Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sterilisation of heroin addicts - justified?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Aimeee
    Registered Users Posts: 499 ✭✭Aimeee


    There was article about this in Guardian a few years ago. Google Project Prevention. They were trying to introduce it in Scotland. Don't know how that ended.
    Having worked with addicts in my previous life and met some of the children I'm still undecided. Without a doubt the life for those kids is hard. Some of them are wise beyond their years. Nature of the beast i suppose, probably being the minder from an early age.
    How do you decide who should and shouldn't have children? Where do you draw the line if you start down that road. Leaves me feeing very uneasy, as does the scene painted in original post.


  • Options
    #33
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    So a child being wheeled around by a junkie is perfectly ok to you? Fine, we know where you stand.

    Eugenics FTW!!


  • Options
    #34
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Phil Lynott was a great musician and showman. No idea how he was as a father. Doubt his kids can remember too clearly either.

    The cost of a contraceptive implant is considerably less than the costs involved in dealing with neglectful parents and raising a child (who would not be getting an acceptable start in life either).

    Yes I would support the idea of forced temporary contraception for junkies.


  • Options
    #35
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Eugenics FTW!!

    It's not. You can sterilise for a period of time that they are addicts. After that...let them have as many as they want.


  • Options
    #36
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Again you say this until you actually come across a junkie with a pram. Amazing how opinions can change so quick when confronted with the reality.

    And it will not help that child in the pram, will it? You can have your opinion about it of all you like, but you'd be committing one evil to make yourself feel better about another evil.

    I actually do know a bit about the subject as it happens. And I can understand your hate for the situation. But no, seeing another child in that situation would not convince me that throwing out the Declaration and Constitution would solve it. It won't.

    Also, it -is- possible that the baby wasn't a newborn but had just been released. I would be surprised if s/he had, but it is a scenario that is just possible. For reasons given above, newborn is unlikely. Minor point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,890 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Forcing surgery on someone for their life choices is a big hell no from me.


  • Options
    #38
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Well I don't care what you think random internet guy. I'm telling you what a clearly upset taxi driver told me. Whether you believe it or not I really don't care.


    That makes two of us then.

    Anyway, the idea of sterilising anyone is beyond stupid already, and it's not going to do a whole lot for children of heroin addicts who are already born. It's not going to happen and well you know it.


  • Options
    #39
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Samaris wrote: »
    And it will not help that child in the pram, will it?

    It would. They would not have been born.


  • Options
    #40
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It's not. You can sterilise for a period of time that they are addicts. After that...let them have as many as they want.
    eu·gen·ics
    yo͞oˈjeniks/Submit
    noun
    the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.



    Eugenics FTW!!


  • Options
    #41
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's not going to happen and well you know it.

    The heroin problem in Dublin is so bad that something radical needs to happen soon and will happen. Whether that is the removal of the meth clinics out of the city center or more extreme action remains to be seen. Either way we can not go on supporting this farce.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,890 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Taxi driver tonight told me a story of two new parent junkies in his car, the mother having given birth two days before, strung out of their heads getting a lift home last week. Lets just say they were just out of the hospital and he seemed really animated about the state the parents were actually in and basically rejects their ability to raise a child and could not believe they were allowed leave with a child given their state. And by strung out he meant really strung out (O'Connell st extreme zombie style). Basically the child has no chance was his beef.

    Given taxpayers fund the meth program maybe it is time for taxpayers to consider other options for something that does not work - and as visible on Dublin streets every day will never work - maybe sterilisation for a period is an option that could also be considered.

    Lets be honest bringing up any child in that environment is surely abuse?

    Taxi driver can leave a complaint with social services, having dropped them off at their address presumably


  • Options
    #43
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Billy86 wrote: »
    eu·gen·ics
    yo͞oˈjeniks/Submit
    noun
    the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.



    Eugenics FTW!!

    I don't accept the analogy - a child born after addiction is still a child to the parents.


  • Options
    #44
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It would. They would not have been born.

    Good heavens, have you discovered time travel? If not, and you have no way of going back and sterilising the parents before this child you saw in his or her pram was concieved, your proposal will not help that actual, living child, will it?

    Thus we are back to the ethical and legal dilemma of removing human rights from living people for the sake of potential people to prevent their births.


  • Options
    #45
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I don't accept the analogy - a child born after addiction is still a child to the parents.
    And a child not born at all because their parents were castrated against their own will is... Eugenics FTW!!


  • Options
    #46
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Samaris wrote: »
    Good heavens, have you discovered time travel? If not, and you have no way of going back and sterilising the parents before this child you saw in his or her pram was concieved, your proposal will not help that actual, living child, will it?

    I saw??? What planet do you live on? Go to the north side - you will see it, any day of the week.

    It is too late for the child you reference but others could be prevented from being born in to that environment.


  • Options
    #47
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Billy86 wrote: »
    And a child not born at all because their parents were castrated against their own will is... Eugenics FTW!!

    Not the same. Same genes, same birth only not addicted.


  • Options
    #48
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Overheal wrote: »
    Forcing surgery on someone for their life choices is a big hell no from me.
    A bipolar woman was given a forced caesarian in the UK recently enough. She was severely manic as a result of discontinuing lithium. She did this because lithium is a teratogen. Her episode was putting her baby at major risk. Do you think it would have been better to allow the woman to destroy her unborn child because she was ill?

    [The baby was also forcibly removed from her and given for adoption - which strikes me as abominable - but that is a separate matter.]

    It has been demonstrated that dealing with drug addiction in a medical context is the most effective approach. Thinking of things in this sort of context the conclusion must be that it is best to prevent junkies from becoming pregnant. The problem is that people are thinking in a judicial context, and objecting to what they therefore perceive as too harsh a punishment. Think of it in the appropriate context and it becomes obvious that forcibly preventing pregnancy is a good idea.


  • Options
    #49
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Not the same. Same genes, same birth only not addicted.

    You... do know what sterilisation is, when it comes to people, right?


  • Options
    #50
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,890 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    blatantrereg wrote: »
    A bipolar woman was given a forced caesarian in the UK recently enough. She was severely manic as a result of discontinuing lithium. She did this because lithium is a tetrogen. Her episode was putting her baby at major risk. Do you think it would have been better to allow the woman to destroy her unborn child because she was ill?

    Forced Sterilization, lets pin it on forced sterilization being a hell no. Fair counterpoint.


  • Options
    #51
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    The heroin problem in Dublin is so bad that something radical needs to happen soon and will happen. Whether that is the removal of the meth clinics out of the city center or more extreme action remains to be seen. Either way we can not go on supporting this farce.


    That something radical won't include sterilisation, straight up. So the more likely option is that they will carry on as they are now because nobody wants a meth clinic in their back yard. That only leaves the option of continuing to support this farce. There simply isn't any other option.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Billy86 wrote: »
    You... do know what sterilisation is, when it comes to people, right?

    It is the would-be parents choice to take heroin. Not mine or yours. If they knew the true consequences they might think again before taking up the drug.


  • Options
    #53
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That something radical won't include sterilisation, straight up. So the more likely option is that they will carry on as they are now because nobody wants a meth clinic in their back yard. That only leaves the option of continuing to support this farce. There simply isn't any other option.

    Taking the meth clinics out of Dublin IS an option. No other capital city would tolerate 15 meth clinics within walking distance of their so called main thoroughfare. Put them out in some abandoned industrial estate and ask who will care?


  • Options
    #54
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I saw??? What planet do you live on? Go to the north side - you will see it, any day of the week.

    It is too late for the child you reference but others could be prevented from being born in to that environment.

    You arw still avoiding the main point, Kermit. Until you actually engage with the difficult questions regarding your idea, it is honestly so much pissing into the wind (or giving out on an internet forum, its much the same thing). You cannot justifiably say "This should be done!" and ignore every issue with implementation while appealing only to emotive images and statements to try back up your point.

    How do you get around a clear breach of the concept of human rights by ignoring them for living, actual people in favour of the right of potential people, I.e. people that do not currently exist to ...well, not be born?


    Plus all the other issues raised regarding methods, etc.


  • Options
    #55
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It is the would-be parents choice to take heroin. Not mine or yours. If they knew the true consequences they might think again before taking up the drug.
    That doesn't mean it's not eugenics. And you really might be well served to get a better understanding of addiction if you think threatening an addict with sterilisation will make them less likely to use.


  • Options
    #56
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Samaris wrote: »
    You arw still avoiding the main point, Kermit. Until you actually engage with the difficult questions regarding your idea, it is honestly so much pissing into the wind (or giving out on an internet forum, its much the same thing). You cannot justifiably say "Thus should be done!" and ignore every issue with implementation while appealing only to emotive statements to try back up your point.

    How do you get around a clear breach of the concept of human rights by ignoring them for living, actual people in favour of the right of potential people, I.e. people that do not currently exist to ...well, not be born?


    Plus all the other issues raised regarding methods, etc.

    You keep saying human rights - i.e the right conferred on them. They also have personal responsibility. I don't buy human rights when it comes to junkies. And if, like I have, you have ever known one you would understand very quickly why.

    You are trying to portray junkies as victims by bringing up human rights. They are victims of themselves, no one else. Human rights are there to prevent violation by others. This should surely apply to new born babies? No? What about their rights? Or better, not born at all.


  • Options
    #57
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,547 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Billy86 wrote: »
    That doesn't mean it's not eugenics.

    It's not eugenics because after a period of time they could have children out of their addicted state. Eugenics is different to this - that is cleansing based on genetics which does not exist in this proposal.


  • Options
    #58
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Taking the meth clinics out of Dublin IS an option. No other capital city would tolerate 15 meth clinics within walking distance of their so called main thoroughfare. Put them out in some abandoned industrial estate and ask who will care?


    There's no such thing as an abandoned industrial estate. Secondly you'll still have the State funding meth clinics in the industrial estate, but no heroin addicts will travel out there because it's too far for them to travel out from where they live. You can't easily remove them from where they live either.

    I can understand where you're coming from and all, but you're completely ignoring a whole lot of factors that all sorts of people try to deal with every day from the Gardaí to hospital staff to social services to welfare officers...

    Really there just isn't the will to tackle the problem because as you quite rightly point out - not too many people actually care about the problem.


  • Options
    #59
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,122 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It is the would-be parents choice to take heroin. Not mine or yours. If they knew the true consequences they might think again before taking up the drug.

    I really doubt it would be a deterrent in any way. Everyone is already aware of the consequences of becoming a drug addict but it doesn't stop some people doing it anyway.


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Overheal wrote: »
    Taxi driver can leave a complaint with social services, having dropped them off at their address presumably

    It would seem to be the obvious action, if his story were true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    rtron
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭rtron


    Why not tackle the problem of drugs first, and get them made illegal.I mean really illegal and remove from society altogether.


Advertisement