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?

Not nearly as revolting as a crack whore churning out baby after to baby to be neglected and abused.

Yes, Octavia. All people who disagree with you are DM readers.

That's just weak. I can't afford newspapers so don't read them.

How does this affect me?

I live in a council flat.

Under is a flat the council uses to house single males who've become homeless.

We were once homeless. But unlike these guys, not due to drugs.

Can I tell you just how much of a misery our lives have been made in the last 8 months we've been living here?

Because none of these guys has been interested in getting off junk and speed.

One OD'd, teh other two have been murdered in drink/drug fuelled arguments.

In the times they have been there, we have had to live with their behaviour.

THAT is how it has affected me. And my children.

Wanna swap? I'm looking for an exchange. Strangely, no one wants to.

I can't imagine why?

Oh, I'm also on the max of anti-anxiety drugs adn tranqs to even get to sleep whilst we eat beans and drink water to save to get the hell out of here.

So excuse me for not really putting the lives of junkies over my own.

Look Alouiseg, no one is saying that baby after baby being born to an addict is a good thing, but a long term contraceptive implant will stop babies being born without irreversibly messing with the bodies of vulnerable women who are not in a mental state where they can give fully informed consent.
You honestly make it sound as tough you would be for forcing sterilisation...would you support that?
I am sorry but this sounds like eugenics to me... anyone who is or has ever been on drugs is automatically an awful mother for the rest of her life, regardless of whether she gives up on drugs or not. Sterilisation is PERMANENT as I keep saying. Implants are not. Many of these women may profoundly regret their decision to be sterilised later on.
Out of interest would you also offer all mentally ill people money to be sterilised?

ampere i would direct your first question right back at you. i dont feel the need to justify my position to you- in an internet forum like this you dont know if i run a charitable rehab, or if i am a drug addict or was even born one of these babies. do i need to give money away in order to have an opinion? no, i bloody dont.

the lady in charge of this scheme has at least raised awareness and got us talking about the issue, which can only be a good thing.

ok- so if i own some wooden toys, as you so sweetly assume, should i be put in charge of the entire manufacturing industry? i dont believe she is a charitable worker, a sociologist or social worker or anything in a professional capacity dealing with drug addicted children, and therefore i dont think her opinion should count for more than yours or mine. she is hideously biased and short sighted.

slippery slope? the people of nazi germany were grownups too, and as good a people as you or i. look where it got them.

it would be great if addicts really did choose to use contraceptives. however, this scheme is not enabling a choice but coercing a decision upon them that is not of their own choosing.

infantilising them? no. discussing a universal human rights issue? yes. addiction can happen to anyone, you know. how would you feel if, god forbid, little alfie or olivia developed an addiction one day and some really caring, helpful person forcibly sterilised them?

look at all the anger about this issue, people! this is a GOOD thing! what we need is fresh ideas and debate and action to tackle this issue in a humane and effective way.

I see no problem whatsoever with paying addicts and alcoholics to be supplied with long-term contraception. It would prevent babies being born addicted, without removing the possibility of people having children in the future should they get clean and sober. It's absolute common sense. There are SO many babies and children in care because of addiction, not to mention those being raised by addicts. It is criminal that we, as a society, put the human rights of their parents above those of babies to be born free from addiction and into a home where the main priority is something other than how to get the next fix.

expatinscotland- i am sorry for your troubles.

however, i believe any discussion of important issues should be done reasonably and calmly, without being clouded by personal bias. without rational argument, we are incapable of arriving at the right decision. for everyone.

The article is the best fresh idea I have read in a while.

Well done to Barbara Harris for giving so much of her time preventing misery and suffering of blameless human beings.

Octavia, how does personal experience become 'personal bias'. Nice sleight of hand. Very rational.

Well are either you blueshoes or alouiseg goingto answer my earlier questions

1. Would you support forcible sterilisation?
2. What are you going to do about rich women who won't be tempted by a few hundred quid?

Offering money for a 5 year contraceptive implant I have no problem with, as of course there many babies drug addicted and in care, but sterilisation has crossed the line, as it is permanent rather than temporary

And the children of addicts are statistically more likely to become addicts themselves.

This scheme , which is voluntary, does have the potential to break the horrific cycles of substance abuse that exists in deprived communities. This can only be a good thing, no?

I also think it's a bit facetious to compare it with the eugenics of the Nazis and 1930s USA -that was completely brutal, involuntary and inhumane-this is not -I don't think.

quite clearly, her personal experience has informed her personal bias, blueshoes

i dont claim to be a perfect, rational being myself. however, it is something we can all aspire to within the context of debate.

Easy, aspie.

1. No I don't support forcible sterilisation. I don't buy your slippery slope argument either.

1. If there is an incentive for middle class addicts over and above money, I'd give it to them.

1. Yes I support forcible sterilistaion. I also support enforced adoptions for women who are addicted when they give birth. If they love junk more than they love their baby then will invariably be a shit parent.

1. Define "rich women".

I'll answer your questions aspiegal whilst I'm here

No, I do not support forcible sterilisation, maybe for convicted paedophiles, not sure

Rich addicts because they are rich, do not face the same problems that poor addicts do. less unlikely to have kids taken off them, able to afford nannies, a decent education leading to confidence to deal with social workers.
Less likely to commit crimes that will draw them to the attention of the authorities in the first place- I could go on

I do know a woman who got pregnant and got clean, and is a fantastic mother. By sterilisation you are permanently removing one of the biggest incentives to get clean- the hope of a better life.
Implants could break the cycle
Sterilisation seems to be saying that all addicts are completely worthless people, who do not deserve the chance to be parents if they get clean.
Many people who become addicts have been abused, feel worthless and want to escape. They do not need to be mutilated on top of that. They are not in a mental state where they can give fully informed consent, and therefore it is mutilation of their bodies.
I do think a financial incentive for implants could work but sterilisation is, frankly a disgusting idea

Octavia, I am guessing everyone who does not agree with you is not debating this 'rationally'.

marthaquest- i do not believe the scheme is not voluntary, for reasons i have already outlined. yes, preventing drug addiction is a worthy goal, but do the ends really justify the means in something like this?

that is why any scheme seeking to socially engineer a society through sterilization or worse rightly deserves a comparision with nazi germany.

Dear God Aloiseg - forced sterilisation??
Thankfully the Rome Statute regards forced sterilisation as a crime against humanity. If an addict gives birth to a baby, then that baby should be adopted if after a certain period the parent has not got clean- say 6-8 months.
Hmm rich women- I was thinking of the sister of a woman I once knew. Lived in a six bed house, fancy car, three kids, addicted to crack. Was very emotionally distant from her kids according to her sister, who often was the kids nanny I believe.

lol@ blueshoes

yes, that's exactly right. everyone except me in the whole world is completely irrational

sorry, should i not pick holes in arguments? is that against the rules? please, feel free to do the same to me.

lol@ blueshoes

yes, that's exactly right. everyone except me in the whole world is completely irrational

sorry, should i not pick holes in arguments? is that against the rules? please, feel free to do the same to me.

Certainly in this case the end does not justify the means. Sterilisation in this case is plain wrong. I do not think financial incentive for an implant is on the same level, and it achieves the same end, without resorting to something getting dangerously close to Nazi gemany or 30's USA. It does deserve a comparison because addicts are not in a sound mental state. It is fat perilously close to being mentally ill and taking advantage of them while they are in such a state of mind is frankly disgusting

What's worse than sterilisation in this case though?

Let's not exaggerate what we're talking about here, voluntary sterilisation. Unnecessary comparisons with Nazi Germany are also bordering on the offensive IMO.
Let's keep them for real infringements of human rights.

Im meant to say 'it is in fact perilously close' sorry about that my bad typing

Babies as an incentive to get clean?

That's ok? But money as an incentive to not get pregnant isn't?