Peaches Geldof

I wasn't expecting any drug involvement at all as I really thought she had managed to get back on track.

Very sad to hear this news.

Ana I think cocaine is the 'party' drug of choice for celebrities; heroin the drug of choice for anyone who wants to stop feeling pain. Not that I've ever tried either nor have any wish to.

Heroin closely allied to morphine, and we know what that does if you have enough of it. I think cocaine far less likely to kill you as it is an upper not a downer.
Poor girl. Her mum was equally fragile and depression may be inherited.

Ah, I see. Thanks, nightowl.

I hope someone is going to look out for Tiger Lily. She must be the most vulnerable of all of them now.

So very sad, one wonders how many generations will be affected. Peaches was always very insistent that she wouldn't repeat her mother's mistakes so it's doubly tragic if she succumbed in the end. I agree with Merlot that Tiger Lily will need a lot of support, as of course will the widower with those two babies.

I can't shake off a feeling that she perhaps deliberately went where her mother had gone, perhaps in a moment of unbearable pain. All speculation of course. It just seems incredible to me that she would take heroin while caring for her baby and leave him at such risk. I don't doubt that she loved her children and wanted to be a good mother. Hard to know what is in an addict's head.

I have to say I agree with that, mainly due to the last photos that were on her facebook page.

She really did not get off to a good start did she. I found the media description of her as a "socialite" rather worrying, to me that term sounds as if the person concerned has made some very shallow lifestyle choices.

It's not exactly a job you could feel proud of.

Going one step further than the discussion has ever gone before and I am not I assure you making a nasty implication here, can a baby in the womb ever be free of the toxins it's mother gives it?

The reason why I ask?

I have seen women getting their 'fix' of presumably methodone from a chemist, pushing their babies in a pushchair and to be honest I find it quite possibly one of the saddest, liberal thinking disgraces I ever have witnessed. I think liberal freedom is OK but not at the expense of a child's future.

I am not particularly saying the poor girls demise was the product of her mothers lifestyle but I am genuinely asking could it have attributed to the act of destruction she suffered.

I don't know the answer but it is a point in question that society should be debating. We seem to be prioritising the mothers choice of lifestyle over that of the unborn child. I may be totally wrong in asking this question on this thread but I am genuinely concerned about the unborn infants future welfare, not that of the mother who has somehow been given permission from society to behave as she pleases and to hell with the consequences of the unborn child.

I am not a cold hearted person I acknowledge Paula Yates, her mother, suffered from possibly inherited problems of one sort or another. I am truly saddened that two vibrant, beautiful women have apparently lost their life through the curse of addiction to drugs and another demon hopefully most of us will never have to deal with.

I know a young american woman (my friend adopted her when she was a toddler). As a baby she was abused and neglected. Added to that she has a very limited IQ and has suffered from a period of mental illness. I think the very low IQ at least is a result of the drugs she was exposed to in the womb.

It's a great pity she had already given birth to offspring. Otherwise she'd have qualified for a Darwin Award – for removing her damaged genes from the gene pool.

I know that sounds terrible but the thought is there. I can't help thinking that such a tortured soul is better dead. I feel sorriest for her husband.

I am inclined to agree with your 2nd para bags.

Perhaps by that reasoning a few of us on here would have been better removing our genes from the gene pool as well thatbags. What a horrible, cruel thing to say. But thanks for the thought.

Quite likely, nightowl. I thought someone (several someones) would think the thought cruel, but it followed from the comments by others about Peaches' own mother suffering similarly. I would not wish the suffering they experienced on anyone, so if there is a genetic element it seems better, to me, that those genes are not passed on.

This is me thinking purely biologically about the health of the species. If some people think such thinking is cruel, so be it, but I know I'm not a cruel person.

I have also been feeling sorry for that 23 year old widower and young father. And for his parents.

I'm interested to see you using the term "soul" Bags.

The compulsion for an addict to use will always trump other considerations, no matter how much she loved her children. Very sad, some young people think they are invincible and can dabble. And then they discover they've crossed a line.

I'm not sure whether there is a genetic element thatbags, after knowing many drug users over many years. I believe Paula Yates was not a long term habitual drug user, and that the coroner at her inquest commented to the effect that as someone without a long term history (ie before she met Michael Hutchence) she had no tolerance to heroin, and hence it killed her. Either way, for those of us closely connected to drug users (not just in a working capacity) it feels very harsh to suggest they might be better off dead. At 25? Is there never to be a hope of change?

Having watched, over the course of thirty years, a succession of babies withdrawing from the effects of heroin after birth, and then observed them as they developed and thrived in the care of foster parents before either being adopted or returning to family, I don't go along with the notion of certain people not having their genes replicated in future generations.

Much is being made of Peaches' heroin use (allegedly supplied by her 'widower' husband), which appears to have not been so devastating as to prevent her fulfilling her responsibilities for work, TV appearances, looking after her children, but occasional use of late, which would affect her tolerance. It wasn't evident that drug use caused her death till toxicology results, so probably not injecting but smoking. And probably not the single cause of her death, from what I have read so far. It sounds like she may have used it the night before and got up in the morning feeling ill, as people did try to contact her before the alarm was raised by lunchtime.

As for genes, I imagine that her children carrying the genes of a grandfather who did something momentous for the world would be something we wouldn't want to die out.

Also, I think there are many things that are important to the health of the species. My view is that compassion is perhaps the most important quality of all, and we should nurture it in ourselves and others. I would never believe a 25 year old would be better off dead. People grow up and change, thankfully but Peaches will never have the chance.

I feel very sorry for her family, but will we still feel sorry for her widower if it's discovered that he knew more about her drug taking than we yet know? Or was involved himself? We don't actually know anything yet.

I suppose it depends why someone becomes and addict, nightowl. And then, once they are in the grip of addiction, I'm presuming (being ignorant of such things) that it dominates their life. I see recreational drug addiction as an affliction, just like any other sickness of mind or body. What I'm thinking is that doing without the drug makes life unbearable then, yes, I do think being dead is preferable because that means the agony is over. To me that's just a straightforward thought, exactly the same as putting a suffering pet dog out of its misery, which, though sad, is done all the time out of sympathy, not cruelty.

Which does not mean that I don't think drug addicts should be helped to overcome their addiction and to enjoy life again.

gknot, I use 'soul' in the same way I'd use 'body'.'Soul' has the advantage of including the ethereal part of a person, their personality, whereas I feel the word 'body' is much more detached. I do not believe in eternal souls except insofar as I think we are all star dust anyway.

Interesting when. I hadn't read anything about her husband being her alleged supplier, but was merely speculating.

I'm not sure sir bob is quite the saint he's made out to be (and Paula Yates hinted that he was very difficult to live with) but I'm sure he has some pretty decent genes.

Yes, I'll feel sorry for her husband even if he is/was also a drug user or knew about her habit (if it was a habit). He's still the one left grieving and I feel sorry for anyone who is grieving because grief is hard. Harder than being dead.

Removing damaged genes is certainly a final solution

Re a genetic element, I have seen stuff about addiction being part of a personality in that there is thought to be something called an "addictive personality". This presumably means that some people are supposed to be more likely to develop addictions than others. I don't know more about this, but it just sounds as if genes might play a part.

Yes, anniebach, but no-one is talking about "removing" damaged genes, only about suggesting it might be better if they were not perpetuated. Please note the word might.

I'm discussing a thought not a plan of action.