Using Medical Marihuana While Pregnant

[restlesslegs]

Dr Bob my question about using other drugs for pain, as was mentioned by Zap, would those drugs not be more harmful, haven't those drugs been proven to cross the barrier (not sure the term for that) and cause damage to the baby? Would edibles or salves or tinctures be a better choice?

 

My niece I believe was on that drug, it sounds familiar, and it did not help. For normal nausea during pregnancy that drug might be the better choice but have there been studies for it's use and can it potentially cause harm?

 

I had really bad nausea but just rode it through for about 4 months, in our family the nausea can last the whole pregnancy. If I had known it would have helped I probably would have used it like my niece did during the mornings when the nausea was worse.

 

Man made medicine I don't believe is always the better choice. I know my side effects are not worth using narcotics. I have very personal reasons why I am against most pain meds but I also have enough experience with them that I know they do not work as well as mmj. Then the addiction factor weighs as a heavy con especially if you consider some of the emotions pregnant women go through and if they suffer from postpartum depression the chances of them becoming addicted to a pain med is quite high isn't it? This could potentially lead to having the baby taken away and really screwing up the mother's, baby's, and family's life.

 

A mother should make the baby her first priority and take care with everything she does. Using mmj that has no chemicals and is properly grown would seem to be the better choice over the other meds in certain situations. The pros and cons of any meds would have to be taken into consideration before she should use them. If a pregnant woman had no issues but just likes the high then the answer to the question from me would be No she should not use anything including mmj.

Edited May 14, 2012 by restlesslegs

[restlesslegs]

 

“Don't Take Anything Personally. Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.”

 

Don Miguel Ruiz

 

This is awesome and very good advice, Rest thank you for posting this.

Edited May 14, 2012 by restlesslegs

[peanutbutter]

Tell me Bob .. How do you feel when you proscribe a medicine that makes someone sick.

 

You know .. late night commercial stuff?

 

Ever proscribe thalidomide?

 

Is there a method that allows you to hand poison to the next patient? (This time it will be different?)

Edited May 14, 2012 by peanutbutter

[treehugger]

Although i have no great concerns about the immediate toxicity of cannabis compounds upon mother or child, my still nagging doubt is about THC's estrogen analog effect on the developing fetus. (you know, man boobies and such...)

[Restorium2]

Although i have no great concerns about the immediate toxicity of cannabis compounds upon mother or child, my still nagging doubt is about THC's estrogen analog effect on the developing fetus. (you know, man boobies and such...)

Myth.

[mrd]

Tell me Bob .. How do you feel when you proscribe a medicine that makes someone sick.

 

You know .. late night commercial stuff?

 

Ever proscribe thalidomide?

 

Is there a method that allows you to hand poison to the next patient? (This time it will be different?)

 

 

PB you are equating dissimilar drugs in an effort to discredit Dr. Bob. Sorry he is the one that went to med school and is pro mmj. You certainly are enthusiastic but seem to disregard scientific method whenever it suits you.

[Dr. Bob]

Honestly, though PB is being a jerk because folks aren't seeing things his way, he does bring up a good point.

 

When I was a resident, my attendings taught me one lesson I've taken to heart.

 

"The most invasive procedure you can ever perform on a patient is to open your prescription pad. Every drug is a poison to some degree and you are messing with a patient's biochemisty.'

 

Let that soak in. I have for 20 years.

 

Dr. Bob

[Timmahh]

Expecting Mothers and the Unborn Fetus does much better with Cannabis, compared to ANY other medication, prescription or otherwise... but way over less than 1/2 the death rate up to the 2 yr old state.

 

In fact. Studies are showing Mothers that use cannabis, their children have a very significant DECREASE in fetal/infant death up to the 2 yr old age, over babies born to a mothers that used Zero Medications, not counting pre natal vitamins.

 

 

and to make a point. I know life long politicians that have been studying politics for their entire life and still get it wrong.

 

One can talk to a Catholic Priest or Bishop? they study religeion their entire life.

that is if you can find one that isnt imprissoned for child molestation.

[Dr. Bob]

Expecting Mothers and the Unborn Fetus does much better with Cannabis, compared to ANY other medication, prescription or otherwise... but way over less than 1/2 the death rate up to the 2 yr old state.

 

In fact. Studies are showing Mothers that use cannabis, their children have a very significant DECREASE in fetal/infant death up to the 2 yr old age, over babies born to a mothers that used Zero Medications, not counting pre natal vitamins.

 

 

and to make a point. I know life long politicians that have been studying politics for their entire life and still get it wrong.

 

One can talk to a Catholic Priest or Bishop? they study religeion their entire life.

that is if you can find one that isnt imprissoned for child molestation.

 

Wow, what a profound post, so well researched and on point. I never really considered giving medical care to be on the level of the priesthood or related to child molestation. Thanks for opening my eyes Tim.

 

Dr. Bob

[MightyMightyMezz]

I worked at a medical school and I was appalled at their education. They spend one single day on all medicines considered to be alternative, they don't learn nutrition at all and the only time Cannabis sativa is ever mentioned is when they lie about it.

 

People who are dogging PB should just put up their best info showing the dangers and let that speak for itself. My understanding is that research on the medical benefits of Cannabis is basically banned. The only studies approved are those studies of Cannabis as a "drug of abuse" so there are decades of research for you to draw from; you have all the institutional weapons at your disposal.

Edited May 14, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[cristinew]

Every drug is a poison to some degree,,, but cannabis is a herb. to compare the two is like apples to walnuts

[Dr. Bob]

Every drug is a poison to some degree,,, but cannabis is a herb. to compare the two is like apples to walnuts

 

You can say the same about digtalis (purple foxglove) and aspirin (willow bark). Come on quit just being argumentative.

 

Dr. Bob

[Irishgreen]

Honestly, though PB is being a jerk because folks aren't seeing things his way, he does bring up a good point.

 

When I was a resident, my attendings taught me one lesson I've taken to heart.

 

"The most invasive procedure you can ever perform on a patient is to open your prescription pad. Every drug is a poison to some degree and you are messing with a patient's biochemisty.'

 

Let that soak in. I have for 20 years.

 

Dr. Bob

 

That is the best thing ever! I agree.....if you don't NEED any medication.....DON'T take it.

 

I think we are all on the same page but reading it differeently. If you MUST take something, and cannabis can do the same thing that a pill can do (or better) then I would choose cannabis.

 

BUT~Don't use cannabis or anything else that is not necessary.

 

However....there is that litle side note of testing of the baby, like others have stated....I'm not sure if all babies are tested, or just ones born with Medicaid Ins. But, before I risked loosing my child, I would investigate that.

[CaveatLector]

The bottom line is that no one can say for sure whether there are effects on fetal development. Neither can they say what the long term effects are. I know, I know, pb will say:

 

"What about that 40 year old Jamaican study?" Huh, huh? What about it? What about that???"

 

So let's address that. Generally in the medical/scientific community drug trials go through multiple phases/trials. Why? Because there are chances that phase 1 clinical trials are not producing all of the results we need to judge outcomes. However, pb wants us to commit ourselves to one study conducted in a 3rd world country and draw conclusions from that study that the child is unaffected, or even benefits, from the mother's mj use.

 

The problem with accepting that conclusion is that the study tells us only one thing. That is, if you were a child, born to a mj using mother, in Jamaica, 40 years ago, then your short term outlook was maybe better than non mj users in the same country. Thats it, so not a very broad application. Why? Because the study didn't control for multiple variables that existed at the time. It didn't tell us why the mothers used the mj. I didn't tell us the socioeonomic status of the groups as compared to people in 1st world countries. And on, and on, and on. In other words its reliability is very questionable. That's not my opinion that is a fact based on factors employed in the research process.

 

Let's make this a little simpler for you pb. If I conducted a study in The Sudan where pregnant mothers were given 3 full sized snickers bars to eat everyday and after they gave birth we compared infant mortality, as well as a number of other factors, to outcomes of mothers from the same country who weren't given snickers, what do you think the result would be?

 

 

 

My guess would be that the snickers children would have lower infant mortality, higher birthweight, higher IQ's, etc., etc. Why? Because the living situation there is such that the smallest positive change, in this case higher caloric intake during fetal development, benefits the child. However, if you conducted the same study here, do you think snickers mothers would give birth to babies with similar Apgar scores as mothers who ate a healthy diet? Of course not. "But why?" pb asks in amazement. "I thought The Sudan study proved that snickers was the way to go if you were pregnant!"

 

Why? Because The Sudan, like Jamaica, is NOT a microcosm of the U.S. or other 1st world countries. The Sudan study didn't control for socioeconomic status or 1000 other factors. So the study is fine and its outcomes hold true if you live in the same tribe in the same region of The Sudan as the snickers mothers.

 

The bottom line is neither you nor anyone else knows what the short or long term effects are on a child when their mothers used mj during pregnancy.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CaveatLector

[MightyMightyMezz]

Friday, 31 May 2002

 

Detroit, MI: Prenatal exposure to marijuana is not associated with lower birth-size or cognitive deficits in newborns, according to findings published this month in Pediatrics. Researchers reported no adverse effects associated with prenatal pot exposure in infants assessed at 6.5, 12 and 13 months on a battery of neurobehavioral tests, including analyses of mental development, reaction time, complexity of play and information processing. Prenatal exposure to cannabis also failed to negatively impact birth size or gestational age, the study found. By comparison, researchers reported that prenatal exposure to alcohol (approximately seven drinks per week) was associated with poor cognitive performance, and prenatal exposure to cocaine was associated with smaller birth-size.

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/5/815.abstract

[restlesslegs]

Friday, 31 May 2002

 

Detroit, MI: Prenatal exposure to marijuana is not associated with lower birth-size or cognitive deficits in newborns, according to findings published this month in Pediatrics. Researchers reported no adverse effects associated with prenatal pot exposure in infants assessed at 6.5, 12 and 13 months on a battery of neurobehavioral tests, including analyses of mental development, reaction time, complexity of play and information processing. Prenatal exposure to cannabis also failed to negatively impact birth size or gestational age, the study found. By comparison, researchers reported that prenatal exposure to alcohol (approximately seven drinks per week) was associated with poor cognitive performance, and prenatal exposure to cocaine was associated with smaller birth-size.

 

http://pediatrics.aa.../5/815.abstract

 

Cool! Thank you for finding and posting this.

[Dr. Bob]

Friday, 31 May 2002

 

Detroit, MI: Prenatal exposure to marijuana is not associated with lower birth-size or cognitive deficits in newborns, according to findings published this month in Pediatrics. Researchers reported no adverse effects associated with prenatal pot exposure in infants assessed at 6.5, 12 and 13 months on a battery of neurobehavioral tests, including analyses of mental development, reaction time, complexity of play and information processing. Prenatal exposure to cannabis also failed to negatively impact birth size or gestational age, the study found. By comparison, researchers reported that prenatal exposure to alcohol (approximately seven drinks per week) was associated with poor cognitive performance, and prenatal exposure to cocaine was associated with smaller birth-size.

 

http://pediatrics.aa.../5/815.abstract

 

Good, this study supports the argument that there is no harm, let's see some more. We can't come to a definitive conclusion based on one study, but it certainly moves the bar closer in that direction. Nice find in a good peer reviewed journal. This is the kind of evidence that should be presented.

 

Dr. Bob

[Northern Lab]

Not sure if this has been posted, but I found this interesting. I'd be especially interested in hearing Dr. Bob's take on it

 

Surprising connections between "Failure-to-Thrive" and Cannabinoids.

 

(NORTHERN CALIFORNIA) - Years ago, a friend of mine, a good Christian lady, had a child with "failure to thrive". She had CPS all over her, looking for even the tiniest trace of child neglect. They found none. The child was well cared for, but she just didn't seem that interested in eating. Her bottles often went half finished.

I believe that those bottles of formula, given from birth, were major part of the problem. Our bodies make chemicals called "endocannabinoids" that are closely related to THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Endocannabinoids control many bodily functions and are excreted into breast milk. When lactating female rabbits were injected with CBD, a non-psychoactive, plant-derived cannabinoid, there was "a significant accumulation of the drug in milk." ^[1]

Endocannabinoids are also detected in human and cow's milk, with the highest levels occurring the day after giving birth. This healthy dose of naturally-occurring endocannabinoids stimulates the suckling reflex in newborn mammals, including humans^[2].

When newborn mice are given a chemical to block the effect between endocannabinoids and their CB receptors, the mice simply don't know how to eat. Yet, if the blocking agent is mixed with an equivalent amount of THC, the mice eat and grow normally^[3].

CB receptors work kind of like an ignition switch. First, you need the right kind of "key" (the right-shaped cannabinoid) to go into the "keyhole" (the receptor) to turn on the "engine's" action (suckling, stopping pain or inflammation, or maybe killing a cancer cell). Phytocannabinoids (cannabinoids from plants, like THC) can mimic the effects of your endocannabinoids - they can turn on the same "ignition switches" as your body's own cannabinoids. The blocking agents (antagonists) are like sticking a broken key stub in the keyhole. You can't get a real key in, and the engine can't turn on.

 

Scientists have bred mice that do not have CB receptors. They are poor, sickly things, prone to all sorts of ailments. Some scientists believe that there are people like those mice, having fewer than normal, or dysfunctional, CB receptors. And infants born with this condition have growth failure resulting from an inability to ingest food, just like those newborn mice^[4].)

If "failure to thrive" infants were being breast-fed, they would get at least some of their mother's normal endocannabinoids from her milk. If she were using cannabis, logically, her breast milk would contain not only her own endocannabinoids, but also the phytocannabinoids, THC and CBD. In CB receptor-deficient children, an extra dose of phytocannabinoids could make the difference between "failure to thrive" and a healthy child! However, since receptor deficiency is inheritable, the mother may be deficient, too, and unable to give her child sufficient amounts of endocannabinoids in her milk.

 

But all this is just conjecture on my part. Just me, grouping together various studies to make a theory about "failure to thrive" babies. Medical science surely isn't going to say that having Mom smoking a little pot in the evening is going to help her baby do better, is it?

 

Well, tonight, I found a study that seems to say just that! It's a sad little thing - an abstract of a study on the death of babies - yet vital facts can be learned from those soulless statistical studies. This one gave the infant death rates per 1,000 live births, and the drugs, if any, that the mother used during pregnancy.

 

A total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs - cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I'll cut right to the chase - the deaths per thousand live births - the numbers tell the story.

"No drugs at birth" deaths....... 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births

"Cocaine positive" deaths.......17.7 deaths per 1000 live births

"Opiate positive" deaths.......18.4 deaths per 1000 live births

"Cannabis positive" deaths.... 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births ^[5]

 

The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the "No drugs" babies - that was to be expected. But look at the "cannabis" babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The "cannabis" infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the "No drugs" infants have!

 

Cannabis has a remarkable safety record - it has never caused a single death by overdose, so it is safer than the Tylenol that we give to our children. Some cannabinoids, like CBD, can't get you high no matter how much you take, but are still quite effective medically. Perhaps it is time that someone considers doing a study of pediatric, non-psychoactive cannabinoid use to treat "failure to thrive" infants!

 

The studies below, and more, will appear in the new version of my list of medical cannabis studies and articles. It will be available around the beginning of August. For now, you can get a free copy of my current list (250 pages of MMJ links like those below), by emailing me at: i.wantgrannyslist@greenpassion.org.

 

^[1]Mammary excretion of cannabidiol in rabbits after intravenous administration - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

^[2]Born with the munchies - newscientist.com/

^[3]Critical role of the endogenous cannabinoid system in mouse pup suckling and growth - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

^[4]The endocannabinoid-CB receptor system: Importance for development and in pediatric disease - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

^[5]Mortality Within the First 2 Years in Infants Exposed to Cocaine, Opiate, or Cannabinoid During Gestation - pediatrics.aappublications.org

 

Oops, forgot the link: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june272010/marijuana-infants-sc.php

Edited May 15, 2012 by Northern Lab

[Dr. Bob]

Not sure if this has been posted, but I found this interesting. I'd be especially interested in hearing Dr. Bob's take on it

 

THIS is excellent evidence in the catagory of meta analysis (review of other studies). I am especially interested in the lower infant mortality. This is good data. Having had several children with severe colic, I wonder the effect on mom (all the kids were breast feed) and child of a little calming cannabis. Not ready to recommend, but more comfortable with use and the bar for 'essential meds during pregnacy' is down a little.

 

I'm going to review some literature in the next week or two and see what I root up.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited May 15, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

Northern Lab that is awesome. PB didn't have it so wrong after all and I had remembered reading something like this but for the life of me could not find it. Thank you!

[Dr. Bob]

You know who would be PERFECT for this would be Dr. Bix. He is research oriented, a friend of Medical Cannabis, and I bet he might be interested in doing something along the lines of an on line journal of medical marijuana research like the old Granny's List mentioned. I am more an 'in the trenches' doc and he really has an acedemic bend.

 

I bet if we all asked AK nicely, she might be able to talk him into taking the lead on the research reviews.

 

Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

Good idea, funny how a simple question led to this.

 

BTW I love the new pic, very nice.

[CaveatLector]

The conclusion in the study done on humans as opposed to mice and rabbits included:

 

Conclusion. We conclude that prenatal drug exposure in infants, although associated with a high perinatal morbidity, is not associated with an overall increase in their mortality rate or incidence of SIDS during the first 2 years of life.

 

So even the babies that tested positive for cocaine did not have an overall higher mortality rate than the non drug babies. Makes you wonder, right? Well let's analyze it. The sample populaton was mothers who received little to no prenatal care. Usually that indicates lower educated mothers and/or low or no income mothers. The babies that tested positive for drugs would have likely had immediate state intervention. That, over the course of the 2 years of the study, would have improved outcomes. The babies that did not test positive for drugs would not have had the same intervention. Therefore, it is likely that all they had for care was the mothers with low education and who had little to no prenatal care.

 

The study didn't control for state intervention. Therefore, this data cannot be extrapolated to the broader population. In other words you cannot say, based on this study, that babies born with drugs in their systems have no higher mortality rate over their first 2 years than babies born to the general population. This study has very very limited application.

[treehugger]

Myth.

 

Myth to some, common knowledge for the well read..

 

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/hormones/155754-endocrine-effects-marijuana.html

[Restorium2]

Myth to some, common knowledge for the well read..

 

http://www.420magazi...-marijuana.html

No. I researched it and it IS a myth. Myth busted.

 

Your only 'back up' is a bad study because of what they used for the testing. Sorry, man boobs from cannabis are a myth. It's from eating too much garbage and not exercising. Go figure...LOL.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Restorium2