationalized language that appears intended to shock and appall
rather than inform, "...babies can be born with missing and misplaced
body parts. She heard of a meth baby born with an arm growing out of
the neck and another who was missing a femur." Sarah McCann, "Meth
ravages lives in northern counties" (Nov. 17, 2004 at N1). In May, one
Fox News station warned that "meth babies" "could make the crack baby
look like a walk in the nursery." Cited in "The Damage Done: Crack
Babies Talk Back," Mariah Blake, COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW Oct/Nov
2004.
Although research on the medical and developmental effects
of prenatal methamphetamine exposure is still in its early stages, our
experience with almost 20 years of research on the chemically related
drug, cocaine, has not identified a recognizable condition, syndrome or
disorder that should be termed "crack baby" nor found the degree of
harm reported in the media and then used to justify numerous punitive
legislative proposals.
The term "meth addicted baby" is no less
defensible. Addiction is a technical term that refers to compulsive
behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By
definition, babies cannot be "addicted" to methamphetamines or anything
else. The news media continues to ignore this fact.
- A
CNN report was aired repeatedly over the span of a month, showing a
picture of a baby who had allegedly been exposed to methamphetamines
prenatally and stating: "This is what a meth baby looks like,
premature, hooked on meth and suffering the pangs of withdrawal. They
don't want to eat or sleep and the simplest things cause great pain."
CNN, "The Methamphetamine Epidemic in the United States," Randi Kaye.
(Aired Feb. 3, 2005 - Mar. 10 2005).
- One
local National Public Radio station claims that "In one Minnesota
County, there is a baby born addicted to meth each week."
In
utero physiologic dependence on opiates (not addiction), known as
Neonatal Narcotic Abstinence Syndrome, is readily diagnosable and
treatable, but no such symptoms have been found to occur following
prenatal cocaine or methamphetamine exposure.
Similarly, claims
that methamphetamine users are virtually untreatable with small
recovery rates lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of
dropout, retention in treatment and re-incarceration rates and other
measures of outcome, in several recent studies indicate that
methamphetamine users respond in an equivalent manner as individuals
admitted for other drug abuse problems. Research also suggests the need
to improve and expand treatment offered to methamphetamine users.
Too
often, media and policymakers rely on people who lack any scientific
experience or expertise for their information about the effects of
prenatal exposure to methamphetamine and about the efficacy of
treatment. For example, a NEW YORK TIMES story about methamphetamine
labs and children relies on a law enforcement official rather than a
medical expert to describe the effects of methamphetamine exposure on
children. A police captain is quoted stating: ''Meth makes crack look
like child's play, both in terms of what it does to the body and how
hard it is to get off." (Fox Butterfield, Home Drug-Making Laboratories
Expose Children to Toxic Fallout, Feb 23, 2004 A1)
We are deeply
disappointed that American and international media as well as some
policy makers continue to use stigmatizing terms and unfounded
assumptions that not only lack any scientific basis but also endanger
and disenfranchise the children to whom these labels and claims are
applied. Similarly, we are concerned that policies based on false
assumptions will result in punitive civil and child welfare
interventions that are harmful to women, children and families rather
than in the ongoing research and improvement and provision of treatment
services that are so clearly needed.
PLNDP would be happy to furnish additional information if requested or to
send representatives to meet with policy advisors, staff or editorial
boards to provide more detailed technical information. Please feel free
to contact David C. Lewis, M.D., Professor of Community Health and Medicine at Brown University, 401-444-1818, David_Lewis@Brown.edu who has agreed to coordinate such requests on behalf of PLNDP.
For a pdf copy of the letter and a list of the signers click here.
|
