Voluntary sterilisation of drug addicts

SLUSK

There is an American group setting up a franchise in Britain. They offer drug addicts money to be sterilised. Now I do not advocate forced sterilisation but I think it is good if drug addicts go through sterilisation voluntarily since there children are most likely to become a burden on the taxpayers.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/group-offers-to-sterilise-uk-drug-addicts-2132668.html

marbar

"shooting's too good for them, cut their balls off"
[/billy connolly]

SLUSK

marbar wrote: »

"shooting's too good for them, cut their balls off"
[/billy connolly]

Now come on, no one deserves to be shot because they are addicted to drugs but as I said earlier it would be better for us all if they sterilised themselves voluntarily.

itsallaboutheL

Fuck me.

That is a horrible horrible idea.

Abhorrent to say the least.

Victor

But look at the percentage of Irish children born after drunken shenanigans. The poulation would be decimated.

SLUSK

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Fuck me.

That is a horrible horrible idea.

Abhorrent to say the least.

What is horrible about a voluntary procedure? It is not as if this group is forcing sterilisation upon the drug addicts.

marbar

imagine asking someone who barely knows their own name, to sterilise themselves voluntarily

wave a 20 bag carrot in front of them and they'd proibably do what ever you want

SLUSK

marbar wrote: »

imagine asking someone who barely knows their own name, to sterilise themselves voluntarily

wave a 20 bag carrot in front of them and they'd proibably do what ever you want

If someone who has ruined their lives on heroin decides to undergo sterilisation it is good. At least that stops them from ruin the lives of their unborn children.

SLUSK

SLUSK wrote: »

There is an American group setting up a franchise in Britain. They offer drug addicts money to be sterilised. Now I do not advocate forced sterilisation but I think it is good if drug addicts go through sterilisation voluntarily since there children are most likely to become a burden on the taxpayers.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/group-offers-to-sterilise-uk-drug-addicts-2132668.html

wtf?
(sigh)

wes

Yeah, this is a straight up messed up idea. Its morally abhorent to put it nicely. I am sure there are better methods to tackle drugs.

SLUSK

wes wrote: »

Yeah, this is a straight up messed up idea. Its morally abhorent to put it nicely. I am sure there are better methods to tackle drugs.

Are you saying it is better with babies born addicted to heroin than heroin addicted women voluntarily sterilising themselves?

yoshytoshy

If junkies have babies ,they should have them while skydiving.

That should sort them out.

destinybabe

This is a pure f***ed proposal it's taking advantage of an addicts need for cash to score,an addict can't make an informed decision on becoming sterilised...fair enough some may look at addicts as a scourge on society,having unplanned pregnancies but for gods sake they're not gonna be addicts forever they'll either (god help them) die or clean up their act by getting off drugs--which if/when they do surely they may want the option of having kids---thats sick targeting vulnerable people in society!!Seriously :eek::mad:

racso1975

SLUSK wrote: »

Are you saying it is better with babies born addicted to heroin than heroin addicted women voluntarily sterilising themselves?

You do realise that if a woman addicted gets pregant she is prioritised for treatment and that the chance of the baby going through withdrawals are slim. And while i have witnessed a baby in withdrawals, and it is horrible, the baby will overcome it. A child suffering foetal alcohol syndrome wont.

As mentioned earlier a person addicted will in all likelyhood do something extreme like this for the next hit (the reason this worked in america was because it was used on crack addicts). So 2 years later that person is clean and sober and 2 years later in a relationship and then they decide they would love kids but no they cant because some self rightous egotistical group with an I am God syndrome took that oppourtunity away from them/her.

Stupid ****ing right wing extremist idea

Edit: Obviously destiny babe can type a lot faster then me :-)

2040

I think only people who are attractive, well educated and intelligent and healthy should be allowed to give birth.

seaniefr

think there was someone from the annals of history that had the same idea......Adolf Hitler anyone...?

Dannyboy83

I don't see it as targeting vulnerable members of society.
I see it as preventing lives of sheer agony and hell for their offspring.
And it's providing a service to people would never be able to voluntarily do it otherwise, as all money goes on drugs.

If I had some terrible, destructive disease which I was aware of pre-conception would be passed to my offspring, I would voluntarily have myself sterilised.
Wheter a person addicted to a poisonous drug like Heroin would do the same is their own decision.
But it's good that such a service should be available.

A Dutch Labour Party MP has recently proposed temporary (two year) compulsory contraception, (not sterilization), of women who have a legally proven history of child abuse. The method would be via injection of anti-conception medicinal drugs, every six months. If the woman or parents have shown progress during that time, this would be reversed.
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2251634.ece/Should_drug-addicted_mothers_be_stopped_from_having_children

2040

I heard an interview conducted by Fergal Keane with this woman, Barbara Harris, on BBc Radio 4 a month or two ago. She's a truly conflicted woman. She's adopted a few kids from addicted mothers and can't reconcile the fact that if these same mothers had been sterilised, she herself wouldn't have children.

It's not necessarily the objective of this woman to prevent sick kids from being born, it's to prevent kids from being born into a harsh environment. Where does one draw the line with this kind of thing? It's an absolute disgrace.

For anyone that's interested, read this, the story of Carrie Buck, a woman thought to have mental difficulties when in fact she was very intelligent. Because of this perceived deficiency she was sterilised. Disgusting. Nazi Germany stuff. I fear we're actually going in this direction though.

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Dannyboy83

seaniefr wrote: »

think there was someone from the annals of history that had the same idea......Adolf Hitler anyone...?

That was compulsory sterilisation, not voluntary.

The Jews operate a Eugenics program themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim

Great Britain did it long before anyone else, the US did it long before Nazi Germany, Sweden did it up until 1975, long after Nazi Germany.
Not always voluntary either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Compulsory sterilisation in the name of genocide is despicable.
There is a big difference between compulsory and voluntary sterilisation tho, especially given all the advancements in the field of genetics in recent years.

thebaldsoprano

SLUSK wrote: »

I think it is good if drug addicts go through sterilisation voluntarily since there children are most likely to become a burden on the taxpayers.

What exactly is 'voluntary' about coercing a signature from someone badly in need of some smack?

What you're talking about is eugenics and apart from the obvious implications, a problem with it has been where to draw the line. Sweden implemented eugenics legislation aimed at eradicating mental illness, but it wasn't long before the scope broadened and they started sterilising poor people, all for the betterment of society of course. There's a good film about this called 'The New Man' by Klaus Haro.

I hope the UK has the sense to pass some legislation outlawing groups like this, the last thing Europe needs right now is another Nazi party.

2040

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I hope the UK has the sense to pass some legislation outlawing groups like this, the last thing Europe needs right now is another Nazi party.

The way things are going over here I could see a British government lapping this up, especially a Tory government.

SeanW

"Hey Mr. Heroin addict - just sign on the dotted line and we'll give you money for another fix." But of course, it's ALL voluntary ... no coercion ...

I'm sorry that's just f***ing sick. Now, I would normally consider myself a good deal to the right on the issues of justice and punishment for crime (i.e. I think all responsible citizens should be allowed to carry guns and use them whenever they or their property are threatened, I believe in life sentences for egregious repeat offenders, think we need a mega jail building program to house the scumbags etc)

But this is beyond sick, and the groups that do this sort of thing would be better employed running treatment programs and suchlike. Heroin addicts aren't bad people, necessarily, they're just misguided people who made some mistakes and undertook a habit that's nearly impossible to break.

del88

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That was compulsory sterilisation, not voluntary.

The Jews operate a Eugenics program themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim

Great Britain did it long before anyone else, the US did it long before Nazi Germany, Sweden did it up until 1975, long after Nazi Germany.
Not always voluntary either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Compulsory sterilisation in the name of genocide is despicable.
There is a big difference between compulsory and voluntary sterilisation tho, especially given all the advancements in the field of genetics in recent years.

And you agree with this???surly your playing the devils advocate here.???

That's taking advantage of the vulnerable to satisfied a religious self righteous.......next thing you'll be offering a vasectomy for 2 pint and a g+t at last orders....
So how would you deal with alcoholics???

SLUSK

Surely anyone could see the difference between forced sterilisation and voluntary sterilisations. There are normal people without any addictions issues who choose to undergo sterilisation because they simply do not want children. I never hear any outrage about that.

I myself would consider sterilisation if the price was good enough.

2040

SLUSK wrote: »

Surely anyone could see the difference between forced sterilisation and voluntary sterilisations. There are normal people without any addictions issues who choose to undergo sterilisation because they simply do not want children. I never hear any outrage about that.

I myself would consider sterilisation if the price was good enough.

What? The original topic was about Barbara Harris offering sterilisations to drug addicts.

SLUSK

2040 wrote: »

What? The original topic was about Barbara Harris offering sterilisations to drug addicts.

I just wanted to use the above example to show how silly the criticism of voluntary sterilisation of drug addicts is.

2040

SLUSK wrote: »

I just wanted to use the above example to show how silly the criticism of voluntary sterilisation of drug addicts is.

You failed.

thebaldsoprano

SLUSK wrote: »

Surely anyone could see the difference between forced sterilisation and voluntary sterilisations.

The difference here is the drugs money. If it was provided as a free service then you might have a leg to stand on.

Dannyboy83

del88 wrote: »

And you agree with this???surly your playing the devils advocate here.???

Not at all.
I find it puerile that people dismiss Eugenics, simply because of the Third Reich.

Eugenics is considered by some to be morally wrong.
I consider it morally wrong to knowingly bring a child into the world who is afflicted by severe mental retardation, and excruciating fatal diseases for which we have no cure.

I find it ironic that people are supporting the right of an irresponsible heroin addict to bear children, but show no compassion for the victim - the child - who is often condemned to a short life of sheer agony and terror.

That's taking advantage of the vulnerable to satisfied a religious self righteous.......

I'm something between an Atheist and a Buddhist, but that's irrelevant to the debate.

next thing you'll be offering a vasectomy for 2 pint and a g+t at last orders....

I assume this is moral indignation.
I think you are missing out on a really important debate.

I think this topic need to be re-examined now that we are starting to have a modicum of understanding in the field of medicine & genetics.

So how would you deal with alcoholics???

Alcoholics can recover. It's a proven science.
It's not a fatal disease and can be controlled so as to not impede upon quality of life - it's almost entirely down to the individual's choices, the same as a smoker.

It would be marvellous if we could screen for and eliminate the gene responsible for alcoholism, I'm not aware that we can, but it's a big leap from alcoholism to severe mental retardation or HIV, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't consider it morally wrong to have a child afflicted by thing which can be cured or overcome, such as physical disabilities, down's syndrome or non-life threatening and non-excruciating afflictions.

goose2005

Everyone who opposes this - if a pregnant woman takes heroin, should she be jailed for poisoning and torturing her unborn child?

Dannyboy83

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

The difference here is the drugs money. If it was provided as a free service then you might have a leg to stand on.

I share the sentiment, not totally, but somewhat.

Unfortunately, until our society & government 'cops the fcuk on', decriminalises drugs like in Portugal and opens Methadone clinics like in Switzerland, this is probably the next best alternative.

cleremy jarkson

So people here agree that a person addicted to heroin doesn't have the "freedom of will" to make a decision like voluntarily sterilsing themselves?

Does a person who isn't addicted to heroin have the "freedom of will" to make such a decision?

At what point is the chemistry of the brain changed by heroin or other drugs so that the barrier between having this "freedom of will" and not having it, is crossed?

mickstupp

SLUSK wrote: »

Surely anyone could see the difference between forced sterilisation and voluntary sterilisations. There are normal people without any addictions issues who choose to undergo sterilisation because they simply do not want children. I never hear any outrage about that.

I myself would consider sterilisation if the price was good enough.

Surely anyone could see the difference between voluntary sterilisation and coercing someone who doesn't know their arse from their elbow into getting sterilised so they can get some cash for their next fix. It does nothing to solve the problem of drug addiction, purely taking advantage of an addicted state of mind to prevent some potential future harm. But in taking the approach that you're preventing potential future children from being potentially born damaged or addicted and potentially growing up in potentially terrible environments... well you may as well apply that across the board and offer cash to sterilise chronically poor people while you're at it, or convicted criminals or etc. etc. This is appealing directly to a person's addiction, effectively promising them their next couple of fixes. An addict isn't in a reasonable state of mind. These are not normal people rationally deciding they never want to have children and would like some sterilisation please.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Alcoholics can recover.

So can drug addicts. Drug addiction is also not a fatal disease. It can be. But so can alcoholism. And so can the results of smoking.

The problem is people are looking at the potential benefits of this instead of at the means they're taking to get there and whether they're ethical or not. Actually what am I saying, they're not even looking at potential benefits, since there's no benefit to a child that can no longer potentially exist.

The solution from this Barbara Harris person is that to prevent possibly damaged children (in whatever sense) we should sterilise drug addicts. It seems to be that simple. She clearly has no moral qualms about this sort of preventative measure. If she has no issue taking advantage of people's weaknesses to sterilise them so as to prevent children growing up in harsh environments, then she and her supporters should surely have no problem extending that to all other potential situations where children might grow up in possibly harsh conditions. Perhaps they could offer people in jail reduced sentences in exchange for sterilisation. Perhaps they could offer cows to people in famine-stricken countries on the condition that they get snipped. Or they could offer free mental healthcare to anyone with a mental illness that might be passed on genetically. Maybe that's all logically fallacious... don't know. I'm probably totally off the ball here.

But it seems like if you're willing to take a step like this, at the expense of someone's particular circumstances, to prevent a possible future outcome... then it's a bit of a slippery slope.

dunleakelleher

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Alcoholics can recover. It's a proven science.

I have never heard anything so ridiculous. That goes against everything we have learnt about the disease of alcoholism over the last 100 or so years. If you researched this even a little all the written evidence proves this.
Alcoholics can not recover. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.

mickstupp

^That depends entirely on what you call recovered. I would consider a healthy life free of alcohol to be recovered. Surely that's what the word means, that you've recovered something lost? To say you're recovered doesn't necessarily mean you're no longer an alcoholic. You're still perpetually at risk, but you've certainly recovered from where you were. You're not indulging your addiction in any way, shape or form.

M cebee

i think sterilizing 'scumbags' first would be a better idea

Flamed Diving

2040 wrote: »

I think only people who are attractive, well educated and intelligent and healthy should be allowed to give birth.

At least you had the honesty to say what the OP could not.

Flamed Diving

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Alcoholics can recover. It's a proven science.

It's incredibly disingenuous of you to use the words "proven science".

goose2005

goose2005 wrote: »

Everyone who opposes this - if a pregnant woman takes heroin, should she be jailed for poisoning and torturing her unborn child?

Why the focus only on women? If you go out to a club, meet a girl, and have unprotected sex with her (who later has a child), and she turns out to be a partial junkie.... by your reasoning, you should be jailed.

Its completely messed up reasoning.

As others have said earlier, if it was a free sterilisation program then I could understand. But this is bribing people who are not of sound mind to make a life altering decision.

Goose2005, answer me this. How many of those that sign up to this program will rush out with their payment and shoot up? 20%, 40% 80%? Just a honest guess, not looking for any evidence or other such info.

cleremy jarkson

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

So people here agree that a person addicted to heroin doesn't have the "freedom of will" to make a decision like voluntarily sterilsing themselves?

Does a person who isn't addicted to heroin have the "freedom of will" to make such a decision?

At what point is the chemistry of the brain changed by heroin or other drugs so that the barrier between having this "freedom of will" and not having it, is crossed?

Well, let me put it this way. The only things I'm addicted to are coffee and cigarettes. And I can distinctly remember running out of tobacco, going through the ashtray seeking half-smoked ones, and rolling up using pre-smoked cig tobacco. Utterly disgusting, but it satisfied my need since the shops were closed.

That was with tobacco. Hardly a nice thought, or all that logical... Now, think about something like heroin with serious addictive qualities, and imagine where people might turn to to get their next dose...

wes

SLUSK wrote: »

Are you saying it is better with babies born addicted to heroin than heroin addicted women voluntarily sterilising themselves?

Neither is good, but as a general rule, I think the sterlization of any group of people. even when it voluntary is a bad idea. Also, people on drugs probably wouldn't be in the right mind to volunteer for anything, so that is another major issue imho.

Also, what if the Woman in your example gets off drugs, and then wants to have a child? You ignore that possibility.

Spudmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

That was with tobacco. Hardly a nice thought, or all that logical... Now, think about something like heroin with serious addictive qualities, and imagine where people might turn to to get their next dose...

Yet you reckon those people may be suitable parents in raising a child? What if they were told if they had kids and gave them up for adoption they could make a bit of cash. Thats hardly right either.

To tell you the truth, this is a really grey area. I personally don't think drug addicts may be able to make a decision either way as to whether they should be sterilised or if they are capable of caring for kids.

I tend to agree with Dannyboy however. I think the real victim would be the kid.

Spudmonkey

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Yet you reckon those people may be suitable parents in raising a child? What if they were told if they had kids and gave them up for adoption they could make a bit of cash. Thats hardly right either.

This is not whether they're capable of raising children. This is about their having children in the first place. Considering the numbers of people out there that have children just to increase their social welfare benefits, would you advocate sterilising them as well?

To tell you the truth, this is a really grey area. I personally don't think drug addicts may be able to make a decision either way as to whether they should be sterilised or if they are capable of caring for kids.

Comes down to the individual, their circumstances, and the support mechanisms in place (family, friends, etc). But this program doesn't seem to have such a vetting system in place to determine any of this.

I tend to agree with Dannyboy however. I think the real victim would be the kid.

Aren't they always? But lets face it... if this was about the children, it would be about completely reforming the "parent(s)" addiction, rather than removing the possibility of the child being born at all...

Spudmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not whether they're capable of raising children. This is about their having children in the first place. Considering the numbers of people out there that have children just to increase their social welfare benefits, would you advocate sterilising them as well?

Well what you are asking thre is would I advocate compulsory sterilisation. The answer to this is no. However I have no time for welfare fraud or people who engage in it. Terrible as some of these parents may be how likely do you think they would be to recieve voluntary sterilisation...

thebaldsoprano

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I share the sentiment, not totally, but somewhat.

Mirriam Webster wrote:

Coerce
to compel to an act or choice

Sentiment is has nothing to do with it, unless you're going to try and argue that there's nothing compelling about a fix for someone in withdrawal.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Unfortunately, until our society & government 'cops the fcuk on', decriminalises drugs like in Portugal and opens Methadone clinics like in Switzerland, this is probably the next best alternative.

I agree that the Government needs to cop on big time re drugs policy, but again this is irrelevant. Should anyone who's ever had a mental health problem be sterilised until the Government gets its act together in that area too?

Dannyboy83

dunleakelleher wrote: »

I have never heard anything so ridiculous. That goes against everything we have learnt about the disease of alcoholism over the last 100 or so years. If you researched this even a little all the written evidence proves this.

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding

Alcoholics can not recover. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.

Alcoholism can be controlled.
Alcoholic can be reformed, hence recover.

Children born with severe brain damage, with lungs the size of a pea, to a heroin addicted mother - cannot. Ever.

Do you understand now?

Dannyboy83

mickstupp wrote: »

So can drug addicts. Drug addiction is also not a fatal disease. It can be. But so can alcoholism. And so can the results of smoking.

You are missing the point.

Heroin addicts can recover.
Children born with several mental damage and physically fatal deformities cannot.

This is the crux of the issue.

I've nothing against heroin addicts, feel sorry for them.
I have something against heroin addicts who willingly poison their child and condemn it to a short, sharp life of misery and terror.

The problem is people are looking at the potential benefits of this instead of at the means they're taking to get there and whether they're ethical or not.

I disagree, I'm heavily concerned with ethics.
But I'm aware that it's not a simple black and white situation of course

Actually what am I saying, they're not even looking at potential benefits, since there's no benefit to a child that can no longer potentially exist.

I'm not interested in benefits.
It's the question of ethics.

The solution from this Barbara Harris person is that to prevent possibly damaged children (in whatever sense) we should sterilise drug addicts. It seems to be that simple. She clearly has no moral qualms about this sort of preventative measure. If she has no issue taking advantage of people's weaknesses to sterilise them so as to prevent children growing up in harsh environments, then she and her supporters should surely have no problem extending that to all other potential situations where children might grow up in possibly harsh conditions. Perhaps they could offer people in jail reduced sentences in exchange for sterilisation. Perhaps they could offer cows to people in famine-stricken countries on the condition that they get snipped. Or they could offer free mental healthcare to anyone with a mental illness that might be passed on genetically. Maybe that's all logically fallacious... don't know. I'm probably totally off the ball here.

It doesn't have much to do with harsh environments.
I think you are aware of this tho.

But it seems like if you're willing to take a step like this, at the expense of someone's particular circumstances, to prevent a possible future outcome... then it's a bit of a slippery slope.

Agreed, a very slippery slope.
It doesn't mean eugenics is bad or evil tho.
It would be immoral and unethical to ignore eugenics.

Dannyboy83

mickstupp wrote: »

^That depends entirely on what you call recovered. I would consider a healthy life free of alcohol to be recovered. Surely that's what the word means, that you've recovered something lost? To say you're recovered doesn't necessarily mean you're no longer an alcoholic. You're still perpetually at risk, but you've certainly recovered from where you were. You're not indulging your addiction in any way, shape or form.

Precisely. Thank you.

Dannyboy83

Deleted User wrote: »

Aren't they always? But lets face it... if this was about the children, it would be about completely reforming the "parent(s)" addiction, rather than removing the possibility of the child being born at all...

Agreed, but as I already said, until our laws and society undergoes some sort of renaissance, this is the next best thing available.

It would be great if we could cure all the heroin addicts and never even need to have the question of wheter they should be sterilised to prevent them creating a child doomed to a short life of hell.

Unfortunately, that is utopia.
We are a long, long way off that objective.

Dannyboy83

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Sentiment is has nothing to do with it, unless you're going to try and argue that there's nothing compelling about a fix for someone in withdrawal.

Sentiment has everything to do with it.

I agree that the Government needs to cop on big time re drugs policy, but again this is irrelevant. Should anyone who's ever had a mental health problem be sterilised until the Government gets its act together in that area too?

Are mental health defects untreatable?
Are mental health defects congenital?
Are mental health defects guaranteed to be passed from mother to child?
Are mental health defects the result of an 'avoidable' administration of posion while the child is in the womb?
Are the offspring of mental health patients always born prematurely with severe mental and often physically fatal abnormalities?

I'm talking about apples, you are talking about oranges.

2040

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It doesn't have much to do with harsh environments.

Yes it does. That's mostly Barbara Harris' objective, to stop children from being born into a harsh environment.