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?

Why, blueshoes, is this a bloody good idea??
Please explain, I'm eager to know how exactly you can justify this

to stop things like this happening

By sterilisation??? A PERMANENT operation????
Many of these women will come off drugs. What if they come off, then later want to start a family?
By all means offer an incentive for women on drugs to have a contraceptive injection, but sterilisation for God's sake! It's preying on the weak and vulnerable

1. Rich women on drugs will not be swayed by a couple of hundred pounds
2. Drug addicts are not in a position to give full consent to this operation because drugs have altered their mental state - they will accept the operation to get money for their next fix, and regret it years later
3. It is PERMANENT and IRREVERSIBLE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES including getting off drugs and living well, making a success of yourself and then wanting to start a family
4. You are putting out the idea that every woman on drugs is now so ruined and worthless that never again under any circumstances should they have children, no matter if they become clean and stay that wwhich is a cruel attitude
5. You are walking down a dangerous path. Who next after drug addicts? Smokers? Women with children with a child protection plan? How long before you start forcing sterilisation on people? Like Hitler did to some alcoholics. You want to follow Hitler's example?
6. Later in life most of these women will regret it profoundly

I agree that financial incentive for a contraceptive injection could be used, but sterilisation is far too far.
These women are too vulnerable, cannot consent properly, and are targeted because they are addicts who are poor

I only scanned the article and havent read all the posts but have had first hand experiances of people that take heroin and crack and at the moment those are the only types of drugs I think this should be used for. People that take heroine in particular turn into shells of humans a bit like the horrid thing that gaurds the ring in lord of the rings.. Golam? He would do anything to get that ring, he doesnt care about anything else ad nothing will stand in his way. he used to be a normal huma being but the power of the ring turned him into an animal, a horrid, nasty, evil animal. I tink this is such a wise move. I think it needs to be something like an implant or sterilisation depending on circumstances and tha there should be a program put in place too. My experiance is that heroin users rarely come off heroine.

newleaseoflife that is a great analogy.

Why thank you, pity about my terrible typing though

Nothing is going to change my mind, although that is definitely a good analogy. Long term contraceptive injetions are fine, but permanent sterilisation is not

You do hve a point. I would say the implant as it lasts between 3 and 5 years. The injection is only for 12 weeks. I think a few years with a program in place is a much bette idea. Sterilisation is extreme perhaps.

If these women (I am happy for this to apply to men as well) want to ruin their own lives, let them not also drag down with them serial offspring who are already permanently damaged at birth into a similar life of hell.

I am far more concerned to prevent suffering of unwanted children than to angst over their parents too self-absorbed and weak to prevent the cycle of suffering.

The thing is, most of these women at this moment in time do not have children blueshoes. An implant could be a good idea, that would stop pregnancies, and I believe costs less money than an operation to sterilise would. As I said sterilisation is far too permanent, whereas if they get the implant then come off drugs they can still start a family later in life.
Unfortunatly men can't have a contraceptive implants which is a pity but ah well...
Blueshoes, out of interest, what are you going to do about the huge numbers of middle and upper class women who are addicts. They aren't going to be tempted by a few hundred quid. But this program is targeting the poor, and that does not sit well with me.
I am concerned with protected the potential offspring too but sterilisation is not the way to go about it

aspie, if the program saves even one baby being born, it is worth it. So middle class or poor does not even begin to come into it for me.

The big problem with implants is they are not forever. They wear off. I am touched you are so certain the women will be off drugs (and presumably stay off) drugs when the implant wears off.

I am happy for women to be paid to be sterilised, equally happy for them to be paid to have implants put in. But make no mistake, I am fine with them choosing to take money to be sterilised.

I'm worried about where this program would lead to blueshoes. Although I do see your point of view, I can just see this kind of prgram leading to something worse a few years down the road i.e. the birth rate of babies born to addicts goes down, and people start talking about forcible sterilisation
Make no mistake, I do know that most of the women will not come off drugs, but for the sake of the women that do we should offer implants. I am sure implants would be cheaper leaving more money to go into treatment programs. Certainly some women will come off though, and if they then later want to start a family we'll be paying for their IVF, which is very expensive indeed considering many need more than one treatment to concieve.
Implants do wear off but they can be done again if these women want.
And have you thought about this- Many addicts will not want to be sterilised and would prefer an implant. I think that you would get more women on an implant scheme than on a sterilisation scheme which means that there will be less babies born as a result! Which is what you want, is it not?

Offer money for an implant and more for sterilisation.

I am not concerned about the slippery slope you describe. This programme is right and should be started - I hope the current govt takes up cudgels.

As for these women wanting children, I doubt they will be accepted on any state-funded IVF programme. They can always try adoption if they pass muster with social services/adoption agencies.

this is 100% morally outrageously wrong.

drug addicts are vulnerable people, desperate for money and so monged off their heads that they are almost incapable of making any decision except in the pursuit of drugs. did i mention almost always desperately poor, as well?

giving them money to be sterilised is coercing them into a decision and is an outrage on human rights.

only someone monstrously evil would seek to design society in this way. this is bordering on eugenics.

what we need instead of this bullshit is a proper attack on the drugs trade and real, effective rehab. which we definitely wont get now that bastard dave's in number 10.

as long as these sociological conditions exist, women will keep becoming drug addicts and producing addict babies. this is just a vile, vile stopgap.

It should be done. It's thousands of grandparents like me who are left holding the baby to bring up.

It's a free country. If people want to get sterilised for money, let 'em to it.

After living in close proximity to addicts, my sympathy is about nill.

Many of the women mentioned in the article already had numerous children that they were unable to properly care for.

So if they were sterilised and then later in life came off the drugs ,they would hopefully regain some contact with their children. And if that isn't an incentive for getting clean, i don't know what is.

It's not an ideal situation, OcatviaH, for the reasons you list, but IMO it would be better than doing nothing at all .

monged? Drugs make someone akin to having Down's Syndrome, which is what 'mong' or 'monged' is a deregatory term for.

And people who don't have a problem with people getting sterilised for money are ignorant and morally bankrupt?

Okay.

'which we definitely wont get now that bastard dave's in number 10.'

He's there because people voted him and his deputy PM in.

Democratically.

Maybe it's time to think about why so many turned out at the polls to do so.

Some of us are getting a bit fed up of the 'human rights' of ordinary people being last on the list for consideration.

marthaquest- i can follow the argument for the other side and see how it could appeal. the thought of babies being born addicted to heroin is terrible.

however when it seems that a crackpot american with no understanding of our society offers what seems to be the most viable solution for dealing with this problem then something has gone very, very wrong.

i do not agree that it is better than doing nothing. i believe it is much worse than doing nothing, as it seems to be morally repugnant, but you are right to say that this is is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

expatinscotland- i am so sorry. i did not know that was where the word originated from (before my time). really really sorry to have caused offense.

Octavia, how much money do you donate towards the care of the offspring of addicted mothers? Mm?

This scheme is not monstrously evil. It is a practical response to the -ahem- 'evil' of drug addled women giving birth to addicted children who may if not will suffer health issues all of their lives.

Bear in mind the woman who has instigated this has taken in several siblings born into this so has more than an inkling than you or I as to what it entails.

As for the 'slippery slope' argument, failing to take one step because it could lead to an uncontrollable deluge is ridiculous. We are grown ups, we can differentiate shades of grey. It is the mark of a mature society.

If these women choose sterilisation or long term contraception, it is surely a step towards them taking SOME responsibility for otherwise chaotic lives and should be applauded. Surely we infantalise and patronise them by deciding FOR THEM that it's wrong thus should be banned, as we slide back onto our sofa, clutching our latte, watching Octavia and Bruno play with their wooden toys.

For many of these women it'll be one less thing to screw them up; an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, complete with the guilt and loss of having that child removed from them.

As for the later 'regret', well not with long term contraception BUT even with sterilization, the point the woman makes is that many of these women have had MULTIPLE births already. What about, once clean, rather than making a nice, shiny, clean new baby, she makes some effort towards redressing the horror she voluntarily visited upon her existing children? The true sign of rehabilitation back into 'normal society'?

^He's there because people voted him and his deputy PM in.

Democratically^

ok, anyone with even a basic grasp of what happened in the last election knows that's not true.

Some of us are getting a bit fed up of the 'human rights' of ordinary people being last on the list for consideration.

and how does this affect you exactly?

you sound suspiciously like a daily mail reader to me. i'm sure they'll be wholly in favour of this.

"Surely we infantalise and patronise them by deciding FOR THEM that it's wrong thus should be banned, as we slide back onto our sofa, clutching our large glass of wine , watching Octavia and Bruno play with their wooden toys."

i don;t see anyone wanting to sterilise octavia and bruno's mummy and daddy, even though they are as addicted as the prostitute on teh street corner.

I am going to this now.

As it boils down to
Round up the scum
Sterilise them
Expunge them from our society

And that is an absolutely revloting attitude to have.