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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Sterilisation of heroin addicts - justified?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


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

    It's not like they're not trying, they're just failing spectacularly.

    Plus we went through an era of little or no drugs, Ireland before the 1980s. All they had was alcohol...and child abuse and neglect was rampant.


  • Options
    #63
    Autonomous Cowherd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭Autonomous Cowherd


    Before you try to smash the complex thing that is addiction with the hammer that is sterilisation, long before that surely we should as intelligent beings investigate more deeply the roots of behavioural, environmental, spiritual, psychological etc contributions to the state of addiction.
    I can understand your visceral reaction Kermit to seeing people rendered incapable by drugs pushing helpless infants in prams. I would be disturbed profoundly also, and I know it goes on, for I have seen it in other ways. But there are children right now with neurotic parents, violent parents, controlling parents, deviant incestuous parents, selfish parents, drunken parents, careless parents and where does the place called Stop appear?

    There are reasons people are junkies...it is not the dream of a child to grow up to be a junkie. In different circumstances of birth and experience any of us might have become junkies. We should try to unravel addiction, not become fascists.


  • Options
    #64
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,050 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I have seen a situation like the OP describes unfold in real life. I am not going into detail except that it was in the UK. The mother asked for sterilisation after her second child and was refused on the grounds that she was too young. She has since had another child. These children's circumstances are distressing, but not helped by the courts, social services etc making politically correct, though stupid, decisions.


  • Options
    #65
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    People don't seem to be aware how difficult it is for social services to remove a child from their parents in this country. Addicts can and do walk out of maternity hospitals with their babies on a regular basis.

    It's no life for the child at all. They have no chance to have a happy and safe childhood and while in the care of an addict, will never be the top priority because heroin always will be. Sterilisation throws up a million moral dilemmas but in itself is not the big evil it sounds to be. Offer a financial incentive to anyone registered as a heroin addict who would like to volunteer. Addicts often don't want to get pregnant, it's a result of being out of their skull or being able to focus on long term consequences. Offer free IUD's to those who wouldn't like to commit to sterilisation. Reform the social policies that limit social workers in their capacity to protect children.


  • Options
    #66
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    looksee wrote: »
    These children's circumstances are distressing, but not helped by the courts, social services etc making politically correct, though stupid, decisions.
    You mean the liberal British and Irish systems of government err on the side of giving people personal autonomy and responsibility for their own future?

    Yeah, shocking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    GTDolanator
    Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭GTDolanator


    I deal with them on a daily basis in dublin 1.They are a dark thing of this city
    I dont care that they are someones child/parent/realtive,if you start doing smack you should be steralised.that or round them up and put them on a barge and push it out to sea.**** them


  • Options
    #68
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    OP, they're not meth clinics ffs. They're methadone clinics. Meth is crystal meth. They're given methadone, not crystal meth ffs!


  • Options
    #69
    Luke92
    Registered Users Posts: 723 ✭✭✭Luke92


    What about consented sterilisation for a reward? Let's say a cash reward (€500). Low enough money compared to the endless amount that will have to be spent on extra welfare and social workers etc...

    Even a system where they gave sperm or eggs then got sterilised. If they're clean for atleast 5 years they're given the go ahead to reclaim their reproductive goods and everyone's happy.

    And to be honest, it's usually a small amount that can stay clean for 5 years straight.

    My father (term used loosely). Was in the army for 23+ years. All his life has been on and off heroin (had a bad influence brother). Whenever the brother was around he'd go on a bender (2 weeks). Then wouldn't see the brother for between 1-3 years. When he met up with the brother he just repeated his process.

    I believe now he hasn't touched it for 5+ years but that's cause he's in his 50s and a single father to a young teen (now he knows how my mother and a few others felt been single mothers).


  • Options
    #70
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    If we did sterilise them the OP would be here complaining about his taxes paying for something that isn't for himself.


  • Options
    #71
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,356 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    If we did sterilise them the OP would be here complaining about his taxes paying for something that isn't for himself.


    He could always get himself sterilised too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Overheal wrote: »
    Forcing surgery on someone for their life choices is a big hell no from me.
    God forbid that there are ever any negative consequences to one's life choices, no matter how antisocial and how negatively they affect others around them. Everyone wants rights with no strings attached nowadays.

    Where I live they solved the heroin problem simply by giving it to addicts. The needle parks vanished and crime plummeted. However, the junkies, while less visible and less prone to violent crime to sustain their addition, were still junkies - you'll still see them in groups, strung out. Just because they don't need to mug anyone for their daily fix, hasn't made them better parents.

    So, TBH, there's absolutely no need to force anyone to be sterilized. They want the state to fund their habit, then that's the price. Free drugs if you get snipped. Simple as that.

    Given this, it's questionable how much of an impact they have where it comes to spawning the next generation of scumbags. Alcoholism probably has a far greater impact that any drug.

    And the presumption that a child is best left in the custody of its mother is another serious flaw in the system. It may be, but all to often in these situations it's not, but unless the mother walks into a court with a syringe sticking out of her arm, she'll most likely get to keep the child, even though it would be in that child's interests objectively to go to the father, grandparents or even foster care.

    So I'd look at that before I'd look at any sterilization programme, TBH.


  • Options
    #73
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    'See's thread title and OP'

    Makes total sense now :)


  • Options
    #74
    NotCominBack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭NotCominBack


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

    Really illegal ya say, and how would one go about making them really illegal?


  • Options
    #75
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Gonna go ahead and assume this isn't a wind-up...

    I don't think we ought to force anyone to be sterilised. In cases where women have a serious drug addiction (whatever part of your city they live, whatever their background), I believe they should be offered contraceptives like the pill or even a birth control implant if the pill is not feasible. It should be their choice, but if they agree with the advice, they should be fully supported in terms of the cost.

    Nothing of a straightforward, temporary nature can be done about males, as far as I am aware.

    Obviously going out and rounding up people and sterilising them against their will is a non starter for all sorts of reasons.

    I have read a number of your posts on various topics and have to say that you are a pretty poor tyrant. You need to rethink either your name or your beliefs.


  • Options
    #76
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Why stop there OP? Would it not be better to just cut out the middle man and euthanize anyone with a drug problem?

    After that we can draw up a list of character flaws that we don't approve of and start picking those off one by one. My vote goes to people who eat too much, their kids will only have health problems anyway.

    Eventually we can get down to people who say 'totes' and actually pronounce 'lol' as a word instead of just laughing.


  • Options
    #77
    Medusa22
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭Medusa22


    How about an optional free implant programme which is offered to women who come into contact with services in relation to their addiction? I just think that forced sterilisation really leads to a slippery slope. I have my own subjective opinions on who should or shouldn't have children but that is what they are, just my own opinions, it is going to differ from person to person and we just cannot legislate for that.


  • Options
    #78
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Why stop there OP? Would it not be better to just cut out the middle man and euthanize anyone with a drug problem?

    After that we can draw up a list of character flaws that we don't approve of and start picking those off one by one. My vote goes to people who eat too much, their kids will only have health problems anyway.

    Eventually we can get down to people who say 'totes' and actually pronounce 'lol' as a word instead of just laughing.

    I like your way of thinking. Now this is proper tyrant behaviour. Sadly, i don't believe you.


  • Options
    #79
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,091 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    It's bull**** that there are thousands of Irish parents waiting years to adopt a baby and never getting the chance when there are kids being born into the kind of hell the OP describes.


  • Options
    #80
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Wouldn't be a complete hand-wringer on the subject of junkies (have known of a few that can't be fobbed off as having a bad start in life) but it's lopsided to paint these emotive scenarios of kids born into this generational junkie life but then ignore that it may well have been the same for the parents. It's a law and order issue in some ways, but also one where the causes need to be addressed.


  • Options
    #81
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Why stop there OP? Would it not be better to just cut out the middle man and euthanize anyone with a drug problem?

    After that we can draw up a list of character flaws that we don't approve of and start picking those off one by one. My vote goes to people who eat too much, their kids will only have health problems anyway.

    Eventually we can get down to people who say 'totes' and actually pronounce 'lol' as a word instead of just laughing.

    Alcoholics too - they should be sterilised. Even the nice middle class ones whose tipple of choice is a bottle or two of a nice wine every night.

    Gamblers next as an addiction is still an addiction after all.

    Top of my personal list is anyone who abuses animals - and I include the unspeakable who pursue the uneatable in that- should be immediately sterilised as studies have shown a link between violence towards animals and violence towards humans - better safe than sorry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Why stop there OP? Would it not be better to just cut out the middle man and euthanize anyone with a drug problem?

    After that we can draw up a list of character flaws that we don't approve of and start picking those off one by one. My vote goes to people who eat too much, their kids will only have health problems anyway.

    Eventually we can get down to people who say 'totes' and actually pronounce 'lol' as a word instead of just laughing.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Alcoholics too - they should be sterilised. Even the nice middle class ones whose tipple of choice is a bottle or two of a nice wine every night.

    Gamblers next as an addiction is still an addiction after all.

    Top of my personal list is anyone who abuses animals - and I include the unspeakable who pursue the uneatable in that- should be immediately sterilised as studies have shown a link between violence towards animals and violence towards humans - better safe than sorry.
    Over the top hysterical responses don't make very good rebuttals, you know?

    This thread started with the pro-sterilization side sounding a bit crazy, but the increasingly infantile responses from the anti-side are pretty much reversing this thrend, TBH.


  • Options
    #83
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    anncoates wrote: »
    Wouldn't be a complete hand-wringer on the subject of junkies (have known of a few that can't be fobbed off as having a bad start in life) but it's lopsided to paint these emotive scenarios of kids born into this generational junkie life but then ignore that it may well have been the same for the parents. It's a law and order issue in some ways, but also one where the causes need to be addressed.

    It really boggles my mind how people can, for example, look at an area of a country or city where employment rates are low, crime rates are high and think "that area us just full of crappy people". Rather than "what is our society doing wrong that is creating this problem?"

    People are the hero in their own story and genuinely seem to believe that no matter where, when or to whom they were born they'd have come out smelling of roses because they're a special little flower. It's just totatally laughable.

    The solution to the junkie problem would be to restructure society so that we don't have large swathes of society who are left behind right from the starting gun. But that would be hard, so feck it, let's just sterilise the people who lost the lottery of life.


  • Options
    #84
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Over the top hysterical responses don't make very good rebuttals, you know?

    It doesn't need a rebuttal. The OP's suggestion is so silly that it rebuts itself.


  • Options
    #85
    NotCominBack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭NotCominBack


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Over the top hysterical responses don't make very good rebuttals, you know?

    This thread started with the pro-sterilization side sounding a bit crazy, but the increasingly infantile responses from the anti-side are pretty much reversing this thrend, TBH.

    I think both were being sarcastic dude, sometimes over the top hysteria used to emphasize a point


  • Options
    #86
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Over the top hysterical responses don't make very good rebuttals, you know?

    This thread started with the pro-sterilization side sounding a bit crazy, but the increasingly infantile responses from the anti-side are pretty much reversing this thrend, TBH.

    Hardly over the top and hysterical given the effects of alcohol on the development of a fetus - it is apparently the number one preventable cause of birth defects in the U.S. http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html.
    Back in 2005 an expert in the field extrapolated that there are 177 to 354 babies born with FAS in Ireland every year in fact that figure could even be as high as 1,770 if alcohol related neurological disorders are included http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7428

    Not to mention the links between alcohol and violence/domestic abuse/ homelessness/chronic health conditions etc etc.

    Why target just heroin addicts? Why not target the far greater number addicted to alcohol?

    Strange how when the call to sterilise people who are addicted to dangerous substances is extended to include the legal and 'respectable' ones which nonetheless account for the larger number of addicts suddenly people are accused of being 'infantile'.


  • Options
    #87
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    The solution to the junkie problem would be to restructure society so that we don't have large swathes of society who are left behind right from the starting gun. But that would be hard, so feck it, let's just sterilise the people who lost the lottery of life.
    That's not a solution, that's a vague aspiration.

    For a solution to be a solution it kind of has to be achievable and practical. Otherwise you're really just beating on about ideals that you don't know how to achieve and leaving it to someone else to do so for you.

    More often than not solutions are not ideal. They don't solve the long term problem because there is no long term solution. A limb may become infected and one may correctly argue that to disinfect it would be ideal solution, but that may not be achievable, leaving you with only the option of amputation to save the patient.

    It's not nice, it's pretty utilitarian, but so far I'm not seeing much other than some belly aching about how things should be and very little in the way of how to achieve them.
    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    It doesn't need a rebuttal. The OP's suggestion is so silly that it rebuts itself.
    Was it? Because you say so and requires no further explanation? I presume it would be a thought crime to disagree with you?
    NotCominBack wrote: »
    I think both were being sarcastic dude, sometimes over the top hysteria used to emphasize a point
    It wasn't here though. It was just an example of reductio ad absurdum. Pointless tripe.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Why target just heroin addicts? Why not target the far greater number addicted to alcohol?

    Strange how when the call to sterilise people who are addicted to dangerous substances is extended to include the legal and 'respectable' ones which nonetheless account for the larger number of addicts suddenly people are accused of being 'infantile'.
    Strange how you neglected to mention the tripe you came out with about sterilizing those who are cruel to animals? That was pretty infantile. Or batshìt crazy. Let us know which.


  • Options
    #88
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    Well this is AH, so anything up to and including their slow torture and execution would be fully justified. No, actually, that's too expensive for John Q Taxpayer. Just float them off to an island and let them duke it out, Battle Royale style.

    No, no, wait, we'd have to pay to have them shipped off. God, isn't there some way to get rid of the scum that doesn't inconvenience me?


  • Options
    #89
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    AH mod:

    I've moved this to the Humanities forum. Make sure to read their charter before posting.


  • Options
    #90
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    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.

    Kermit, firstly, you are acting like you're the only one in this thread that has ever had their eyes opened, for heaven's sake. Alright, you saw something that shocks you and opened your eyes to an issue. The rest of us aren't necessarily living in a pretty cloud of PCness and don't know the issue exists. So maybe enough of the "if you saw what I saw!" nonsense.

    I'm not actually portraying junkies as anything but human beings and subject to the same rights that the rest of us have. You cannot just arbitrarily remove human rights from a person because you don't like their situation. It doesn't work that way.

    Finally, while I have been carefully avoiding the "slippery slope" issue to focus on just your point, the argument of "better they were never born" is a very dangerous one. There are those who would have argued that children born with profound disabilities should never have been born because what sort of life will they have?

    Although alcoholics should probably be looked at too - it is another drug that does very definitely impact negatively on the child, and gives a strong reason to doubt their chances in life.
    looksee wrote: »
    I have seen a situation like the OP describes unfold in real life. I am not going into detail except that it was in the UK. The mother asked for sterilisation after her second child and was refused on the grounds that she was too young. She has since had another child. These children's circumstances are distressing, but not helped by the courts, social services etc making politically correct, though stupid, decisions.

    That is a tragic situation and there is a more workable solution to that insofar as she -asked- to be sterilised. It wasn't a breach of HR to do it, as the OP's suggestion is going for.

    A final issue is that sterilization plans have been considered before, along with the cash incentive. A big issue with that is that there is an ethical issue with the State giving people what's basically going to be drug money. We can call this bollocks potentially and say that it's their choice, which alright, is a reasonable response, but it has historically been an issue in such cases. Down to and including a partner forcing someone to get sterilised for the money.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Corinthian wrote: »


    It wasn't here though. It was just an example of reductio ad absurdum. Pointless tripe.

    Strange how you neglected to mention the tripe you came out with about sterilizing those who are cruel to animals? That was pretty infantile. Or batshìt crazy. Let us know which.

    The FBI don't consider it tripe at all https://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/thisweek/animal-cruelty-category-added-to-nibrs.mp3/view

    It is their view that abuse of animals in an indicator that the perpetrator is likely to go on to commit violent crimes against humans.

    Now - if the reason posited for sterilising heroin addicts is to prevent possible future abuse then the same argument can be made to sterilise animal abusers.


Advertisement