Peaches Geldof

Interesting reading. I watched last weeks programme about adoption [missed this weeks] and one couple adopted a baby whose mum was a drug addict. They were told that the baby, once it had got through withdrawal would have no lasting effect and I did wonder if that was the case [whereas, I think they said an alcoholic mother could cause problems for the child; but I may be getting them mixed up]. I do think people have addictive personalities, and I'm sure I have one, although I wonder if such conditions are human traits anyway and have shaped what we, as a species, have become? I guess alcohol, drugs and cigarettes add extra complications to the 'nature/nurture' debate.

I know you said you want to wind the discussion up, thatbags, but who decides?
Has it been proved absolutely that addiction is inherited? Do we compulsorily test the whole population and, if someone is found with 'defective' genes, are they then sent for PGD and at whose expense?
Nature or nurture or a mix of both?

If everyone is genetically modified to eradicate the addiction gene then will the whole human race be able say no to drugs?

Meanwhile, this is so desperately sad and a terrible loss of a young life. I hope the other girls have strong enough personalities and enough good nurturing to avoid doing the same.

Thank you to those who understand and respect my motives in winding people up winding the discussion up. The fact that you have said you understand is appreciated.

I do agree with your last post, pogs. It is desperately sad and unfair, when some people with the ability to care for and nurture a child in a healthy environment are unable to conceive or sustain a pregnancy.

debn, I accept that my comment may have upset some people and I accept that it can be seen as a wind up. I still say so what? Are we not allowed to say anything that might be upsetting? Does no-one else have troubling thoughts that they feel could do with a bit of airing? Does no-one else enter a discussion with one kind of thought and leave it with better ones because they have learned something from the troubling subject being discussed by others who have different thoughts on the matter?

I accept your view.

I am not ashamed of what I did.

pen, what genetic research says about how we value those born with a disabling condition is that we care enough to try and make their lives more comfortable and to try and prevent the problem occuring in the first place. It's not about trying to create perfect human beings;it's about preventing suffering where we can.

I was trying to raise the discussion in my post the fact that there are chemists all over the UK where men and women literally turn up, take a heroine substitute and clear off until the next time.

The sight of mothers with babies in pushchairs and pregnant is the saddest showing of the state of affairs the nation has come to.

I hadn't particularly thought about 'genes' being the problem as so many of those taking the likes of Methadone probably don't have an addictive gene. I am most certainly not arguing against that as a valid point to raise and I can see where thatbags has taken the discussion, that is what it is, a discussion.

I am I suppose making a personal statement that I am quite incensed that we, the people have become so aneatheatised to the standards of life some consider to be acceptable that we give permission for an unborn child to start it's life being born already suffering from drug addiction through the mothers choice of lifestyle.

Now I do have a pang of conscience at what I have posted as it sounds like I am being horrible to addicts. I am not, I fully understand that in lot's of cases they are to be pitied not scorned. Yet I cannot help but feel when it comes to bringing a child into this world I think it is so wrong to give the priority to the 'rights' of the mother over that of the unborn who could suffer hell all it's life.

How many times do we read about a toddler dying or becoming Ill because they took a parents drug stash, we know babies are born with drugs in their poor little bodies, we read constantly of child abuse and neglect because the parents are drug addicts. Yet we don't ask 'What the hell were they doing having the responsibility of raising a child in the first place'.

I am of the opinion liberal thinking on this particular subject has scored an own goal and I don't like it. I am not saying that I think Peaches was a bad mother but her lifestyle would not have been the same as a drug addict living in a squallid flat raising children would it.

This is dangerous territory. However, I do agree that research into genetic malformations is absolutely vital, in the hope that those who desire a child can do so in the knowledge that any inherent disabilities will not be perpetuated - if that is what they wish, and I am sure most people would want that.
Eugenics by enforcement is a whole different story and as Anniebach said, where would we draw the line? Who would choose? A horrific thought.

As for Tiger Lily being better off with Bob than her natural parents, that is a non-sequitor for obvious reasons . Rather, my Australian friends wondered if she would be better with her Australian relatives out of the limelight, of course having regular contact with her half-sisters.

I am sure Bob is a caring person, but it is possible that a person can be so busy saving the world that he or she forgets those nearest to him or her.

I agree, Elegran

Elegran I agree..if the mother concerned had been the daughter of a drug addicted prostitute from a financially and socially poor background..what would the discussion be like?

Exactly, Penstemmon, and to be clear where we draw the line, we need to take off the rose-coloured spectacles and really look at the ground where the line is to be. If our eyes are blurred with tears because of the poignancy of the situation, we will not see the issues clearly.

Note that I am not saying that the line should be drawn on the other side of inhuman and murderous intervention but that we cannot draw it with closed eyes. I interpreted Thatbags post in that light, and as a catalyst to get us thinking and talking. It succeeded in that!

Happy for the discussion Elegran just don't think it is necessary to wind people up just for the sake of it and I believe the comment was intentionally inflamatory and could prove upsetting for some.

When I first read about Peaches death, I felt incredibly sad for her and her family, my thoughts at the time were that possibly it was a SADS related death. I did think also that she may have had some sort of eating disorder.

Because Peaches had spoken about how she had turned her life around, seemingly her wild days behind her and had passionately and convincingly expressed the view that her little boys had been the making of her, I was so disappointed to hear that heroin was found in her system and is thought to be the probable cause of her death, it didn't cross my mind that she would be that irresponsible now because of the duty of care I thought she had to her babies. I knew she had dabbled in the past. If she was an addict she must have kept it well hidden. That Sunday evening she had a baby in her sole care

Peaches did of course suffer greatly from the death of her mother and the whole circus surrounding Paula Yates' life. However, in many ways she had a privileged life, an expensive education that she didn't put to any good use and for the last few years appeared to live a dilettante existence described variously as socialite, whatever that means, journalist and broadcaster. How many other kids without degrees, or even with them would be offered some of the commissions Peaches had in her short life. Famous parents of course do open doors. I believe on the back of the recent spat with Katie Hopkins, who mocked her for her "attachment parenting" style she was offered a column in a Mother and Baby type magazine. At the time, although I wouldn't personally have wished to subscribe to the attachment parenting she described, I thought Katie Hopkins was wrong to berate Peaches in her beliefs, we all find our own way and it's whatever works for the individual. Sadly now I think her impassioned speech could possibly have been a lot of hot air, as tragically we find out that precious little attachment parenting could have gone on with a mother in a spare room out of it and a baby who must have laid in his cot unattended for some hours. Maybe the magazine editor who had asked Peaches to write a regular column for the publication should think twice before commissioning a so called "celebrity" to write, given many of them are lightweights, not experts, and don't know anymore than the rest of us.

As far as the Genes are concerned, I blame Hughie Green!

Oops Annie whilst writing and re-writing my post yours came between. I would never mean making a decision as to who should or should not be born more a possible eradication of the defective gene if this ever became possible.

I think that the death of a young mother, whoever she is and for whatever reason, is always a sad situation. The fact that a death may be preventable because it was caused by mis-use of drugs adds another layer of sadness.

Addictive behaviour comes in many forms: alcohol, drugs, sex, food, gambling, cleaning etc. Most research I have ever read about has indicated that many people with 'addictive' genes do not develop major addictions but it is their environmental experiences that, when combined with the genetic propensity, can cause major addiction. Of course a developing foetus will be affected by drugs in the womb and that damages the development of the brain but presumably it could be possible for a baby to be born, addicted to drugs, but without the addictive gene?

I am undecided about how far genetic research should go. Are we looking for a future where we are all 'standard' humans? Where will we stop? What does it say about how we value those who are born with particular conditions/ disabilities? I agree that finding cures is important, I can see why nobody wants a child to be born with a disease but are we clear where we would draw the line?

It is a tough subject Debncreme. If everyone is too upset even to contemplate the fact that it is looming there, the elephant in the room, how can it be sensible discussed and decided against? Without open and informed discussion, we could wake up one morning to find that the decision has been made while we slept, and we have no say in the matter.

I agree the genetic influences are vital and should be a matter of priority in the scientific world. Addiction is not just limited to drugs and the numbers of deaths in this way must be vast.

I still find it difficult to see how your comments of 07.51:05 could be misunderstood thatbags and feel your 'windup' was unnecessary, even upsetting to some.

I have read that Tiger Lily is a confident seventeen year old and that Bob Geldof is a protective father. She has also formed a close bond with his partner (can't remember her name) I doubt she would have been as well brought up by her natural parents but there is a lot of fragility in the family and there will be constant reminders of past events in her life. She will need to be a very strong person to separate good and bad influences in her life and she is still very young.

rosequartz , I fear any talk of stopping the perpetuation of gene pools. Who decides?who should never be born ?

So what, annsixty? I often think gransnet needs stirring. Nothing wrong with provoking a bit of deep thought.

Re the tastefulness remark, OK, I accept I may not have expressed the thought I had very well. Here's a revision in an attempt to be tasteful about a sad subject:

It is a great shame that Peaches Geldof suffered and died in the way she did.
It is a great shame that Paula Yates suffered and died in the way she did.
I do hope that if there is a genetic element in their troubled lives, that it has not been passed on to Peaches' children. It might have been better to have found a cure for whatever causes such addiction and consequent misery first.

All hail the medical research that is attempting to do this for all kinds of inherited disorders.

Now I really am going. Got my boots on and all... S'later, dudes.

If (I repeat that if) there is a genetic element to drug addiction, then there needs to be research on how can be reversed somehow to help babies at risk. But I don't think there is any certainty about the role played by inheritance.

A decision on the part of the prospective parent to use contraception would be all that is required to "remove any genetic influence from the gene pool", no need for outside intervention and "eugenics", or forced abortion and sterilisation. No need to invoke fears of Brave New World. Nor to assume that Thatbags is a reincarnation of Josef Mengele.

I don't understand the concern that Tiger Lily may not be protected , would her natural parents have been more stable than the parent she now has

Some would call it stirring thatbags.

Enforced sterilization is not killing people thatbag,to think otherwise is most certainly rediculous

when where do you get the info from that her husband "allegedly" supplied the heroin? There are also reports that he was completely unaware of her drug use. I know the police are questioning everyone close to her, that would be routine.

bags I like the thought of us all being star dust. You have reminded me of the Crosby Stills Nash song "Woodstock", here are the lyrics (I think written by Joni Mitchell):

"Well, I came upon a child of God
He was walking along the road
And I asked him, Tell where are you going?
This he told me

Said, I'm going down to Yasgur's Farm,
Gonna join in a rock and roll band.
Got to get back to the land and set my soul free.

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden".