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.

They're not pushing them.

And I honestly beg someone to find me a consultant who would sterilise a teenager.

People who take this offer still have to convince the NHS that they are of sound enough mind to make the decision to be sterilised, if that's what they chose, and wait and then turn up for the procedure.

It's not a drive-through sterilisation service.

@reallytired... some mumsnetter could have several very damaged grandchildren that they are never in contact with dotted about the country in various care facilities and fosterhomes just because their daughter was an addict. Sentimentality is not what this discussion needs

'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?'

Where there is no cash incentive, then the decision is based on the issue alone (and the NHS route requires checks & balances, and some consideration of the long term consequences).

The money makes it manipulation, and I don't think that manipulating some of the weakest in society is something that should be seen as a Good Thing.

And to imagine that drug addicts going into this aren't going to be focussed mainly on what they're going to do with the £200 rather than whether they might regret this in 15 years, is IMO unrealistic.

D

Are children who had addict parents and neglected early years more likely to be addicts themselves?

I don't know the answer, it was a question I asked when I read the article in a magazine.

"So again what makes a child who may never be conceived more important than a person who is already living?"

Nothing. But this isn't about 'importance' it's about pragmatism and practicality. The man who chose to have the vasectomy commented that he can't look after himself let alone a child. He's being very practical and probably would have made the same decision eventually even without the financial incentive.

He's also 38-years-old. Not a teenager or even a young adult.

Again, they get sterilised on the NHS. Meaning you have to convince a consultant to do it.

And they won't if they think you are too young.

Sorry expat I had misunderstood.

But sorry again, as I still think the £200 means that an attractive incentive weighs into a decision when it shouldn't.

D

I did things 15 years ago that I regret today. We all have things we regret. Drug addicts will regret great swathes of their life if/when they eventually recover from their addiction. I don't see how 'not having children' would be a bigger regret than having gone through the ordeal of giving birth and handing a baby over to social services...

.

8 years ago my friends brother could not look after himself. About 9 years ago, at a party, I held him and listened to him tell me about how he was going to die soon. He would end up either being murdered by people he owed money to or he would over dose. He could see no way out of the situation he was in. He was simply waiting to die

5 years ago he was almost crying in my arms again because I trusted him enough to look after my child for me. He had been clean for almost 2 years.

Every weekend for the last 6 years he has taken his niece to the park/cinema/beach. He has a flat of his own and cooks/cleans for himself. He is probably more capable than my DH, who has never used drugs of any kind.

He has no children of his own. He would love to meet someone to have a child with. But unfortunately he lives with stigma of having been an addict and not many people have time for him.

But like I say, 8/9 years ago, he would have told you that he was not capable of caring for himself or a child.

People who see no future are not in the right place to make descions like this.

I think a 38-year-old has the right to make decisions about what to do with his own body.

I agree Expat, but they should be making descion because it is right choice for them at that time. Not because some one is offering them money.

If an addict truely wants to be sterilised and feels it is right for them, they will do it anyway. Without being paid. Like I said earlier, by all means suggest it as an option, but offering money is overstepping the mark imo and is manipulating vunerable, desperate people into making choices they would never have thought of otherwise.

And I have no doubt that an addict, in the depths of desperation could convince a GP that steriliastion was the right choice for them, if £200 was on offer. You also risk health professionals playing god and putting addicts forward for the procedure even if they know it is not right for them just to stop 'another addict' bringing a child they cannot care for into the world.

I think that pushing someone into permanent sterilisation is horrid. It is hard to reverse and that person may recover from their addiction and go on to live a normal life but be unable to conceive. However I think encouraging addicts to have a reversible contraception such as the implant or coil is an excellent idea.

Here's £200 worth of heroin for free - would you like a vasectomy? That's effectively what they are doing. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The last time this reared its ugly head when someone from the charity was touting for business up my way - in a v deprived area, asking people who looked like they might be addicts if they wanted money.

AFAIK they have to hide the fact they have been offered money from the NHS or they won't get the op.

:Here's £200 worth of heroin for free - would you like a vasectomy? That's effectively what they are doing. Wrong, wrong, wrong."

It isn't. They still need to convince an NHS clinic to do the work.

But if you assume that opinion on his board is representative of the general population 50% of consultants may lean towards the drug addict + sterilisation = great idea, I doubt they would look much further than that TBH

I don't think people are making free decisions about what to do with their own body when the offer on the table tells them they are worthless pieces of shit, they shouldn't reproduce and they will be paid not to breed.

Of course this is eugenics. The premise that this is in their best interests and the best interests of a child is utter fabrication. The best thing for everyone would be sort out our pathetic system of dealing with addiction - the 'war on drugs' has not worked. Most people who work with people who are addicts would never advocate the systems we use because they only work for a small minority, and in general the system ends up supporting addiction not helping people stop it.

The idea that people choose to become addicts is ludicrous. People do not exist in a vacuum. There are many factors at play when addiction takes hold.

I can't believe what that charity's doing is legal. I thought there was legislation to protect vulnerable adults?

We know a drug addict will do most things for cash, if he/she is being offered £200 to feed their addiction, but a condition of that is to be sterilised...that makes me very uncomfortable.

Did anyone watch the BBC program about this last night? I completely understand the eugenics argument but when I heard that baby crying & obviously in so much pain I had to stop myself from being sick.

And then the woman from the 'charity' went on to say how the last 20 women to be sterilised had had 120 pregnancies between them! She didn't say how many were aborted or died because of the drug use but I imagine there were at least a few who suffered horribly though no fault of their own.

I don't know if sterilisation is the answer though, maybe long term contraceptives would be better. Or maybe the £200 would be better spent offering these people counselling before & after they make their decision or on improving rehab services in this country. It doesn't appear to be as black and white as some on here make out though.

Head says it's wrong on so many levels but have worked with drug addicted parents and their kids and sorry....heart says yes.

If you have heard a baby born addicted to either heroin or crack or seen the degradation some children have to live through.......

I still think there's a good moral reason why it's not OK to pay anyone to have any kind of medical treatment in the UK (apart from clinical trials, which FWIW, drug addicts would be likely to be exempt from), and it's because it makes the decision not solely about making the right medical decision, but also about the financial gain.

Ethically, I think that's a good way for things to be to be honest, even more so when we're talking about an irreversible decision.

If it becomes OK to pay people to have medical treatment, it opens the door for patients being auctioned off to the highest bidder from big pharma, or from freaky judgemental church groups from the US or whatever. And even though this is one guy so far, it does open a door, and we do have to care about precedent.

Not that my heart doesn't break for the babies and children thrust into this situation, but that doesn't make it morally OK to pay someone to have medical treatment.

D