Drug addicts "paid" to be sterilised?

[PeanutBean]

Oh and no I don't think compulsary hormonal or invasive treatment is appropriate either. We've no right.

 

[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 She had to be pulled from preschool because they have never dealt with someone who is so withdrawn and cannot connect socially to anyone.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.

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.

Yup, 13 kids and she is pregnant again. I doubt she would volunteer anyways, she believes that maybe the system will finally let her keep one of them so she keeps having more. That's her solution rather than try and get the others back. Not that she or almost anyone could handle 13 kids.

 

[BlackBerry25]

I don't think it is right to force someone, but to maybe offer this incentive...I don't find it wrong for some reason.

People can make up their own minds, and if they want to go for it, so be it.

 

[coccyx]

Think its a great idea. babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome or drug addicts have an awful time

 

[nicholatmn]

I think it's okay if they're not forcing them to...

 

[redpoppy]

Oh and no I don't think compulsary hormonal or invasive treatment is appropriate either. We've no right.

Not compulsory, but "encouraged"

As for the right, of course we don't have the right to enforce any such thing on a human but then we DO have the right to TAKE away children from parents who are incapable of looking after them and we also expose those children to lives of emotional turmoil.

So because eugenics has a horrible nazi like association we instinctively say NO! but to allow drug addicts to reproduce and then take away their children and most times give them lives in foster care where they do not have stable families or structure and many times suffer abuse or great instability which causes long term mental or emotional damage, that we find acceptable.

 

[LandN]

I was unsure of this at first and thought like many people do and think thats a bit crewl to bribe an addict, but then i saw footage of a new born baby that was shaking really badly in its crib all because the baby is addicted to what ever the mother was on, and their is lots of children born with disabilities due to drug addicts having children, at the end of the day their is help and support out there for drug addicts and some of the time their is no helping them, doesnt matter how much you do they wont give up in some cases, if they didnt get paid to get sterilised then theyd find the money else where like stealing, prostitution, and then they have a child aswell as that.

Its horrible seeing the effects of the emotional and physical damage drugs has on a unborn child

Yes some drug addicts change for the better but why should we risk more babies being born cruely just because the drug addicts "might" change.

At the end of the day its a choice just how drugs was a choice, if they want to get paid to have no more children then thats their choice, id rather stop more children suffering than not give a drug addict a choice of having money to be sterlised. But i do see both side of the argument

 

[fantastica]

It's a tough one...by paying a drug addict, it's not really informed consent at all...all they see is the opportunity to get more money for drugs, not what this is really about. Would it not be better just offered free? Or long term contraception encouraged at needle-exchange etc?

On the other hand...although everyone has the right to have children, it just doesn't seem right that some of these addicts continue having children who will then be seriously affected (physically and emotionally).

I know a social worker who works in fostering...a drug addict had a baby at 27ish weeks pregnant, the baby was also addicted to heroin, micraculously he made it and is now out of hosp...she is now pregnant again. Where is the justice in that?

It's all about choices, no-one should be forced to do anything...but these children are being forced into a life of poor health and distress. The addicts also need help, imo funding more outreach programs and rehab centres along with long term contraceptive options for those who do not wish to get clean would be a more 'ethical' approach.

It's such a tough debate tbh.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I posted about this after seeing the woman on this morning a few months back.

Firstly sterilisation is only offered if the woman has a history of multiple pregnancies, be that ones that ended in live/still births or miscarriage. I think thats important.

Our rehabilitation centres/clinics aren't doing enough. Its not their fault - you cannot help people who do not want it. So what do we do in the meantime? Allow these woman to go around creating children that will either die in the womb or shortly after due to being born with addictions themselves, or be born and taken into care.

Im sorry but someone needs to put a stop to this. Immediate, preventative action needs taken. The woman who set up this project has adopted and fostered children who were born with aclohol/drug addictions. Have you ever seen a child born with either of those? its horrific.

So what they spend the £200 on drugs, they would have found that money some other way anyway - hence why they are addicts. At least this way it stops them sleeping around in order to pay from drugs and falling pregnant in the process. It may sound heartless - but our moral obligation should be to these unborn children - not the addict who continuously and irresponsibly chooses to procreate regardless.

A child is not a right, its a privilage and I think in our society today its a good idea.

 

[Justagirlxx]

Having the ability to have children IS a right. If it wasn't..who is to say who is "allowed" to have children and who is not? Should we sterilise all the poor because they cannot provide for their children? Should we sterilise anyone with a mental disorder because they have "bad genetics"? Where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw it? The rich, elite, those in power? Do you really want those people deciding who gets to have children and who does not?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Having the ability to have children IS a right. If it wasn't..who is to say who is "allowed" to have children and who is not? Should we sterilise all the poor because they cannot provide for their children? Should we sterilise anyone with a mental disorder because they have "bad genetics"? Where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw it? The rich, elite, those in power? Do you really want those people deciding who gets to have children and who does not?

The ability to have a child may be a given but a child itself is by no means a right. It is absolutely a privilage. What you're implying suggests we should leave people to get on with it, is that what we should do? There has to be a line drawn, hence why social services are there. Bad genetics and poverty are something that cannot be helped. These people can be. Like I said, for me, the moral obligation will always lie with the unborn child. Thats where it ends for me. These woman are not being forced. They must consent to sterilisation. There have been many success stories with this. The addicts involved were also referred to rehabilitation services they are not merely given money then tossed aside.

What would you rather... a child be born to an addict and taken into care? Or be born having to overcome the withdrawal of an addiction it has fallen victim to before even taking its first breath? - something needs to be done to prevent these scenarios. Rehabilitation is not an immediate solution - it is a long term one. And like I said this is only offered to people who repeatedly fall pregnant while under the influence of an addiction - you simply cannot allow that continue. Its horrific for the children lost along the way or taken into care.

I feel very strongly about this. I do not mean to cause offence so if my posts seem blunt its not in anyway aimed at anyone on here and is most likely unintentional in my rush to get out what im trying to say

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

OMG! I can't begin with how much I disagree! This is pure and simple eugenics. £200 would be better donated to a real addiction charity to support users to come off. I am horrified this could be taking place in the UK.

There's a programme, I think in Hong Kong though it was yonks ago I heard about it now so I might remember wrong, but thus programme is about paying the lower echelons of society not to have children and encouraging those with degrees to have them. Sorry I forget all the details. The principal is the same, people are left out by society and the reward is that they are sterilised. It's only a short step away Hunt though who thinks only the rich should have children...

I completely agree. This is pure eugenics and it's scary..

I also disagree that it has anything to do with eugenics - its not about refining the gene pool of our population, that'd be barbaric. If it were anything to do with eugenics surely every addict would be offered or encourged? Thats not the case.. it is only 'serial offenders' if you like.

Its about saving lives. There was one woman this project helped who had 5 still births and 3 other children taken into care - how can people think that this woman was only offered sterilisation to cleanse future generations? It is to save any future children this woman creates whilst addicted. There is nothing sinister about it. (i use sinister loosley as in an ideal world money would not be used as an incentive - if anything that is the only thing i do not fully approve of as it does not sit right with me - that said I see no other solution or suggestion that would be as effective)

 

[PeanutBean]

These people are in this position because society has failed them. The investment should be made in education, family support, health etc to prevent the occurrence in the first place. The right to have children is untouchable.

 

[redpoppy]

Having the ability to have children IS a right. If it wasn't..who is to say who is "allowed" to have children and who is not? Should we sterilise all the poor because they cannot provide for their children? Should we sterilise anyone with a mental disorder because they have "bad genetics"? Where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw it? The rich, elite, those in power? Do you really want those people deciding who gets to have children and who does not?

But we're not saying it about those other people because generally being poor or having mental health problems is not an active choice. Taking drugs and not getting help is despite any extenuating circumstances. Plus it's the reality that these children will be taken away. So you're allowed to HAVE children but not allowed to keep them? We make the decision to take the children away and yet even suggesting an implant to prevent the birth of these children is highly immoral and beyond discussion?

These people are in this position because society has failed them. The investment should be made in education, family support, health etc to prevent the occurrence in the first place. The right to have children is untouchable.

I'm sorry but CHILDREN who are addicted to drugs may have been failed by society but to be a grown adult at some point you have to stop pointing the finger at society. It's not like adults who are looking for jobs and can't find them. It's not like many other things which society provides and ESPECIALLY when we live in a country which has such a good social welfare system we can't realistically start to say that there are places in society where taking dangerous and addictive drugs is the only viable option. Personal responsibility has to come into it.

I DO agree that better support needs to be provided for all addicts but many drug addicts who do not have family support and structure to go back to, or SOMETHING to go back to, they don't see a reason to stop using.

I can't believe I'm defending this idea as I am morally against the sterilisation of anyone but I suppose the outrage in your posts is what surprises me. As though the rights of the drugs addicts to reproduce are the only issues on the table. There are the rights of the drugs addicts to keep their children and the rights of the children at hand too. There's more than just one issue at play. Being brought up by a drug addict, going through drug addiction as a baby and not being the central priority in your parents life is not the same as growing up poor.

 

[Pixxie]

After watching 2 of my friends have all their siblings taken into care because their mums are heroin addicts, I can honestly say I think this is a good idea.

If you have a baby, turn your life around, get clean etc then you deserve to be given a chance. But when a woman will have 5 kids she doesn't want and can't look after because she is too high to care about contraception, she shouldn't be allowed to have any more IMO xx

 

[kirmal12]

These people are in this position because society has failed them. The investment should be made in education, family support, health etc to prevent the occurrence in the first place. The right to have children is untouchable.

Sometimes society doesn't fail them they fail themselves. They can be given all the help in the world and still not want to change.

 

[midori1999]

These people are in this position because society has failed them. The investment should be made in education, family support, health etc to prevent the occurrence in the first place. The right to have children is untouchable.

I don't think that is always/often the case, although sometimes it is. At some point, these adults have to make choices, and sadly, for whatever reasons, it is usually the wrong one.

Having worked with children in foster care, it is not a situation I would want for any child. These children are far less likely than the rest of society's children to succeed in any way and some of them are destined to be the drug addicts of the future. So, I do think that something needs to be done to prevent addicts having children. Not permenantly, but whilst they are still addicted. Of course, they have rights, despite being addicts, but IMO, the rights of the children they have/will/could have are more important. Children have a right to grow up in a happy and stable home, to have a future they can look forward to and a childhood free of abuse.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

These people are in this position because society has failed them. The investment should be made in education, family support, health etc to prevent the occurrence in the first place. The right to have children is untouchable.

Yes that should be done, as it may prevent this for future generations - but in the meantime what do we do? Allow these recurrent preventable stillbirths? Allow more and more children to be born into care when our care system is bursting at the seems and social services are already under great pressure? And allow all this just because these people have the right to have children? Im sorry i do not agree at all with this.

Society is failing these unborn children if they choose to allow this to continue.

Can I ask then what you feel is best to do with addicts who have already had mutliple pregnancies? People who disagree with Project Prevention, what other immediate option is 'acceptable' to stop this happening?

 

[Phinners]

I'm of the opinion that with the right help a lot of drug users can get clean and indeed go on to live perfectly normal lives. Also whilst someone is a drug addicvt how can they be expected to to think clearly and give informed consent about the sterilisation? All they can see is £$£ and a fix - rather than the implications of what they're being goaded into doing.

 

[BlackBerry25]

And what about those people that do not want help?

Addicts are not all stupid people, I am sure most would understand what they are doing.