Drug addicts "paid" to be sterilised?

[ShanandBoc]

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.

I completely see where u are coming from and i agree

I did read the thread earlier today but dont recall ur post exactly. My minds a bit mush atm lol

 

[PeanutBean]

That's ok! lol It was in response to one from blue bumpkin, I just can't be bothered to type it again! It was a bit blood from a stone in the first place as it's not an issue I've ever thought about really so I had to think what exactly I would do, if I were pressed to make the decision. I definitely don't have the answers but I am immoveable in my revulsion of the idea as a legitimate means to address this tragic issue.

 

[PeanutBean]

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.

I seem to have totally missed this post, so sorry for not responding. Just happened on it now looking back through the thread. I think I am looking at this not from an emotional but from a legal prespective and from what I think is an unshakeable human right. Until there is a child in question this is all hypothetical rights for the children. Preventing every addict (assuming there was a high uptake or a hypothetical government programme) from having children would be barbaric. Not every addict has oodles or even any children while hooked in the first place so to make that sort of assumption is at least unfair and at most totally demoralising and humiliating. It is treating addicts as animals. I think they are vulnerable people the vast majority of whom will have a string of difficult life circumstances that have ultimately led them to where they are now. I'm not abdicating any responsibility on the part of the individual but it is a rare addict who came from a charmed life and just chose to have a shit one. I also feel that people addicted on the level we are talking about, however they started out, are mentally compromised such as they should not necessarily be considered competent to make this sort of life-changing, permanent decision.

I don't think I've compared a drug addicted baby to a poor one redpoppy. I'm under no illusions how bad things are for the children in question but it doesn't change the fundamental point. Other solutions should be sought.

And lol! I sometimes find myself rationalising about things I don't necessarily agree with! Like in the animal testing debate thread.

 

[Justagirlxx]

[(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

Ok people on methadone are recovering addicts. They are bettering themselves by getting off heroin. Not all of them still use while on methadone. It'd be a shame if CPS started removing children from mothers just because they are on methadone! These are women who are actively trying to get clean! That is extremely sad that the poor baby died of an overdose-but to assume the parents were high just because they made a mistake leaving the bottle open is wrong. Anyone on medication could make that mistake but just because they were former addicts you assume they were high at the time?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

 

[Justagirlxx]

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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

Alot of you keep saying its for the rights of the children... How is it for the childrens sake? These children wouldnt even be born at all if you all had your way. Is it really better to have never been born than to have been born addicted?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

Alot of you keep saying its for the rights of the children... basically saying its better for them to never be born at all than to be born to addicted?

I was waiting for someone to say that. That is a twist on what im trying to say. I am not implying children of addicts would have better of not here - thats a horrible thing to insinuate btw.

Of course im not saying that - Im speaking of children not yet conceived.

In saying that the lady who started project prevention said the children she fostered all said they would rather not have been born than go through what they did again - not my words, theirs.

 

[Justagirlxx]

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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

Alot of you keep saying its for the rights of the children... basically saying its better for them to never be born at all than to be born to addicted?

I was waiting for someone to say that. That is a twist on what im trying to say. I am not implying children of addicts would have better of not here - thats a horrible thing to insinuate btw.

Of course im not saying that - Im speaking of children not yet conceived.

In saying that the lady who started project prevention said the children she fostered all said they would rather not have been born than go through what they did again - not my words, theirs.

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

Alot of you keep saying its for the rights of the children... basically saying its better for them to never be born at all than to be born to addicted?

I was waiting for someone to say that. That is a twist on what im trying to say. I am not implying children of addicts would have better of not here - thats a horrible thing to insinuate btw.

Of course im not saying that - Im speaking of children not yet conceived.

In saying that the lady who started project prevention said the children she fostered all said they would rather not have been born than go through what they did again - not my words, theirs.

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

they were speaking as young adults and not merely about the initial complications of withdrawal. I think knowing first hand about their own experiences will make them far more qualified to comment on them than anyone else - those were their words.

And did i say all addicts should be sterilised? i said in situations were an addict is repeatedly falling pregnant, with their consent it is a better solution than allowing the still birth/miscarriages and children being taken into care to mount up.

So it is better for a drug addict to give birth to 3 children stillborn, have another 3 die from being born addicted themselves and go through the hellish ordeal of overcoming it or worse dying as a result and still turning a blind eye if this woman falls pregnant again, and again, and again... Its horrible.

I dont appreciate my words being twisted, I am not saying those born to addicts are better off not here. Thats a pretty big jump from what Im saying and doesnt make sense. I am talking about eggs and sperm here. Those not conceived yet. I lose an egg every month with my period and dont think - god is that because I think that child would be better off not here than being born now while im not ready for another - millions of 'children' are 'not conceived' everyday. Im struggling to even find a suitable analogy to explain what I mean its that ridiculous.

I said in cases where a woman is repeatedly falling pregnant (where that child is either abused in utero or worse or taken into care) or a man is repeatedly and irresponsibly fathering then it is perhaps best, with their consent, to look at sterilisation. For addicts in general long term contraception is a better idea - why are people against addicts using long term contraception to prevent falling pregnant/getting someone pregnant when they are not the right place to provide for a child or a place that could be devastating for a child? I get the moral issue with sterilisation for some but not the long term contraception

 

[blahblahblah]

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

If it is better for a child to be born addicted (and most likely with other major health problems) than not to exist in the first place, does that mean it is wrong for people to prevent pregnancy, (through contraception, for example) because they don't want a child, can't afford more etc etc?

I'm talking preventing the pregnancy in the first place, not stopping it once it's started, which I'm aware is a whole other bag of worms.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

If it is better for a child to be born addicted (and most likely with other major health problems) than not to exist in the first place, does that mean it is wrong for people to prevent pregnancy, (through contraception, for example) because they don't want a child, can't afford more etc etc?

I'm talking preventing the pregnancy in the first place, not stopping it once it's started, which I'm aware is a whole other bag of worms.

OMG thats what ive been trying to say... thanks!

 

[Dragonfly]

OK havnt read all the tread but thought about this as I seen it in news earlier on in week, I think that drug addict or not not one deserves to be carted off like a cat for splaying and given a few quid to fund their drug habbit further. Its not as simple and easy as that. I know on occasion I have said while watching Jerermy kyle I was in favor of it but that wasnt drug addicts just assholes who need to wise up. Perhaps help for drug addicts would be better than this? help them back in to society and lead a better life. Course wont work on all but would rather that money go towards that.

 

[PeanutBean]

Blue I'm not against long term contraception per se. I'm against anything compulsary and against any kind of financial incentive. Some other more constructive reward that would have a supportive effect would be more appropriate imo. If there was such a programme I would want to see counselling as to the different types of contraception, the issues with addict babies, and consideration of what contraception would be appropriate, if needed, for each individual (woman in this case I guess). Implants are invasive and hormonal ones can have terrible effects if they are not well received, just the same as with the pill or depo. Having been on the receiving end of some pretty bad hormones and seen how extraordinarily I, as a generally normal person, got depressed, I don't think forcing that on someone already in difficult mental circumstances would be very helpful. So an individualised, supportive, rewarding, counselled approach would be better imo.

 

[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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

But it is akin to Eugenics. While Eugenics is forced, this is a situation whereby one group are deciding that others are not a suitable group to have children and encouraging them to be sterilised. There are people whose suitablility to be parents I may question, but it is not my place to say they
should be sterilised.

Fetal Alchohol Syndrome and stillbirth does not exclusively occur in children of drug addicts. I am the mother of a stillborn child. Should alcoholics be included in this program of sterilisation too? As I said earlier, where does the line get drawn?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

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.

Its not eugenics though.. otherwise they would be forceably sterilising all addicts - they are not forcing anyone into this. It is not because noone sees addicts as worthy of children - its that the children are worth more iygwim? Its for the sake of the children. Im sorry but allowing people to continue to give birth to still born children and children with fetal alcohol syndrome and worse just because they were born with the organs to do so is horrible imo.

Yes everyone should have the right to have children but imo, when you are repeatedly harming your children you are abusing that right.

I feel for those who repeatedly fall pregnant or men who repeatedly father sterilisation may be the answer, of course if they consent, and for perhaps other addicts long term contraception is a better solution.

Why is long term contraception such a bad thing?

But it is akin to Eugenics. While Eugenics is forced, this is a situation whereby one group are deciding that others are not a suitable group to have children and encouraging them to be sterilised. There are people whose suitablility to be parents I may question, but it is not my place to say they
should be sterilised.

Fetal Alchohol Syndrome and stillbirth does not exclusively occur in children of drug addicts. I am the mother of a stillborn child. Should alcoholics be included in this program of sterilisation too? As I said earlier, where does the line get drawn?

Thats completely different, still birth can happen to anyone but taking drugs/alcohol in excessive amounts whilst pregnant can cause still birth - and as i have said a million times now with regards to sterilisation I said it would be a good idea where people repeatedly fall pregnant. Alcoholics have been included, in some cases in the states anyway.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Blue I'm not against long term contraception per se. I'm against anything compulsary and against any kind of financial incentive. Some other more constructive reward that would have a supportive effect would be more appropriate imo. If there was such a programme I would want to see counselling as to the different types of contraception, the issues with addict babies, and consideration of what contraception would be appropriate, if needed, for each individual (woman in this case I guess). Implants are invasive and hormonal ones can have terrible effects if they are not well received, just the same as with the pill or depo. Having been on the receiving end of some pretty bad hormones and seen how extraordinarily I, as a generally normal person, got depressed, I don't think forcing that on someone already in difficult mental circumstances would be very helpful. So an individualised, supportive, rewarding, counselled approach would be better imo.

But its not compulsory and the money incentive may not be the best idea or most moral but what if it got results? the people involved are closely monitored and given treatment for the addiction also. they arent just welcomed then tossed aside. they would make an informed decision as to which contraceptive they feel is best. its not as clean cut as some people think

 

[BlackBerry25]

I think yes it should include alcoholics. I classify that as an addict.

 

[BlackBerry25]

And it is not just a 2 week withdrawal.

Like I said, I have an adopted sister, who had a crack addicted mom, she has long term problems that she and my mom will be dealing with for the rest of her life. She had seizures longer than 2 weeks, she had nightmares longer than 2 weeks, she has ongoing social problems, physical problems (her limbs are shorter than a "normal" childs) and things you wouldn't really know unless you have studied it or lived it.

 

[PeanutBean]

I know this programme's not compulsory but the turn of the debate has broadened.

And results or not I can never approve.

 

[Justagirlxx]

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

If it is better for a child to be born addicted (and most likely with other major health problems) than not to exist in the first place, does that mean it is wrong for people to prevent pregnancy, (through contraception, for example) because they don't want a child, can't afford more etc etc?

I'm talking preventing the pregnancy in the first place, not stopping it once it's started, which I'm aware is a whole other bag of worms.

All I'm saying is that saying its for the unborn childrens sake or their rights doesn't make any sense, because its not for their sake. Thats the only point I was trying to make.