Drug addicts "paid" to be sterilised?

[Dopeyjopey]

this is horrible. Promise an addict money and they'll do what you want. If they were to get clean they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

I know an ex heroin addict - should he not be allowed children now?

This seems a bit hitler-esque to be honest. I suppose it hits a nerve for me though so maybe i should stay away from this

 

[TattiesMum]

Having a child is a fundamental human right regardless. People in difficult situations should be supported out of them not cast out of the society that has failed them.

It is so difficult though

A close friend of mine is a foster carer who specialises in Mother and Baby placements .... last year one of her cases was a heroin addict in her late 20's who had fallen pregnant to another heroin addict and had carried on taking the drug throughout her pregnancy.

Her little boy was born at 28 weeks - tiny, sick and totally addicted to heroin. When he came home (at about 1 month adjusted) he was still teeny, bright yellow, still dependent on nasal tube feeding and just a really unhappy little soul Both his mother and father were on a methadone programme, but they still used to do the most chaotic things and were unable to concentrate on anyone apart from themselves - if he hadn't been in foster care then he would have been seriously at risk any number of times from their general thoughtlessnes (nothing malicious - just an inability to focus ).

They were eventually sent back to their home city to live independantly but under close supervision, but within a few months the Father was testing positive for heroin again It's only a matter of time before their poor little boy ends up in the care system

It's all very well discussing the human right to bear children in an abstract sense - and I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone permanently deprived of that opportunity ... BUT, when you see the consequences of addicts bearing children with your own eyes it is heartbreaking

Surely a compromise would be better.... perhaps paying female addicts a small monthly/three monthly retainer in exchange for them having a coil/implant fitted (that is checked monthly to make sure it is still in place), or to have a quarterly injection. That way their lifetime fertility is not being removed from them by others, but innocent children are not being conceived into a living hell.

 

[TattiesMum]

[(CPS removes babies born to drug addicted mothers who don't get clean) and live a happy, healthy life?

Not here in the UK they dont .... at least, not automatically - the parents have to do more wrong than just be an addict to have their babies removed

Another of my friends used to be a Social Worker in Manchester... one of her cases was a young addict couple (on Methadone) with a baby. They were supervised and visited often .....and the visiting Social Workers placed request after request for the little girl to be removed, only to be 'pooh, poohed' by the care panel.

Sadly the little one died from a Methadone overdose when she was about 2 and a half .... her parents were stoned and had left the bottle undone and accessable.

My friend was so haunted by the whole thing that she had a breakdown and resigned - but nothing changed, then or now

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

this is horrible. Promise an addict money and they'll do what you want. If they were to get clean they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

I know an ex heroin addict - should he not be allowed children now?

This seems a bit hitler-esque to be honest. I suppose it hits a nerve for me though so maybe i should stay away from this

the project regarding sterilisation is aimed at only those who have had multiple pregnancies - people seem to missing this.

 

[Dopeyjopey]

this is horrible. Promise an addict money and they'll do what you want. If they were to get clean they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

I know an ex heroin addict - should he not be allowed children now?

This seems a bit hitler-esque to be honest. I suppose it hits a nerve for me though so maybe i should stay away from this

the project regarding sterilisation is aimed at only those who have had multiple pregnancies - people seem to missing this.

I understand that. But A is one of three by his dad (that I know of), and many people would call him an addict

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

this is horrible. Promise an addict money and they'll do what you want. If they were to get clean they would have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

I know an ex heroin addict - should he not be allowed children now?

This seems a bit hitler-esque to be honest. I suppose it hits a nerve for me though so maybe i should stay away from this

the project regarding sterilisation is aimed at only those who have had multiple pregnancies - people seem to missing this.

I understand that. But A is one of three by his dad (that I know of), and many people would call him an addict

from what i gather sterilisation is offered to female addicts - i could be wrong though. i think is largely because the rates of still birth/miscarriage and children being born with addictions is down to the mother using while pregnant and not a direct result of merely the said addict creating the child iykwim?

 

[PeanutBean]

Blue - the articles all state that only one person has taken part so far and it was a man therefore it can't be only offered to women. Also I haven't seen anywhere that he has any children therefore it also can't only be parents of multiple birth. Maybe we are talking of different programmes or maybe it was carried out differently in the states? IDK

Tattiesmum - see it's hard and yet it's not. It's not that I don't appreciate how awful it is for the babies,the pain, the suffereing, death, I'm not heartless by any means, it's a tragedy. But babies are born is a whole range of horrible circumstances for a vast variety of reasons across the world. As someone else posted where would be draw the line? I've seen on here so many threads on far lighter subjects where there have been tens, hundreds even of responses saying some people shouldn't be allowed children. If we were to draw up a list of those who should in our opinions not be allowed to have children I think we would find it a very big list indeed. IMO we absolutely should never start that list no matter what the circumstances.

On the issue of temporary treatment... Well I don't think payment is appropriate in any way. A reward is an improvement, such as housing, social, food, whatever rather than actual cash. I don't agree with a programme of implants because of the invasive nature and to be honest the effect that hormones can have. A programme of support and encouragement to use contraception suitable for the individual would be fine. I would like to see a government funded one. A rounded approach offering support for the addiction, for any existing children, for contraception choice, for men and women would be fine. Would be good!

 

[cherryglitter]

I have no idea how I feel about this.
I guess I wouldn't know until I was a heroin addict myself who were pregnant and had X amount of children taken from me.

I also wouldn't know what it was like until I physically saw a baby crying for heroin. The thought of it makes me feel really sad. I feel so sorry for these poor babies. If it is for women who have had multiple pregnancies then yes, I do agree.

Some people don't want to help themselves and they will never EVER change. I've been put in a circumstance where a parent would rather choose their own sordid lifestyle than their children. A baby/child/teenager should never be made to feel like they were never wanted or that their parents just simply, put something like drugs first. It just shouldn't happen, so in these cases, I think sterilisation is a good idea.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Blue - the articles all state that only one person has taken part so far and it was a man therefore it can't be only offered to women. Also I haven't seen anywhere that he has any children therefore it also can't only be parents of multiple birth. Maybe we are talking of different programmes or maybe it was carried out differently in the states? IDK

Tattiesmum - see it's hard and yet it's not. It's not that I don't appreciate how awful it is for the babies,the pain, the suffereing, death, I'm not heartless by any means, it's a tragedy. But babies are born is a whole range of horrible circumstances for a vast variety of reasons across the world. As someone else posted where would be draw the line? I've seen on here so many threads on far lighter subjects where there have been tens, hundreds even of responses saying some people shouldn't be allowed children. If we were to draw up a list of those who should in our opinions not be allowed to have children I think we would find it a very big list indeed. IMO we absolutely should never start that list no matter what the circumstances.

On the issue of temporary treatment... Well I don't think payment is appropriate in any way. A reward is an improvement, such as housing, social, food, whatever rather than actual cash. I don't agree with a programme of implants because of the invasive nature and to be honest the effect that hormones can have. A programme of support and encouragement to use contraception suitable for the individual would be fine. I would like to see a government funded one. A rounded approach offering support for the addiction, for any existing children, for contraception choice, for men and women would be fine. Would be good!

I only heard of it on this morning a few months back where the woman was speaking about trying to roll it out over here so it may well be different in the states. Imo it should apply to men also anyway. As for him having children, he may well have, then again he may not (doesn't mean he has not eveer gotten someone pregnant though? And I find it hard to believe someone would opt for that or would even be considered for that having not fathered before - jmo) either way it is still a decision he has taken himself, noone is being forced into anything

As for offering help instead - we already have support units, rehab centres and free contraception.. what else can we do if these people aren't taking advantage of any of these?

 

[PeanutBean]

There are quotes from him in the articles saying he feels he should never be a father and had been thinking about it anyway and this spurred him on to do it because of the incentive. Apparently he did get it done on the NHS.

I am sure that anyone working in drug rehab and the likes would love to see more investment and would feel much more could be done with more money. There is always mnore than can be done. Individualised approaches with 121 care would no doubt make a big differenece. Intervention earlier on in life through better school and home based support systems. There's no way society is doing as much as it could do. It's a lifetime of care and support that is needed. Prevention from the outset as well as support after the fact (I mean of addiction). Nothing will ever move me on the right to have children.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

There are quotes from him in the articles saying he feels he should never be a father and had been thinking about it anyway and this spurred him on to do it because of the incentive. Apparently he did get it done on the NHS.

I am sure that anyone working in drug rehab and the likes would love to see more investment and would feel much more could be done with more money. There is always mnore than can be done. Individualised approaches with 121 care would no doubt make a big differenece. Intervention earlier on in life through better school and home based support systems. There's no way society is doing as much as it could do. It's a lifetime of care and support that is needed. Prevention from the outset as well as support after the fact (I mean of addiction). Nothing will ever move me on the right to have children.

My point is.. where as more needs to be done early on to prevent addiction what do we do in the meantime with those already addicts, who are repeatedly falling pregnant? nothing else seems to be working

If there was another way that could be shown to be just as effective and less 'brutal' i would be all for that too.. I just feel so much for the children. Similar to what your saying, i dont think anything will shift my standing on this, the moral obligation, for me, will always be to the children.

ETA: i do respect your opinion though and can see where your coming from

 

[PeanutBean]

Thanks Blue, there's definitely nothing personal against anyone in the thread or anything I just find it unconscionable. I suppose the answer to your question is we just carry on trying to support the babies after they are born, whatever is the most appropriate for each individual case as best as funds allow. I certainly don't think things are ideal, I certainly think this is an area, I guess as a part of mental health overall, that should be much better supported through all the social elements of public service. Mental health services are totally undernourished in the UK.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Thanks Blue, there's definitely nothing personal against anyone in the thread or anything I just find it unconscionable. I suppose the answer to your question is we just carry on trying to support the babies after they are born, whatever is the most appropriate for each individual case as best as funds allow. I certainly don't think things are ideal, I certainly think this is an area, I guess as a part of mental health overall, that should be much better supported through all the social elements of public service. Mental health services are totally undernourished in the UK.

But like I said our care system is already bursting at the seams. More and more kids are already being let down because of it - so to continue to add more would be very detrimental to how effective they can be - and all this while cuts continue to be made. How can the gov allow this to go on? Surely we have a duty (we as in the gov, country, everyone) to find a more concrete preventative measure, if not for future children then for the ones already in care? It seems illogical to say we should just carry on iykwim?

 

[PeanutBean]

I don't have the answers I'm afraid. Most if not all care systems need to be better. If it wasn't addict babies it'd be something else. There's abuse and danger for children from all kinds of sources but we don't suggest to sterilise those parents. Sometimes it's not possible to move forward.

 

[ShanandBoc]

Im not sure what to think of this.

Firstly i believe we need to do something to protect these children from this kind of abuse, which is exactly what it is. Society is failing these children more than the drug addicts...these babies dont have a choice so they should be the first priority.

But i dont think sterilisation is the answer in the majority of cases. I dont know much about other methods but an implant that can be removed when the mother / father is proven to be clean and rehabilitated would make much more sense.

 

[ShanandBoc]

I don't have the answers I'm afraid. Most if not all care systems need to be better. If it wasn't addict babies it'd be something else. There's abuse and danger for children from all kinds of sources but we don't suggest to sterilise those parents. Sometimes it's not possible to move forward.

There is abuse in other ways / sources but this is abuse that begins in the womb. What chance do these babies have?

 

[PeanutBean]

I don't have the answers I'm afraid. Most if not all care systems need to be better. If it wasn't addict babies it'd be something else. There's abuse and danger for children from all kinds of sources but we don't suggest to sterilise those parents. Sometimes it's not possible to move forward.

There is abuse in other ways / sources but this is abuse that begins in the womb. What chance do these babies have?

They don't have much chance but nor do babies from other situations. Babies born to parents with debilitating genetic conditions have problems that start in the womb too but I don't think the parents should be sterilised because of it.

 

[ShanandBoc]

I agree sterilisation is not the answer. (Ha we agreed lol)

But genetic problems cant be helped. Drug addicts are knowingly harming their children.

 

[PeanutBean]

lol

Ah, but genetic problems are passed on so (though I don't agree with it) sterilisation might be a more appropriate response but drug addiciton is behavioural so sterilisation is a punishment with no chance of rehabilitation for the rest of life and which does nothing at all to remedy the social problem. I think that the level of mental competency being credited to addicts is not really right so invasive/compulsary procedures, whatever they might be, imo are taking advantage of vulnerable people.

Did you read all the thread? I expanded a bit more on what I think would be more appropriate on a post not too far back I think.

I was chatting with my mum about this thread yesterday. This is a slight tangent but she mentioned a story in the news some years ago (which I do vaguely remember) where a young woman with maybe Downs or another mentally compromising condition was sterilised against her will. As far as my mum could remember this was authorised by her family, presumably under power of attorney or similar. I just don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for someone, no matter what the cirucmstances.

 

[indy and lara]

Don't have time to read the whole thread but here's my tuppence worth.

I have worked with many children of drug addicts. It is heartbreaking. I know all too well the reality. And I don't know what the answer is but it is not this. There is no way I can ever support this. It is eugenics. Where do you draw the line? Alchoholics? Those with hereditary medical conditions? Mental illness? Obesity? Down the line what happens if people get clean and stay off drugs- have they just blown it?

Around half a million people were forcibly sterilised by the Nazis in the 1930s as they were not seen to 'pure' enough to have children. We should not be returning to those days.