[dervish99]

What do you think of this?

http://news.aol.co.uk/uk-news/story/...r-cash/1336809

A long term drug addict has been paid £200 to be sterilised in a new project run by an American charity, to prevent children being born with the same addictions as their parents.

As i see it there are 2 possible arguments here.

1, It's a good idea as it aims to reduce drug dependency and may stop unwanted pregnancies to unsuitable parents.

2, we are dissapearing into the black hole of the mid 1930's where sterilisation was used in Germany to reduce the number of undesirables.

[*Peachy*]

In the grand scheme of things, £200 is nothing. If it stops another drug user getting pregnant, she needs midwifery care all the way through, shes classed as high risk pregnancy so needs more care than a "routine" pregnancy. The baby could possibly be born also addicted to drugs if the mother continues to take them and will need to be detoxed under supervision, usually in the SCBU. Social Services become involved making regular checks on mother and baby, the price list is endless.

I think its a good thing!

[Acebikerchick]

I have to agree. Its not thrust upon people, its a choice that they make. On the whole its a brilliant idea...

[LS resident]

Seems like a good scheme to me. The aim is to reduce child suffering, both from the physical symptoms of addiction and the psychological trauma of being a neglected child.

I've heard of this U.S. charity before, and people have argued it's controversial, but they can never give single valid reason why.

[de g.]

I'm nervous about this scheme, and it smacks of a form of 'moral eugenics'. Problems with drugs and alcohol *may* be temporary; sterilisation is pretty much permanent. While indeed it is not thrust on people, as with any situation where people are incapacitated or incapable of acting for themselves in full understanding of their situation, it provides significant opportunity for them to be coerced into making a decision which may well be wrong for them in the long term. It is the same sort of dilemma as the rightly-expressed concerns about legalising assisted dying - it gives a huge amunt of scope for someone in a position of power to exploit.

Take for instance any one of a number of high profile ex-addicts. Davina McCall has three children, but was a drug addict in her early 20s. George W Bush abused alcohol for many years (he gave up drinking in 1986; his twin daughters were born in 1977). Robert Downey Jr is now sober and has a positive relationship with his 17-year-old son, despite having been in and out of jail for drug-related offences since his early 20s. Tony Adams has three children aged six-and-under, despite having struggled with alcoholism (including having a spell in jail) throughout his career.

Finally, there is a wider issue generally about the implications of this idea. What your average drug abuser needs is not sterilisation but treatment to get off drugs. Far from encouraging them to do this, the actions of this charity encourage the idea that drug abuse and risky personal behaviour generally is OK provided you mititgate the consequences. Intravenous drug users have very high rates of STIs as these are also transmitted by sharing infected syringes; if you give a man a vasectomy is he more or less likely to use a condom, do you think?

I can't help thinking that the money would be better spent on helping people to get off and stay off drugs, rather than imposing a rather dubious morality on them.

[LS resident]

Originally Posted by de g.

... it smacks of a form of 'moral eugenics'. Problems with drugs and alcohol *may* be temporary...

I don't see any 'moral' question about preventing child suffering: both physical due to the drugs and long term mental/psycholigical abuse due to the massive neglect and disfunctionality the children of addicts inevitably suffer.

Originally Posted by de g.

I can't help thinking that the money would be better spent on helping people to get off and stay off drugs, rather than imposing a rather dubious morality on them.

Fine sentiments, but in the real world the government is broke, and unfortunately can't afford to spend money on these people who choose to ruin the lives of themselves and those around them by taking (and inevitably becoming hooked) on drugs.

[de g.]

Originally Posted by LS resident

I don't see any 'moral' question about preventing child suffering: both physical due to the drugs and long term mental/psycholigical abuse due to the massive neglect and disfunctionality the children of addicts inevitably suffer.

But is it really about preventing child suffering? Or is it about preventing 'those sorts of people' from having children? Don't get me wrong, drug addiction and children don't exactly mix, but there are plenty of parents whose children suffer for other reasons and plenty of ex-addicts whose children grow up healthy and happy. Also, if you're going to justify sterilisation on the grounds of child suffering, then surely it's OK to sterilise people who are carriers of genetic conditions which could be passed on. And presumably it's OK to sterilise people who are mentally incapable of bringing up children, since their children are going to suffer. And let's be honest, the children of very poor parents are likely to suffer too aren't they, so maybe we should sterilise the very poor too? You see? It's a slippery slope towards a model of moral eugenics, which is utterly wrong.

Originally Posted by LS resident

Fine sentiments, but in the real world the government is broke, and unfortunately can't afford to spend money on these people who choose to ruin the lives of themselves and those around them by taking (and inevitably becoming hooked) on drugs.

But as I have said, this policy doesn't do anything to help people get off drugs - indeed, it might achieve the exact opposite. It is certainly not going to substantially reduce the costs of addiction by reducing the health-related cost to the state or the cost of drug-related crime. Much better would be a more sensible control of drugs (effectively, class A drugs on prescription for addicts) coupled with a massive expansion of treatment. I suggest that when it's all taken into account, this will be vastly cheaper than the costs of treatment and dealing with crime.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by de g.

It's a slippery slope towards a model of moral eugenics, which is utterly wrong.

Right on, otherwise known as "preventative culling"

Of course, those mouth foamers who believe that this kind of thing is right to: preserve "those with excellent moral fibre", will actually find that children born in the face of adversity are sometimes the ones who go on to achieve and prosper.

[Acebikerchick]

But surely this is the right of the individual. If the individual wants it then who are we to say otherwise. As it has been said, no one is having to have this done, they have been offered it and have agreed. Its the same thing as a woman with x amount of kids choosing to have a hyterectomy so she has no more..

[KooK]

Could it not be a bit wrong to be preying on the drug addled minds of addicts, at the time they probably see the cash as a quick way to score. They may later be cured of their addiction and want children, only to realise they sold this possibility away, they should do something nicer...£200 worth of oreos or something.

[Acebikerchick]

Oreos?? Surely chocolate digestives... I can see your points i really can. But i would hope the individuals were given every possible angle as to the dos and donts and its not just a snap desicion...

[Joe]

Kook has Oreos on the brain it seems.

[KooK]

Hell I'd take drugs if someone gave me £200 worth of Oreo's....wait...I got it wrong.

[*Peachy*]

So do it in a way so it can be reversed, at the addicts expense?

[dervish99]

Originally Posted by KooK

Hell I'd take drugs if someone gave me £200 worth of Oreo's....wait...I got it wrong.

ever tried injecting an oreo??

[KooK]

Not yet...I've only taken it as an oral stimulant. Although maybe when McD's have the Oreo McFlurrys it might be worth a shot.

[wiseguy]

ive got a flat in a high dependancy area and see some very sad cases ive even seen drug runners taking there kids in prams to do whatever it is they do so i agree with the scheme as long as its voluntary

[de g.]

Originally Posted by wiseguy

ive got a flat in a high dependancy area and see some very sad cases ive even seen drug runners taking there kids in prams to do whatever it is they do so i agree with the scheme as long as its voluntary

Really though, how fit and able to volunteer is your average drug addict?

[wiseguy]

i wouldnt no to be honest but im sure some sort of vetting would be done

[de g.]

Originally Posted by wiseguy

i wouldnt no to be honest but im sure some sort of vetting would be done

But therein lies the problem. It is not clear that there is any vetting - it appears they just hand over £200 or $300 to any addict who gets sterilised and produces a medical notice to prove it. There is no formal counselling or anything like that to make sure this is the right decision, it's just a lazy way of mitigating a particular problem rather than doing anything to find a solution.

Most interesting is the justification they use on the Project Prevention website, and sums up the eugenic nature of what they're doing:

If you can not trust someone with their reproductive choices, how can you trust them with a child?

There are any number of reasons why you might not be able to trust someone with a child (or to bring up a child free from suffering) - because they are mentally incapable of raising a child, because they carry a genetic condition, because the parent has a terminal illness and may not live to see the child reach adulthood, or simply because the parent may be homeless. Do we sterilise people in these groups too, because they cannot be trusted to bring up a child free from suffering?