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
News
Original poster

Pay Drug Addicts To Be Steralized?

35 replies

CaveMum · 27/04/2010 08:21

I had heard about the American charity that pays drug and alcohol addicts to be steralized (long term or permanently), and it appears they are setting up shop in the UK.

Story here

Your thoughts?

Personally I kind of think it is a good thing [ducks the slings and arrows]. Addicts by their very nature are selfish and a selfish parent is not a good parent.

Have we gone too far in allowing addicts etc to have rights, at the expense of their own children?

I'm not keen on the idea of permanent steralization, but encouraging them to get an implant or the like means further down the line if they (hopefully) get clean and want to start a family they can.

OP posts:
StephysFamous · 27/04/2010 10:32

Hmm, hard one.
The idea of paying them to use contraception i.e injection or implant is good, but to sterilise them would be very wrong. IMO.
Drug addicts can turn themselves around to be amazing parents, have spoken to some on here. I understand that they would have to refer themselves to be sterilised so it would seem they have no intention of getting clean but in many cases it takes only one incident to give an addict the motivation to clean up their act.
What if they decided to turn their lives around after they had already been sterilised?

Chil1234 · 27/04/2010 11:22

I heard the woman at the heart of this charity interviewed recently on the BBC. She adopted several children produced by one drug-addict mother, dealt with the abject horrors the babies experienced with withdrawal, and that's why she came up with the idea of voluntary, paid contraception and sterilisation. (There are different payments for different levels of permanency)

I think it's an excellent idea to reduce the numbers of unwanted and damaged children. And, judging by some of the comments from people who have participated, removing the prospect of unwanted pregancy from their messed-up lives is generally welcomed as a huge releif.

Downdog · 27/04/2010 11:41

I don't know - it kind of sounds like a good idea but feels wrong.

Implants may be better option but reading on MN about so many women having dreadful side effects - might just add to their woes. Are they sterilising men too?

One of the most dedicated and loveliest Mum's I know is former heroin addict.

I think (male) paedophiles should be chemically castrated (on a day when I'm feeling kind) - society would no doubt be better off if they were. But do I want to live in a society where we can force people to undergo such a physically invasive treatment against their will? Probably not.

noddyholder · 27/04/2010 11:46

many addicts recover This is a serious breach of human rights

Chil1234 · 27/04/2010 12:09

It's voluntary so human rights are not breached. No-one's being forced or coerced into long-term contraception or sterilisation against their will. The same scheme is open to men (but they don't tend to take it up) and the financial incentive is very modest. I'm sure there are a few lovely mums who used to be junkies but there are a lot more damaged children condemned to a life in state care who didn't have any choice in the matter.

Callisto · 27/04/2010 14:38

I think it is a great idea, I read about the scheme in the US ages ago and was impressed with how much councilling and how voluntary it all is. There is no 'forcing' at all.

As for human rights, I do feel that the rights of the children of drug addicts should come first.

Original poster
CaveMum · 27/04/2010 16:58

So glad I haven't been shot down over this one!

It was very distressing to hear on the news this morning that children of drug addicts (by which I mean people who are addicted whilst pregnant/with young children, not those who are former drug addicts) are at a much, much higher risk of neglect and abuse and are at higher risk of being addicts themselves.

At some stage the rights of the child must start taking priority.

OP posts:
meatntattypie · 27/04/2010 17:04

I agree with it 100%

I am a nurse, icu
i have witnessed the deaths of both drug addicts and alcoholics many many times over.

By far the worst bit of it is having to comfort a screaming wailing crying inconsolable child at the bedside as thier mother/ father lay dying in front of their eyes.
Kids of a young age as well.

Even when the curtains are closed, and you are not witnesing the distress, you can hear it and it is awful.

Life of neglect, bieng brought up by family memebers who are left to pick up the peices of that childs life again and again and then one last final time.

Lovely kids, but broken kids non the less.

Also becuase it is voluntary, i believe that it is probably the one UN selfish act that they could ever do.

2shoes · 27/04/2010 17:07

what Noddy said.

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/04/2010 17:14

I feel very uneasy about this.

Be sterlisised and take your £200. These people are not going to be thinking of the potential future of such an action, they are just going to be thinking of the here and now and how much crack/smack they can get with that money.

It is almost like eugenics. Don't let the underclass breed.

There is no need for sterlisation, I don't think they should offer that - they could have long term contraceptive like the mirena.

scoutliam · 27/04/2010 17:16

If your in the middle of an addiction how on earth can you give informed consent?

NormaSnorks · 27/04/2010 17:23

Prefer the idea of something semi-permanent, such as an implant, over permanent sterilisation (addicts may turn their lives around, then what?)

But in principle I think it's an interesting idea.

A good friend of mine adopted two small children who had been taken from a drug addicted family/Mum and having seen the damage that's been done to those children in early life, I think I would support almost any initiative to stop it happening to other children .

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/04/2010 17:27

These people aren't selfish things though, are they.

The problems drugs cause families and addicts cannot quickly be remedied by charities like these set up with £13K, and launched in a blaze of publicity.

NormaSnorks · 27/04/2010 17:38

I think you need to address drug problems from all different angles really.

This is just one angle - offering an incentive for addicts to make what is fundamentally a good choice i.e. to not have children while they are drug addicts.

It clearly won't work for all addicts, but if it works for some, then why not?

EricNorthmansmistress · 27/04/2010 17:40

It's completely unethical. Drug addicts cannot be expected to make a sensible, long term decision when offered money for something they are seriously addicted to. Yes I completely agree that they should be offered LARC at every opportunity and I wouldn't be averse to the idea of incentives to get it, but permanent sterilisation? No way.

I assume this only applies to women as well, since they are concerned about the physical effects of being born to a drug dependent mother, rather than the attendent risks of being born to drug dependent parent/s?

BertieBotts · 27/04/2010 17:44

This is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, that makes perfect sense on paper.

When you realise that it's people this is affecting, and consider all the emotional baggage they carry, it starts to get murky, very very murky.

I agree with Stephy's, some kind of long acting contraception like an implant would be a better idea, but perhaps it's affected by the drugs that they might be taking? I know they can be affected by antibiotics etc.

Original poster
CaveMum · 27/04/2010 17:50

As I understand it the charity is offering both permanent sterilization and long term contraceptives. It is up to the individual to chose what they would prefer.

It is all well and good talking about the "human rights" of a drug addict, but what about the human rights of a child not to be brought up by a parent who cares more about their next fix than their child?

OP posts:
BertieBotts · 27/04/2010 19:32

Yes but come on, if you are thinking only about the next hit, which are you going to go for? The one which gives you the most cash.

JustMyTwoPenceWorth · 27/04/2010 19:40

hmmmmm, I am so conflicted about this.

On one hand nobody can say it is in the best interests of a baby to be born into such a situation, often addicted to drugs, in many cases neglected, often ending up in care. So if someone who took drugs said you know what, my lifestyle suits me, I want to live like this, I do not want to bring a child into this, I will avail myself of this service... I wouldn't actually have a problem with it.

But it wouldn't be like that. They'd go "£200!! I could get x, y, z with that!" because nothing matters except the - what do they call it? hit? and then what? that's the rest of their life. What if they turn their life around - as many do! Who's to say that the drug addict at 20 couldn't be a clean and sober person living a different life altogether at 40? It happens.

But then what happens more is that they continue to spiral downwards.

Oh I can see why it is suggested that preventing children from being born into this situation is a good thing - it is! but that's stopping a person from being brought into the world who might be neglected - and throwing an existing life on the scrapheap. You're crap, you're done, there's no point in bothering with you, let's just stop you breeding.

No. I think that it's better to reach out to the person and try to help them, try to give them hope and give them a chance to change their life.

Kaloki · 28/04/2010 01:02

The way I see it, if they were doing it for free without paying (bribing?) the addicts to do it, then it would rest easy. But paying them seems a step too far. The addiction is unsuprisingly going to make them want the money, with no regard for their future.

Essentially it seems they are giving the addicts 2 choices, next hit or a chance of a child. For non addicts we obviously would never choose the latter, but in an addiction it isn't so easy. The only one who loses in this situation is the addict. Not only are they robbing them of a future, they are handing them the cash for the next hit!

Tortington · 28/04/2010 01:09

encouraging the implant is way different from steralisation - which i cannot reconcile

Jaquelinehyde · 28/04/2010 01:21

I've heard a few programmes on radio4 about the lady that set these up.

I have to say that (never, ever thought I would find myself saying this) but I completly support the idea.

MIFLAW · 28/04/2010 01:27

Utter fascism.

Too depressing to say more.

Kaloki · 28/04/2010 01:33

jacqueline Really? Why?

wahwah · 28/04/2010 06:28

I am really unsure about this scheme-but having worked in child protection for years, I've only known a couple of parents actually get ( and stay ) clean from heroin. It seems to be a rare outcome.