Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

sterlizing drug addicts

139 replies

DwainRooney · 18/10/2010 20:01

Should people who cannot look after their childen be sterilized?

The cutbacks are affecting everyone and why should we throw money at people who will eventually have their children put into care at great expense to the taxpayers

If you cannot look after your children you should not have them

OP posts:
booooooooooyhoo · 19/10/2010 13:23

theincrediblesulk i totally agree with you.

ScaryMoaningArrrggghhhs · 19/10/2010 13:24

Some people on a widescale implementation of this cheme will become clean.

One eprson then being unable to have kids is a disaster.

periodically threads come up ehre about drugs and an awful lot of people 9to me, never taken any) of mumsnetters went through a pahse of it and got clean, some from heroin, then went on to be great aprents. Add in alcohol and that's many more.

One person being that strong then suffering permanent schildlessness would be a terrible, terrible shame.

Not all heroin addicts end up in squats or even out of work; I was listening to one talk on the radio last night, my old ethics lecturer quoted research at me (I was antim legalisation) showeing that when drugs are provided and monitored safely people remain in work and leading effectvie lives, whcih presumably emans they can be responsible for their own contraception.

I don;t ahve a link and I don;t have a formed opinion either way, but I do think it needs to be an open debate and not a morald ecision taken by a charity.

sonia77 · 19/10/2010 13:30

The point is they already HAVE CHILDREN

Longstocking2 · 19/10/2010 13:44

This is a highly controversial charity BUT there is a really profound ethical question about women who are established alcoholics and drug users who have repeated pregnancies.

The woman who founded this charity simply asks "What right does anyone have to do this to their unborn child?"
It may be a horrible ethical dilemma but comparing it to the Nazi eugenics is just simplistic in my view. The founder of this charity has adopted children damaged by their mother's drug/alcohol use in pregnancy. She lives every day with the suffering these women cause however unintentional. It is worth considering the needs of the unborn child at least isn't it?

Deliaskis · 19/10/2010 14:29

I have posted on the other thread but this has some different points on it.

On the whole though, I still think that medical decisions should be made based on medical reasons alone, not for financial or ideological reasons.

I can see why those thinking about the babies and children involved would think that for 'this reason', and this reason alone, it's OK, but it's not. It sets precedent. It's not OK to pay someone to have medical treatment in the UK, and condoning this is opening the door for patients, the vulnerable and needy etc. to be open to the highest bidder, whether it be big pharma or random small-minded judgemental church groups in the US. Precedent does matter, and this is a dangerous one, and one which I am morally and ethically completely appalled by.

My heart breaks for the babies and children living with this, but addicts that have multiple children and don't want any more, can get sterilisation for free on the NHS. The financial incentive makes it a problem for me as it puts our health for sale to the highest bidder.

D

DooinMeCleanin · 19/10/2010 14:37

Sonia77, she is not aiming this at addicts who have already had serveral children are showing no signs of conrtoling their fertility themselves. She is aiming this at every single addict she can find. And what's worse is that people are actually approaching addicts, who ahve not asked for this srevice and saying "Here you love. We think you are that shit and worthless, here's £200 not to breed".

I am sorry about your childhood, but not every addict is like your mum was. And not every addict who gets pregant loses her child. Many of them manage to turn their lives around for the sake of the child.

You simply cannot go around paying people to be sterilised because of what they might do. That money would be better off given to SS/another support scheme, to help addicts and their children.

sonia77 · 19/10/2010 14:56

Not every crack and heroin addict like my mum, no-most are a lot worse. There mar only heroin when I was a kid. If you read her info it is aimed at multiple pregnancies to break the cycle. Have you read any of the testimonies. ? I wonder what my crack and heroin addicted sister would say about this. She lives in fear of another pregnancy having had at least seven and two kids taken off her. Gave birth in prison then tried to hang herself cos she was so devastated,again. And it will happen again. If the charity can help women like her then bloody great.

Deliaskis · 19/10/2010 15:01

I don't think anyone is saying that addicts should never get sterilised. For some it is a sensible decision and the right one, but paying them is wrong. It makes it not just a medical decision. Addicts (including all the ones with multiple children who are desparate to be sterilised) are free to avail themselves of FREE sterilisation on the NHS if they are convinced it is the right decision for them, the £200 (drug) money is not necessary for this, and it's the £200 that to me is morally inexcusable.

D

booooooooooyhoo · 19/10/2010 15:04

"The point is they already HAVE CHILDREN"

sonia if that post was for me i was referring specifically to teh poster who suggested temporary sterilisation for ALL of us as a default setting until we actively decide to have children. i was NOT referring to teh people thsi scheme is aimed at.

DooinMeCleanin · 19/10/2010 15:11

Sonia, if your sister is that desperate she can get sterilised for free on the NHS. Why would she need paying to do it, if it is what she wants?

NerdyFace · 19/10/2010 15:15

Paying is the WORST part of it, like i said initially, if someone is THAT addicted they aren't going to be thinking "Ohhh £200 to not have any more children!" they are going to be thinking "£200 for drugs..I don't care what i have to do"

booooooooooyhoo · 19/10/2010 15:18

i agree, in this country sterilisation xcan be done for free. no need to involve money.

Deliaskis · 19/10/2010 15:19

Indeed NerdyFace, medical decisions should be made on the basis of medical factors alone. When finances (and possibly ideology) start having a say, we've set a precedent.

D

DooinMeCleanin · 19/10/2010 15:22

And yes I read the testomines. I find it extremely worrying that people who claim to be health care professionals think this is a good idea. I read no testomnies from drug users who believe they have benefitted from this service. There are none on there.

I have no problem with her paying for this op for people in the US who do not get it free, if they ask for it. I have no problem with her helping addicts here make and keep appoinments for the op if they approach her for help in doing this.

I have no problem with her charity promoting the use of long term contraceptives and I have no problem with her approaching addicts and offering them this service.

My problem is solely with the fact that she is approaching these people and offering to pay them not to breed. People who are desperate for cash and already feeling low enough about themselves. If steriliastion is the right choice for them, then why pay them?

Doobydoo · 19/10/2010 15:23

There is also discussion in America...I am not sure if it has been implemented of removing babies immediately after birth so they can be adopted and not left racketing around the system until they are 7 when no one wants them.

NerdyFace · 19/10/2010 15:28

As soon as money/religious ideaology come into it, it should be abandoned, nothing good will come of either of those things!

God I sold myself for £30 in the throes of addiction, If someone had been offering £200 I would of done ANYTHING and I am certain every addict would act the same way.

If people go to her and go
"Look, this addiction is runining my life, I want it so I can NEVER bring children into this personal hell"
thats fine, I would support that.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!
Approaching incredably vunerable people offering them money for something they wont even be considering is wrong. It opens her up to a world of shit too

Addict A has operation, ten years later is clean, sues woman because she took advantage of him while not in the right frame of mind!

She is doing MORE harm than good!

marantha · 19/10/2010 16:24

Long-term contraception for drug users is to be recommended. Permanent sterilisation? No.

Marylou242 · 19/10/2010 16:26

I work in social care and am always extremely upset when a child is born addicted to drugs. I think part of the problem is that advice on contraception isn't there for the parents. Even though their children are taken into care or adopted, they carry on having more and more, even though they know the same thing will happen again.

I think it's completely wrong to offer money to a drug addict, but people should be reminded frequently of the contraception options available to them. The implant is really under-used but is long-term and reversible option.

Theincrediblesulk1 · 19/10/2010 16:41

StayingDavidTennantsGirl
In that case how can they be held accountable for crimes committed or loans and credit cards, if they are too tempted by money, surely nothing including crimes can possibly be their fault (?)

scurryfunge · 19/10/2010 16:52

You can make the wrong decision and still be accountable TIS1....it depends what the greater motivation is.

MrsVidic · 19/10/2010 18:12

I aggree with others who have said offering money to an addict is wrong and is little different from forcing them to do it. Yet I do find myself wishing an intiuative based more on education about sterilisation and the process, hospital stays explained etc would be introduced as the currant situation is getting worse.

I am also in favour of making them more aware of it and long term contraception. I work with addicts and there are a lot of children out there who are born into this cycle. The addicts I work with are often 2nd generation and have lost children to care already. The effects of this is devestating and it does need addressing.

Theincrediblesulk1 · 19/10/2010 19:07

scurryfunge, but by saying they cant make a decision to be sterilised because they are addicted, you also have to accept the same logic to be applied to crimes, loans and other ways they get money!

scurryfunge · 19/10/2010 19:24

They can make a decision...it is still a choice -the wrong decision for all the wrong reasons though. Making a choice about committing crime is the same - it can be very easy to make the decision to commit crime.

Theincrediblesulk1 · 19/10/2010 19:32

So they have to accept "punishment" for one decision, but not for another? Eg if they decide to be sterilised for money, its unfair and unjust they were offered the money in the first place, but if they commit a crime and go to prison, they were able to think that one through so deserve the punishment?

The problem i see is that if they want money for being serialised, who are we to tell them they are too ill or addicted to make that decision its all very patronising!

Mumcentreplus · 19/10/2010 19:32

Its perverse...