Drug addicts "paid" to be sterilised?

[Justagirlxx]

I think its a good idea.

When my friend had her baby in 1999, in the bed across from her was a baby that was screaming like i had never heard before, when i asked my friend what was wrong wth this womans baby, she said the Mum was a heroin addict and the baby had been born addicted to it.

It was awful this baby was in physical pain and the staff were struggling as the Mum had buggered off for a fix.

Addicts more often than not dont even care about their kids, they care more about getting a fix than feeding, dressing etc for their kids, so i do think it is a good idea.

The obvious cash incentive might work but this scheme started this year in May only 1 person had had it done so clearly its not caught on.

V xx

Now heres a good question..do you really think it would be better for that baby to have never been born? Or for him to be born and suffer for 2 weeks of his life, and then go on to be adopted (CPS removes babies born to drug addicted mothers who don't get clean) and live a happy, healthy life?

These are human beings who have an addiction. They arent devoid of emotion. It may be hard for some to understand but when I was in the NICU the nurse told me she has seen many many drug addicted mothers bawl their eyes out when their babies are forcibily taken away by CPS. They do feel love and pain and remorse and regret and loss, just like we do. They need help, they dont need to be sterilized.

 

[kirmal12]

The article said she had done it to 3500 addicts in the states.

Was it choice, like they are offering here?. Surely there must be some kind of law out there to stop this happening so easily though. I'm sure any British doctor private or not would ask millions of questions first though. The daughter from the debate i quoted on earlier asked to be sterilized after the first, she was told they would only sterilize if she has over 5 children or is over 35. She has had 4, one more then she will be asking to be sterilized so it certainly isn't easy

 

[PeanutBean]

Maybe it can done privately? I was thinking about that last night. Bad as I think it is it would be improved by no payment and perhaps counselling about options. The guy who has done it was quoted as saying he felt he should never be a dad but he didn't go to be sterilised til offered money did he? Plus it's sexist because many men could get it reversed but not women.

Edit: Sorry I didn't quite answer your question! I got the impression it was done the same way in the states but really PP's link is my only source of info about it. Personally I rate private healthcare here very low and wouldn't be at all surprised if he could be obtained privately.

 

[kirmal12]

I think its a good idea.

When my friend had her baby in 1999, in the bed across from her was a baby that was screaming like i had never heard before, when i asked my friend what was wrong wth this womans baby, she said the Mum was a heroin addict and the baby had been born addicted to it.

It was awful this baby was in physical pain and the staff were struggling as the Mum had buggered off for a fix.

Addicts more often than not dont even care about their kids, they care more about getting a fix than feeding, dressing etc for their kids, so i do think it is a good idea.

The obvious cash incentive might work but this scheme started this year in May only 1 person had had it done so clearly its not caught on.

V xx

Now heres a good question..do you really think it would be better for that baby to have never been born? Or for him to be born and suffer for 2 weeks of his life, and then go on to be adopted (CPS removes babies born to drug addicted mothers who don't get clean) and live a happy, healthy life?

These are human beings who have an addiction. They arent devoid of emotion. It may be hard for some to understand but when I was in the NICU the nurse told me she has seen many many drug addicted mothers bawl their eyes out when their babies are forcibily taken away by CPS. They do feel love and pain and remorse and regret and loss, just like we do. They need help, they dont need to be sterilized.

You make it sound so easy for the child though. I think it must be very different in America than here, they are generally passed from pillar to post, foster carer to foster carer back to mum again etc etc the cycle can carry on until they are 16/18, so the child ends up in the same rut. But i do agree, mass sterilization is just not the answer and it never will be.

 

[v2007]

I think its a good idea.

When my friend had her baby in 1999, in the bed across from her was a baby that was screaming like i had never heard before, when i asked my friend what was wrong wth this womans baby, she said the Mum was a heroin addict and the baby had been born addicted to it.

It was awful this baby was in physical pain and the staff were struggling as the Mum had buggered off for a fix.

Addicts more often than not dont even care about their kids, they care more about getting a fix than feeding, dressing etc for their kids, so i do think it is a good idea.

The obvious cash incentive might work but this scheme started this year in May only 1 person had had it done so clearly its not caught on.

V xx

Now heres a good question..do you really think it would be better for that baby to have never been born? Or for him to be born and suffer for 2 weeks of his life, and then go on to be adopted (CPS removes babies born to drug addicted mothers who don't get clean) and live a happy, healthy life?

These are human beings who have an addiction. They arent devoid of emotion. It may be hard for some to understand but when I was in the NICU the nurse told me she has seen many many drug addicted mothers bawl their eyes out when their babies are forcibily taken away by CPS. They do feel love and pain and remorse and regret and loss, just like we do. They need help, they dont need to be sterilized.

If addicts get pregnant, they choose to carry on taking drugs, help is there for them to try and get clean, even if it is just for the pregnancy.

No i dont think it would have been better for the baby to have never been born but if the Mother has/did continue to take drugs and have unprotected sex with the potential to have more babies i do think she should be sterilised.

The Mother who i was talking about left her newborn baby withdrawing from Heroin while she went out to score, the baby is not her priority, Heroin is.

I cant imagine what its like to have your child removed form your care but when you are on drugs and incapable of looking after them them its always on the cards.

V xxxx

 

[redpoppy]

I am against this totally on a higher moral level but I do TOTALLY see the benefits. haha. It's a case of my instinct giving in to my brain.

What would people think about paying drug addicts to take hormone injections (the monthly pill thing) for money? Would that be more acceptable as it's not long term?

I know the argument that the money will go on drugs but I think a drug addict will get drugs any which way necessary. It's not like an addict will say "ho hum, no money this week, I'll just chill and wait till next payday"

 

[BlackBerry25]

I think here in Canada, money should be offered to people who have multiple children in foster care due to the parent having drug addictions. I cannot give out details about certain cases but here is an example:

A couple has 13 children in foster care. She has a new baby every year. So this has been going on awhile. Both parents have been offered supports and rehab, they go, get sober, and come back to the same old lifestyle. Most, if not all, have FASD. All of these kids lives are practically ruined. They are split up from each other, have learning disabilities and a very high percentage of children in foster care end up in prison.

I say it should be offered. I don't think its fair for the community or for the children to keep being born like this. Everything is an individual case, and if the person agrees, yes I agree.

 

[BlackBerry25]

I also have an adopted sister who's birth mom was a crack head, and therefore she was born addicted. She had seizures as a newborn for month, and has terrible nightmares where she screams. She is now 4. She had to be pulled from preschool because they have never dealt with someone who is so withdrawn and cannot connect socially to anyone.

Yes I would like this woman to stop reproducing.

 

[Hollys_Twinny]

I think theres little excuse for someone addicted to drugs to get pregnant anyway- its careless and selfish. Contraception is free in the UK so why not take it? Have the injection that covers you for months or the coil which covers you for 10 years. Maybe being offered money to encourage them to take contraception is the best way forward. But I still stick to my guns that the articles way is GOOD for people who give birth to very sick babies more than once. So what if they spend the cash on drugs £200 is a tiny price to pay compared to the care X amount of children will need in medical treatment once born addicted to heroin from one person. I understand people manage to eventually get clean and start a new life thats the only thing that holds me back a little on this topic.

 

[marley2580]

Could someone explain to me why they're paying women to be sterilised when they could pay them to have the implant that lasts for 3 years?

 

[November1984]

Can all of the addicts that opt in really be considered to have sound mind?
What if they go back years later while not being under the influence and/or addicted to drugs stating they were bribed and not competent while signing to be sterilized? The fact they are being offered money which will likely be used to buy drugs is ridiculous as well.
I mean look at the ad below...
Hey drug addicts, get $300 just dial 1-888-crack.

Wow.

 

[redpoppy]

Can all of the addicts that opt in really be considered to have sound mind?
What if they go back years later while not being under the influence and/or addicted to drugs stating they were bribed and not competent while signing to be sterilized? The fact they are being offered money which will likely be used to buy drugs is ridiculous as well.
I mean look at the ad below...
Hey drug addicts, get $300 just dial 1-888-crack.

Wow.

Please tell me that ad is a joke? 1-888-crack? I can't bring my mind to accept that's not a joke?

 

[redpoppy]

I also have an adopted sister who's birth mom was a crack head, and therefore she was born addicted. She had seizures as a newborn for month, and has terrible nightmares where she screams. She is now 4. She had to be pulled from preschool because they have never dealt with someone who is so withdrawn and cannot connect socially to anyone.

Yes I would like this woman to stop reproducing.

After your two examples BB I again am drawn to the idea of it being all well and good. i suppose there is a difference though between someone who's not had any kids and someone who has had 13!!!!

But I again have to wonder why:

Could someone explain to me why they're paying women to be sterilised when they could pay them to have the implant that lasts for 3 years?

Sterilising means thats it FOR LIFE and in essence we're saying we have no hope for these people. I have a good friend (a psychiatric nurse) who works with prisoners addicted to drugs and she says it's the minority by far who come off and stay off drugs (admittedly she deals with younger guys) but the reality is some do and I know one of them, a lovely LOVELY guy. He really wants to fall in love etc. and he used to be a heroine addict and tells me of the horrible time he was injecting crack and heroine (I think it's called snowballing) into his groin because he didn't have any "good" veins left in his body. But he's not touched the stuff for YEARS and I doubt her ever will again. It's not nice to think that we give up on people and assume they'll never get better and that's exactly the message sterilising is sending out.

Although could we trust women addicts to come back after three years to renew their implant?

It's so complicated.

Although having said that, the woman with 13 kids. I'd personally volunteer to do whatever needs injecting or cutting or tying up to make sure she never reproduces again. I don't think there's a moral conundrum on that one for me.

 

[honey08]

wot bout a lady up my road , 5 kids one after the other, dnt know who the dads are, scruffy , un kept ,shudnt she be done? shes not on drugs ?

 

[wubba]

I think it is like something out of Nazi Germany and quite barbaric. People can and do change, and this procedure is taking vulnerable people and removing future options from them at a time when they may not be in a position to give informed consent.

 

[blahblahblah]

I think it would be reasonable to make long-term temporary contraception (eg injection or implant) compulsory for women with certain problems, like alcoholics and drug addicts - problems that can seriously affect the health of a baby.

For this scheme, as long as permanent sterilisation remains optional, and people have a clear choice, then I think it's a good idea.

Once you know all the horrible details of what a baby born in those circumstances goes through, I find it incomprehensible that anyone wouldn't want to stop it from happening.

 

[PeanutBean]

The Guardian implies it's for alcoholics too:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/18/vasectomy-bribe-addict-project-prevention

Got to admit it's making me pretty angry how many of the posts on here and in the news talk only of women. Once again men bear no responsibility for procreation.

Unfortunately I've nowhere to go with my debate, I think it's a gross infringement of human rights and no matter what the terrible outcomes of addicted babies no-one has the right to intervene in this way.

 

[redpoppy]

The Guardian implies it's for alcoholics too:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/18/vasectomy-bribe-addict-project-prevention

Got to admit it's making me pretty angry how many of the posts on here and in the news talk only of women. Once again men bear no responsibility for procreation.

Unfortunately I've nowhere to go with my debate, I think it's a gross infringement of human rights and no matter what the terrible outcomes of addicted babies no-one has the right to intervene in this way.

I think it's talk of women because of the hormonal implants etc. If men had the pill that would be an option too. Also, ultimately whether it's right or wrong women are the ones carrying and giving birth to the babies. A man should but doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

And the debate is surely progressing in the direction of temporary options instead of permanent?

 

[blahblahblah]

The Guardian implies it's for alcoholics too:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/18/vasectomy-bribe-addict-project-prevention

Got to admit it's making me pretty angry how many of the posts on here and in the news talk only of women. Once again men bear no responsibility for procreation.

Unfortunately I've nowhere to go with my debate, I think it's a gross infringement of human rights and no matter what the terrible outcomes of addicted babies no-one has the right to intervene in this way.

I can see your point, HOWEVER, it is an unfortunate fact of life that after doing the deed, a mans addiction is irrelevant to the health of the unborn child.

There are a number of other situations that are arguably grounds to make a man incapable of having children (or even having sex) that would not apply to a woman.

 

[PeanutBean]

Except that the only addict to have done it here so far is a man! And this argument holds the assumption that an addict mother is necessarily single. An addict father might not have any contribution to a difficult upbringing for a child might he not?

No I'm sorry nothing will turn my mind in favour of eugenics. There is already free contraception available to people in the UK. I've no doubt that amongst other support work addicts are encouraged to take advantage of it.