Peaches Geldof

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!

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.

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!

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?

I agree, Elegran

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Grannyknot I read several online papers and saw that the husband was being questioned about supplying her with heroin, along with questions about all evidence of heroin use being removed from the house before police arrived.

The reports I read only said that the husband 'may be' questioned by the police about the matter. We'll have to wait and see the outcome of the investigation.

I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about 'addictive personality'. Scientific research is a very long way off identifying the role of genetics in personality, and even if such a thing exists, I would assume there are so many if us affected that it becomes a meaningless concept. Are we to believe that every smoker is afflicted with defective genes that cause their addiction? Similarly everyone who thinks 'I must have that glass of wine to unwind after a hard day? Or everyone who can't eat one chocolate biscuit without finishing the packet, despite the fact that they are bordering on type 2 diabetes? Or is it only applicable when illegal substances are involved? Rather am arbitrary distinction IMO. Where do we draw the line?

I think that there's something in the concept of a substance [food or drug or even gambling] being bad for you that makes it addictive. Maybe the human race only evolved because, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom we actually want to do things that we know are dangerous/bad for us. Other animals just concentrate of eating/breeding/staying alive [which is far more sensible and, perhaps the world would be a better place if we were like that also].

roseq, who decides what?

That research into human genetics should continue?

That there may be a link between drug addiction and genes? – it'll be science that decides shows whether that is the case and whether anything can be done about it.
It will be people who decide whether anything should be done about it should that scientific scenario ever arise just as it was people who decided it was a good idea to try and eradicate polio when people doing science had worked out a way to do it, just as it is people who are deciding whether IVF is a good idea and whether treatment for infertility should be available on the NHS.

And so on.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Was it who decides whether a discussion is allowed to be wound up on gransnet?

It would all end with a race of Stepford people.

Well done bags you certainly wound me up wound up the discussion. Mission accomplished.

I would think those examples could be indicative of an addictive personality nightowl. And possibly genetic.

To the question about whether it is known for certain if addiction is inherited: I believe the answer is no, it is not known. I believe the idea is being investigated.

"It would all end with a race of Stepford people."

Another ridiculous comment. It almost looks like a deliberate misconstruction of what I have said.

look at this

I agree jingl. Which is why I think the idea is meaningless. I'm sure it's in all of us.