PROTECTING FETUSES, JAILING MOTHERS

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert (column, June 11) raises critical issues about state
intervention in preventing fetal damage caused by drug abuse. It is
paradoxical that South Carolina, a major tobacco-producing state, has
chosen to prosecute women for child abuse in these situations.

In this month's issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics, we present the comparative effects of fetal exposure to
nicotine versus cocaine.

In animal studies, nicotine administered to produce blood
concentrations comparable to those found in smokers elicited far worse
fetal brain damage than did cocaine administered in doses simulating
levels found in crack users.

South Carolina's stance flies in the face of scientific evidence about
the relative fetal risk of cocaine versus tobacco.

THEODORE SLOTKIN Durham, N.C., June 11, 1998
The writer is a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke
University.

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert's June 11 column explains the South Carolina court's
decision to incarcerate women who use drugs while pregnant in terms of
a judicial wish to deter this behavior. But courts should realize that
women addicted to alcohol or other drugs will not say, "Gee, I'd
better not use drugs for nine months because I'll be sent to jail!"
This type of thinking doesn't happen to addicts of either sex.

If the courts choose to regard a viable fetus as a "child," then their
criterion for judgment should be what would be best for the child.
Treatment works and is far cheaper than prison.

NANCY BRACH Montclair, N.J. June 12, 1998
The writer is secretary of Choices, a halfway house in Newark.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)