Drug addicts paid to be sterilised

[MarthaQuest]

In today's Guardian

I thought I was left wing, but I found myself agreeing with most of this article.

What do you all think?

Gape on

Alouise, I feel it is patronising to assume addicts and 'the poor' have no thought process and other, more educated and well-meaning souls, speak for them.

I don't think alouiseg is in the minority. Mn is a libdem bubble.

Addicts thought processes are decimated by the need for drugs.

How do "the poor" come into the same bracket? I made no references!

expat, I've disagreed with you on a lot of stuff but I think your posts about your experiences, not just here but on other threads, have been very enlightening

it is easier to be liberal is that the word, or soft-hearted? I don't quite know the word I need anyhow, it's easier when the situation isn't forced on you day after day

it is not in the main wealthy middle class people who suffer the day to day attrition of living around drug addicts

anyway as you probably know I don't "share" that much so I respect you for talking about things that a lot of people wouldn't have the first idea about

ps I know you are probably liberal etc etc (though no softie) but you say it the way it is and it's very informative

back, I consider myself a liberal. but I feel, personally, that a sense of personal responsibility is tantamount to life.

and, though i, too, have disagreed with you, i respect you for not getting personal and for sticking to how you feel without attacks and being clear and articulate.

i have had my mind addled as well, alouise, mostly by the mental illness of ante-natal and post-natal depression.

there were always moments of clarity for me, even as i tried to end my life.

i like to think it might be different for others, i know they are very sick when they do this, but i know, too, just how i felt.

and i don't want others telling me that i can't make a decision about my own life.

because when you do, then you also don't allow people to go to switzerland or the netherlands and do what they feel they must because they have an illness they would rather end before it does them.

you tell them they are not capable of this.

ditto addicts.

these are adults we are talking about. they are not children.

as i have already said, i am very sorry for your troubles expat.

but dont you see that nhs provisions for mental health treatments ( which are shocking) are intimately tied up with treatments for drug addicts? the more provision is made for the care of the vulnerable in society, which includes addicts and the mentally ill, the better society as a whole will be.

alouise, the 'poor' have come under the same guise here on this thread many times.

as well as 'the vulnerable'.

well, technically, as both 'the poor' (economically, as we are) and 'the vulnerable' (as a mentally ill person married to a disabled man and the mother of a disabled child), i don't need well-meaning, supposedly more educated people telling me i'm incapable of making decisions because they know better about my rights.

i live around the disaffected. the disenfranchised. prostitutes, junkies, murderers.

if you ponced the sort of academic stuff that's been thrown around this thread to them most of them would laugh hard.

they don't need people telling them don't take cash for being sterilised.

they want to fix with the money, they've had all their kids taken off them, let 'em.

We are surrounded by drug-addicted parents in our part of inner city Dublin. My kids go to school with their stick-thin little children, who are usually brought to school covered iin bruises, late and without breakfast (the secretary brings them straight into the staff room and feeds them). It is so fucking grim

There are times I think these people shouldn't be allowed to have children (not a nice way to think, but an emotional response to the stuff I see around me).
But I despise this idea of sterilising them. It is stomach-churning. It's sick and de-humanising.

i think that'll be all for me now.

But we are NOT talking about adults choices. We are talking about vulnerable children's choices.

The average age for the first hit of heroine is 13/14.

They are already addicted by the time they come into adulthood. To then sterelise them for the fact that society failed them as children is barbaric.

I don't think anybody has said that there are no rich/middle class drug addicts.

More that, being a heroin addict is not generally (note generally) condusive (sp?) to stable employment. Nor is being an alcoholic. It just isn't. Yes, there are exceptions but they are rare.

Also, living on a crap housing estate, with no job and having a crap education is pretty depressing. Depressives often (not always) tend to self-medicate with drugs or alcohol.

There seems to be a general consensus here that sterilsation under those circumstances, for cash, is barbaric.

Not sure what the debate is about now then.

What would be interesting, is a project offering men and women who are addicted to some kind of substance (legal or not) long term contraception. Not for cash, just a project encouraging GP's and other health care providers to offer these services to these people.

Does this already happen? If not, why not?

This woman ought to be shot. There are other ways of preventing addicted babies without resorting to permanent sterilisation. Maybe her mother should have been sterilised.

It would be taking away the biggest and best incentive for kicking drugs.

I'm not in favour of this. I've lived amongst addicts and it's grim - but I've also seen how people can turn their lives around for the sake of their child. Long term contraceptives seem sensible. Permanent sterilisation should not be offered in exchange for payment.

there was a case of a woman who was addicted to heroin, she had been told she couldnt have kids, she got pregnant with a long term partner who didnt know she was on heroin and who also thought she couldnt get pregant, she didnt know she was pregnant until she was at 28 weeks 4 days, her doctor had told her it was just her ibs, she was working 60 hour weeks to pay for her home and her habit. nobody knew and she was trying to her best by everyone, when she discovered she was pregant not only was she devestated, she had never wanted children and was told she couldnt have them, but by now it was too late to do anything about it.She now has a son, who is very well looked after, on the outside she is just like everyone else, but she feels like she is stuck, this isnt what she wanted, and remember she had been told by multiple medical proffessionals that she couldnt have kids. what should she do now? the child has loving grandparents and aunts and uncles, but this could happen with the people that are supposedly 'sterile' not everything is infallable.

I've read the article and ALL the posts and here's my two cents.

Drug addiction and its impact on society is complex and it seems to me a variety of solutions are needed to tackle this.

Yes, I think drug addicts need access to the appropriate mental and medical care that can help them kick their addiction and get their lives on track (job training, education, opportunity to relocate to a new environment, etc). However, we also need to look at and invest in programmes that minimise the effect drug addiction has on society as a whole.

That could/should include needle exchanges to help prevent the spread of Hepatitis and HIV, drugs available on prescription to stop petty crime and in some cases sterilisation or long-term contraception. It's expensive for the state to take care of the children of drug addicts AND the addicts themselves. Not to mention the sad and unstable lives these kids lead. Sadly, it's a self perpetuating cycle - children of drug addicts are likely to become addicts themselves. Financially it does make sense to offer long-term contraception or sterilisation.

Not sure if you've ever read Freakonomicks but there is one chapter that equates a dramatic drop in crime in the US to an increase in abortions amongst poor women in the 15-20 years proceeding. Effectively women from disadvantaged backgrounds weren't giving birth to the criminals of the future. Not all economists agree on the theory, and I take all statistics with a pinch of salt, but as a concept I think it makes sense.