Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Drugs charity may pay addicts not to get pregnant...

32 replies

deemented · 13/01/2011 21:14

AIBU in thinking that this is well... wrong and preying on the most vulnerable of women somehow?

And £50 in exchange for having the implant really isn't a lot, when you get down to it.

story here

OP posts:
ScotlandR · 13/01/2011 21:18

Suggest you visit the fostering thread and read about addict babies.

I think it's wrong to pay them to be permanently sterilised. But the implant is reversible and almost infallible. If three years of the implant means three less babies born addicted to heroin, I am MORE than happy with that.

EricNorthmansMistress · 13/01/2011 21:22

HHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I am a staunch defender of civil liberties, the right to bodily autonomy and on first look this does seem to be exploitative.....

BuuUUUUuut on the other hand, the drive to get vulnerable women on the implant has been rumbling along, fairly successfully, for several years. It's not a bad idea. It's cheap, safe and lasts for three years which is a good length of time to provide support to move on from whatever issues the woman is dealing with (or just to get a few years older). There should be no coersion and the support should be in place to imptove their lives. As for paying them to do it - yes, it is exploitative to a degree but it's not permanent, the woman could go to the GP and have it removed, and the implant is a very good solution for women whose current circumstances mean that getting pregnant would be very damaging for them and any potential babies. I'm on the fence. Are the charity offering outreach, free counselling, substance misuse support? If so, then I can see their thinking.

expatinscotland · 13/01/2011 21:24

I don't see the problem with this. It's not a form of permanent contraception.

hester · 13/01/2011 21:24

Oh, this is a hard one. My political instincts are to completely agree with you. On the other hand, as an adoptive mother, I kind of feel 'whatever it takes' when it comes to saving babies from the hell of neonatal withdrawal - and all the problems later in life.

In this debates, I do always end up wondering how much people really do understand about the impact of drug use in pregnancy, not just after delivery but throughout life. (Not accusing you of that, deemented.)

Normantebbit · 13/01/2011 21:27

Maybe I won't have to see pregnant women puking after taking their methadone.

I am a firm believer in decriminalising all drugs and getting addicts what they need from the NHS, get the drugs they need, see a nurse, get medical attention, contraception, whatever.

It would cut crime, take prostitutes off the streets, destroy much organised crime.

It isn't a vote winner.

Original poster
deemented · 13/01/2011 21:27

Can i just say, i know nothing about the intricacies of this, or babies being born addicted. I just saw this on our local news and my first reaction was.. 'Eh?'

I admit i'm totally clueless Blush

OP posts:
hester · 13/01/2011 21:49

It's really grim, deemented. I have worked in drugs agencies myself and, believe me, I'm really sympathetic to women who struggle with drug addiction during pregnancy. I certainly don't feel punitive to them. Sometimes they need support and counselling for years before they are able to finally live clean, and they should certainly get that support.

But their children can't wait for years. Being exposed to drug use in utero can mean painful withdrawal after birth (weeks in SCBU, on opiates becauase it's so bloody painful) and then a lifetime of learning disabilities/behavioural problems/physiological problems. These children can't be cured. It's too late for them.

Just as importantly, a voluntary scheme does offer some opportunity to keep families together. I know dd's birth mother would have loved to have kept her, and I'm certain it would be better for dd and all adopted children if they could safely stay with their birth families. For some women (not all, no way) a scheme like this could help at a point where they need to get their life back on track without the continuous trauma of getting pregnant and giving birth to children who are then taken away. I'm not saying the scheme is perfect or risk-free, just that I'm not dismissing it out of hand given the lack of perfect alternatives.

ScotlandR · 13/01/2011 21:52

It's awful if the long and short of it.

Best case scenario, small at birth, (assuming immediate fostering) about 6 - 8 weeks of constant pain, muscle spasms, sleeplessness and stomach problems, despite being dosed with morphine, then once the LOs system is clear, baby begins to grow, gain weight and develop at a normalish rate.

Worst case scenario, (assuming survival) born premature or severely disabled for life. High chance of heart weakness or respiratory problems through out life of child, or of inter-cranial haemorrhage which may cause stroke (again possibly leading to permanent disability) or death. Even if baby doesn't present with immediate disabilities, many things such as permanent brain damage or autism.

Truthfully, the average case is somewhere between the two. A baby born addicted certainly suffers from a painful, terrible first few months. More often than not has some serious SN for the rest of their lives and occasionally die

Offering to stop that happening by paying vulnerable women who (if they weren't using drugs and desperate) wouldn't want to do that to their own child doesn't seem terrible IMO.

hester · 13/01/2011 22:33

Just to add to what ScotlandR says: plus the trauma of losing your birth family and having to be adopted. I'm of course thrilled to have my dd, but it would have been SO much better for her if she could have stayed with her (clean) birth mother.

porcamiseria · 13/01/2011 22:36

I think its a good idea

way WAY too many babies in shitty environments

if some smackhead is that depserate to take the money, we'll she would be a shit mum anyway IMO

something has to be done, really. there are not enough care/foster places for these kids, its so sad

nip in bud

anyway its reversible should they come off the drugs

ScotlandR · 14/01/2011 08:25

hester FWIW, I was adopted and never really found it traumatic :) But of course, iswym, some people find it very unsettling.
Possibly helps that I'm a twin and we were adopted together, but I've never been crying about being dumped or whatever and thought "I wish someone whose genetics were the same as me could be here". What I've thought is "I WANT MY MUMMY!" Grin

missalien · 14/01/2011 09:10

Yes. Ive posted about this before a lot as the daughter of heroin addicts. Wake up what do you think they spend their child benefit on? Health in pregnancy grant? These children deserve not to be born. I would never live my life over again. She does help the mums and does offer extensive counselling and support and non permanent methods.

theevildead2 · 14/01/2011 09:14

This isn't a life time of being childless, it's just giving them time to kick a drug habit before they get pregnant.

I am much more inclined to think it is wrong for a baby to be born addicted to drugs to a mother who can't look after it and will probably be less likely to be adopted.

BlackSwan · 14/01/2011 09:18

suggest they offer them double for sterilisation. If they take it, it's their choice.

Starbear · 14/01/2011 09:26

ScotlandR I totally agree with you. If you can prevent a child being born in these circumstances then I would go for the rights of the unborn over someone who needs to get their life in order first. We have 60 billion people in the world. We need to really think hard before we have any more children. Should we be thinking that everyone should only have two children anyway? Then we can feed the starving and give medical atreention to all children.
Oh! I must go off and look after my own sickley DS Blush

BoobyMcLeaky · 14/01/2011 09:32

After working in a NNU and listening to withdrawing babies screaming the way they do, I think this is a brilliant idea. It's not permanent, once they get clean they can choose to have a family - until then they are not inflicting their addictions on to an innocent baby.

lalalonglegs · 14/01/2011 09:58

I must admit I find it hard to get upset about this. I read an article in the Guardian about the American woman who is behind it and thought: "Good on her." (My husband was really appalled, however.)

Withdrawal for a tiny baby (well, anybody) is a horrible thing to go through. The lucky ones will be fostered/adopted, the rest may live with chaos for years. And you have to ask, is it really fair on the drug-user parents to have them go through a pregnancy with the possibility of having their child removed at birth? Sadly, according to my friend who is a psychiatrist treating addicts, a lot of them think a baby is their chance to start again - it rarely seems to work like that Sad.

KnittedBreast · 14/01/2011 10:09

best outcome is that the child suffers no ill effects, it is a minority that suffer from the mothers drug use not the norm.

grubly · 14/01/2011 10:09

I have worked with street addicts for many years. pregnancy, babies and children removed into the care system are subjects which cause immense pain to women addicted to street drugs. unfortunately, it is very common for a woman to fall into a long cycle of falling pregnant, giving birth, loosing the child to the care system and repeating the whole process to deal with the pain. Having witnessed this process many, many times I would say that despite this being an ethical minefield, it does, on balance serve the interests of both the addicts and any children they may have otherwise have had. There is a US charity which offers permanent sterilization to addicts for money and I am profoundly against this but the implant is temporary. As a side note, i have also known women to dig out their own implants with a knife so if they really dont want it there- they will get rid of it!

missalien · 14/01/2011 10:21

Knittedbreast. Where did you get that information from? Official statistics is it?

JBellingham · 14/01/2011 10:37

It's their choice. It isn't coming out of the public purse. There are too many unwanted children as it is. Babies born with issues from drug dependant mothers cost the state a fortune.

I see no issue here at all, we should have more of this.

ScotlandR · 14/01/2011 15:32

knittedbreast, where did you get that cr*p????? show me ONE reputable source that says "most babies of addicts suffer NO ill-effects".

You are talking utter bullshit - dangerous, damaging bullshit.

Original poster
deemented · 14/01/2011 15:36

Well, i've had my views on this completely corrected - it may indeed be a good things afterall. Thank you ladies Smile

OP posts:
MargaretGraceBondfield · 14/01/2011 15:36

Good gracious this is a great idea. If he women can't help themselves stay off drugs then it's got to be good all round to prevent them from having dcs. Good for their mental health and nothing but good for the babies that would have been born screaming with addiction.

ZillionChocolate · 14/01/2011 15:39

I would have taken £50 for a 3 year implant when I was 16-25 and I wasn't addicted to drugs. I don't think there is anything wrong with encouraging family planning (ie if/when you have a baby). I did feel very uncomfortable about the payments for sterilisation although I can see the advantages.