Sterilisation sold to addicts by US Charity

[skydancer1]

What do people think of this? On the one hand I think it's hatefully manipulative as a serious addict might easily do this for 200 quid and then regret it for life, on the other hand many kids suffer physically and mentally from being the children of addicts...I'd like to read more opinion on it.

Snorbs, yes they do choose to take drugs, and if we're going to judge them for that, it would be hypocritical to manipulate them into taking a similar life-chaning decision at a time in their lives when they might not fully understand the consequences.

Chil1234, I agree that reversible contraception sounds like an excellent middle ground - do they still get the £200 for that?

I think it's the £200 that makes it manipulative, and that's what I'm uncomfortable with.

D

I think that encouraging addicts to use reversible contraception is a good idea. Implants or coil for women will prevent babies being born without permament sterilisation. Temporary sterilisation for men is a lot harder, but I am sure it could be made possibe with research. Maybe paying for research to find TEMPORARY ways of sterilising men would be a better use of the money.

Bribing someone to be sterilised is demeaning and I agree with other posters it smacks of eugenics.

The cash incentive is on a sliding scale depending on the permanence of the procedure. Drug addicts are desperate for cash and there are much riskier, more regrettable & more dangerous ways of getting it, let's be honest.

Some addicts do recover but it takes a long time, during which they could have produced several children - damaged, unwanted and farmed out into care. The majority of addicts never recover despite treatment programmes and good intentions.

A small cash incentive is by far the lesser evil.

did you misunderstand me?
I was at the people who think people choose to be addicts.

I can't think of anything more regrettable or more permanent than sterilisation, actually.

Do you mean prostitution? With time and counselling the vast majotity of people would be able live with that choice. I don't think it compares to never being able to have children because you were bribed when you were in no fit mental state to make such a permanant choice.

And no-one has explained yet why a child who does not exist and might never exist should have more rights than a living person?

Chil I know several addicts and ex addicts and the majority of them have recovered. The ones who had the implant I mentioned earlier recovered the quickest. And thus caused less irreversible damage to their body/life. If this charity is so determined to help addicts rather than play god, or misguidedly 'help' children who might never be concieved anyway, then why not pay for treatment like this instead?

www.naltrexonecentre.co.uk/about_naltrexone_implants.htm I think this must be what they had. Three of the users I know had family who could afford to pay for this for them. Only one of them went back to Heroin and it was years afterwards. I think he was clean for around 5 years, before personal loss drove him back to drugs. Clearly with counselling it would work better than it would just on it's own.

The charity would be far better off offering to help the family of addicts pay for treatment like this.

My closest ex-user friend was desperate for this treatment, after seeing how sucessful it was for his friends. Unfortunately his family could not afford it.

"If this charity is so determined to help addicts rather than play god, or misguidedly 'help' children who might never be concieved anyway, then why not pay for treatment like this instead?"

The charity does not claim to be helping addicts. There are any number of treatment centres, programmes and clinics all trying to do that with varying degrees of success. This charity's aim is to reduce the number of drug-damaged children arriving in the world. I think it's quite honest about that.

I know that for some people the idea of not having children is the worst possible thing imaginable. But for many others (and they don't have to be drug addicts, of course) it really isn't.

Lots of people, who are not addicted to substances, get sterilised by choice and see it as a relief, Dooin, rather than the Worst Thing in the World.

Indeed, expat. I'm pondering if women whose partners are contemplating vasectomies should tell them that it's one of the worst things that can happen.

Whether people see sterilisation as a relief, or the worst thing in the world, or whatever, isn't really the issue here. It's the manipulation of vulnerable people into making a permanent and life-changing decision at a time in their lives when they may not be able to fully consider all the ramifications.

D

Fortunately, having a child whilst addicted to drugs isn't a permanent and life-changing decision make at a time when they may not be able to fully consider all the ramifications. No, hang on, that's not quite right.

Yes and lots of people make that choice knowing that they have had all the children they want/don't want. And they make that choice because they want sterilising and are in a frame of mind where they are able to fully understand what they are doing. They don't make that choice because they need £200 and are not able to see past the next hit. The majority of addicts who take up this offer will be doing it solely for the money and not because they don't wish to have children in the future. And they will be making this choice at a time in their lives where they see no future. All they see is the never ending cycle of needing money to pay for drugs, getting money by whatever means, injecting that money, needing money to pay for drugs.....

I am another one who agrees with Jux.

What's wrong with offering long term reversible contraception like the 3 year implant instead?

But getting sterilised out of choice, with the only result being having no more children is not quite parallel to being paid to be sterilised.

By all means offer sterilisation, provide workers to go out and and offer it to people sterilisation may benefit, but don't offer people money to do it.

"What's wrong with offering long term reversible contraception like the 3 year implant instead?"

They are offered.

'Fortunately, having a child whilst addicted to drugs isn't a permanent and life-changing decision make at a time when they may not be able to fully consider all the ramifications. No, hang on, that's not quite right.'

I agree. But a person is either capable of making that kind of decision or they're not. If we agree that they're not (i.e. drug addicts shouldn't be having children), then doesn't it also stand to reason that they're not capable of making the other decision either?

Nobody is advocating drug addicts having children, but we can't say that they can't handle one decision but they can handle the other, particularly when the decision is muddied by short-term financial gain.

D

I dont like it
I work with addicts and have had the misfortune to witness a new born withdrawing.
I am all for offering and encouraging contraception to addicts.
But paying them to be sterilised is a step too far IMO and has echoes of Eugenics about it.

Chil but you get more money if you get sterilised, AIUI? The incentive is greater, to make what may end up, for lots of people, to be the wrong decision, and smaller, to do what will actually be the wrong decision for nobody.

D

I suspect that this charity would prefer grug addicts to be eliminated using similar methods that the Nazis used on Jews. That would truely guarrentee that no addict had children. Alas the law does not allow this.

This project is not interested in the welfare of addicts. Its about eliminating undesirables from society.

Okay, it's all well and good saying coil and implants.

But these don't work for men.

Men have only the condom as an option, and, if they're three sheets to the wind, might be more than often inclined not to use one.

I don't see addicts as people who are completely incompetent, either, or unable to make decisions at all.

I think paying them to be sterilised or use long-term contraception is a thing that works better in America because over there you have to pay for these procedures.

Why would this charity choose to permamently sterilise a woman?

They are evil.

However this is an interesting idea for men.

news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Sterilize-a-Man-Male-Contraceptive-Devices-66831.shtml

@reallytired. Drug addicts are already on a course that guarantees a lot of them will be 'eliminated'.

Persuading/pressurising an addict to get sterilised with no cash incentive appears to be morally acceptable (on these boards anyway) but isn't happening. One solitary person voluntarily takes them up on the cash offer, makes the headlines and we automatically assume that it's the slippery slope to eugenics, he's made 'the wrong decision' and that it will automatically ruin his life?

I don't get it.

Have you ever tried to get female sterilisation on the NHS?

I can assure you, you have to convince them you're very sure about it.

It's not like, 'Oh, I'm addicted to drugs and need £200, let me hop on this couch.'

You have to see a GP first. Then a consultant. Then get on a waiting list for the surgery.

Then turn up for the surgery and not be high/have fasted, have had a pre-op in some cases because it requires a GA here.

DH has a vasectomy.

He had to see the GP. Then wait for a consultant appointment. Then see him and be examined. Then wait for an op date.

Then turn up for it and go through with it.

"@reallytired. Drug addicts are already on a course that guarantees a lot of them will be 'eliminated'. "

As maybe, but it does not detract from their human rights. They are still people with thoughts and feelings. A drug addict is not some two headed beast with 666 across his/her forehead. A drug addict is someone's son/ daughter, someone's brother/sister.

Pushing a drug addict into permament sterilisation is nasty. It could mean that some mumsnetter never has granchildren, because of their daughter's behaviour in a teens.

Chil again that is not true. I have met and been friends with many addicts and ex-addicts. My cousin was a heroin addict for a few years. My best friend's brother and the vast majority of his friends were heroin users. Another friend's boyfriend and all of his friends were heroin users.

Only 1 of them died. Very few of them are still addicted. Only 1 of them ever had a child. Every single one of them would have cut off their right arm if you offered them £200 during their darkest times.

ANd this charity isn't just aiming itself at women/men who have had lots of children and are showing no signs of stopping are they?

They are aiming themselves at all drug/alcohol addicts. Many who will never fall pregnant/father a child anyway. So again what makes a child who may never be conceived more important than a person who is already living?