We Were Wrong About “Crack Babies”: Are We Repeating Our Mistake With “Meth Babies”?

Download video file ^{(7.1MB, mp4)}

Two decades ago, we panicked over the predication that “crack babies” would cause an undue burden on their families, the education system, and on society. Yet, after almost 20 years of research, not one single condition or disorder that could be labeled “crack baby” has been identified.[1] Nor is there evidence of the extent of harm that was predicted by physicians and trumpeted by the media.[2] What did happen?

Punitive legislation was directed at newborns and their mothers,[3] legislation which only increased the stigma against them and decreased the chances of addressing their real problems – poverty and a lack of prenatal care. It is now clear that the anti-crack baby policies were based on assumptions, which have no scientific validity. The civil and child welfare actions that resulted were harmful to women, children, and families who instead desperately needed treatment.

The headlines have changed. Today we are reading about “meth babies,” again without having any evidence of what the real risks are to the children and their families. There is no doubt that, like cocaine, methamphetamine can be an incredibly harmful drug, but even more detrimental is society's rush to label these children as “damaged.” If we want to address the problems associated with the use of methamphetamines, we have to focus on prevention and treatment for mothers, children, and families and avoid the stigmatizing labels that lead to punitive policies.

That's my opinion. I'm Dr. David Lewis, Professor of Community Health and Medicine at Brown University.

Sign Up now for a free monthly email that brings you the top features from MedGenMed.

Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via email: glundberg@medscape.net.