Sterilisation of heroin addicts - justified?

Kermit.de.frog

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?

TheLastMohican

I would like to register my opinion but can't. The PC mods are looking.

Samaris

Thing is, you will need to throw out such minor things as the Constitution and y'know, human rights to sterilise people against their will. It's a very sad situation, but its the sort of situation that we have the Care system for. Of course its not ideal, and babies born to meth or heroin addicts are often born with problems themselves, poor kids. This one, given they were released and presumably with the baby, has hopefully escaped that cruel lottery.

But no, forced (and let's face it, I don't get the impression you are particularly considering consent) sterilisation has a long and evil history to it and rightly so.

Gatling

Sterilisation should be brought in when situations like this keep happening it's absolutely disgusting that junkies are allowed to repeatedly get pregnant while on heroine and leaving the state to raise there kids and fund there habit ,
That or intern then to a secure facility till the baby is born and adopted

One eyed Jack

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Taxi driver tonight told me a story of two new parent junkies in his car

...

Lets be honest

Well if you want honesty, I don't believe for a second that any taxi driver let two strung out heroin addicts anywhere near his car, let alone carried them for any distance, from anywhere.

Someone's bullshìtting someone somewhere.

TheLastMohican

Gatling wrote: »

Sterilisation should be brought in when situations like this keep happening it's absolutely disgusting that junkies are allowed to repeatedly get pregnant while on heroine and leaving the state to raise there kids and fund there habit ,
That or intern then to a secure facility till the baby is born and adopted

Try getting a politician to say that.

Gatling

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Try getting a politician to say that.

Best we get is oh were winning the war against drugs

TheLastMohican

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if you want honesty, I don't believe for a second that any taxi driver let two strung out heroin addicts anywhere near his car, let alone carried them for any distance, from anywhere.

Someone's bullshìtting someone somewhere.

Maybe yes ....... maybe no.

Samaris

TheLastMohican wrote: »

I would like to register my opinion but can't. The PC mods are looking.

Ah, so you're waiting for someone else to say it so you can agree without getting punished? :P

Gatling

Did anyone see the news story where a pregnant junkie passed on a a street with holding on to an aerosol (I think it was )

NachoBusiness

Phil Lynott was a heroin addict.

So should he have been sterilized, or is just the ones on the dole that would meet the criteria?

Either way, reactive, nonsensical, baloney and that's coming from someone that can't abide junkies.

Free condoms, sure.. but sterilization is absurd.

Kermit.de.frog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Someone's bullshìtting someone somewhere.

I actually asked him because I found that odd as well and it was the hospital that phoned the taxi. Whether that makes a difference I don't know.

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.

TheLastMohican

Samaris wrote: »

Ah, so you're waiting for someone else to say it so you can agree without getting punished? :P

Am on my last chance. See my profile! Omerto etc.

Kermit.de.frog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

But the problem is if you walk along the boardwalk in Dublin at 2pm you might reconsider pretty quick! I'm not trying to be smart but seriously you would want to see it. Junkies pushing prams is not exactly unusual.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But the problem is if you walk along the boardwalk in Dublin at 2pm

Stop assuming you have a unique perspective on the drugs problem in central Dublin, just because you've supposedly had a chat with a taxi driver & strolled along the boardwalk.

Kermit.de.frog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Stop assuming you have a unique perspective on the drugs problem in central Dublin, just because you've supposedly had a chat with a taxi driver & strolled along the boardwalk.

You clearly have not. You see this upfront and your political correctness will soon go out the window.

One eyed Jack

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I actually asked him because I found that odd as well and it was the hospital that phoned the taxi. Whether that makes a difference I don't know.

It really doesn't.

In what world, even if a taxi driver did tell you this, would you honestly believe that two heroin addicts would be allowed leave any hospital strung out, and carrying a baby?

It's worse that you actually claim to believe him tbh. Taxi drivers talk utter shyte all the time, and if you actually genuinely believe that story, I have some magic beans that might interest you.

Kermit.de.frog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's worse that you actually claim to believe him tbh.

Why should I not believe him? I have more reason to believe than disbelieve him.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You clearly have not. You see this upfront and your political correctness will soon go out the window.

Ah go to bed. Or go down to the boardwalk tomorrow afternoon & suggest your idea to your compatriots yourself. You know, stand over your ideas in a public space.

Kermit.de.frog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah go to bed. Or go down to the boardwalk tomorrow afternoon & suggest your idea to your compatriots yourself. You know, stand over your ideas in a public space.

So a child being wheeled around by a junkie is perfectly ok to you? Fine, we know where you stand.

Billy86

TheLastMohican wrote: »

I would like to register my opinion but can't. The PC mods are looking.

It must be tough being such a victim all the time.

Samaris

Ok, say it did come in. I don't agree with the concept, but as a thought experiment, so to speak.

Firstly, method. Pill is one thing, but that requires the woman to be on it and in a fit state to be taking it regularly since t can go wrong. Its birth control rather than sterilisation.

Implant - more possible, technically temporary, up to three years prevention. However, expensive for the State and must be removes surgically too after three years. Can have side effects. And I'm not quite sure of side effects of injecting in an arm with an implant in it, this not being something that tends to be considered.

Tubal ligation, vasectomy and chemical castration are pretty much permanent.

How to decide who gets a medical procedure, particularly against their will?

When someone goes in for a checkup? Methadone clinic? All either will do is cause people to avoid them. Round them up in the street? What if someone is already in the early stages of pregnancy?

What drugs are considered bad enough to result in this procedure?
I think we can leave out tobacco and marijuana really. Alcoholics? Heroin, methadone, probably not coke, I believe that tends to be the drug of more well-off people who will probably be able to raise a right racket about those pesky Human Rights I mentioned in an earlier post.


Bah, it just doesn't work. Implant is probably the 'best' scenario, but even that has too many issues to be workable, certainly ethically and probably financially as well.



Edit: also, yes, a baby born to two practicing heroin addicts would probably not be allowed to leave with the child. Tragically, babies born in such a circumstance are usually born addicts themselves and need a lot of treatment and looking after. They are also far more likely to be taken away from the parents straight off. Not always, but often. It -is- also unlikely that the baby would be released to parents actually high at the time.

Kermit.de.frog

Samaris wrote: »

What drugs are considered bad enough to result in this procedure?Human Rights

Heroin. And human rights? What about the child's rights?

One eyed Jack

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why should I not believe him?

Do you honestly believe that hospital staff are actually that incompetent for starters?

Do you honestly believe a taxi driver would pick up two strung out heroin addicts in his car, even leaving aside the fact that they were carrying a newborn baby?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have more reason to believe than disbelieve him.

You really don't, but have it your way. Believing that nonsense would suggest that the taxi driver knew exactly who he was talking to.

Kermit.de.frog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that hospital staff are actually that incompetent for starters?

Do you honestly believe a taxi driver would pick up two strung out heroin addicts in his car, even leaving aside the fact that they were carrying a newborn baby?

Yes I do. What do you have to say about that? You don't think this happens week in, week out no?

Samaris

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Heroin. And human rights? What about the child's rights?

All the children that you speak of would technically be potential children in this case; sterilising addicts does nothing for the children already in the world, does it? You are talking about throwing out the concept of Human Rights in favour of rights of people not even concieved yet to prevent them being born. I mean, I get where you're:re coming from, but that just ain't going to fly.

Guy:Incognito

Can they not just be quietly "disappeared"? Surely theres enough money in the budget for say, 4 black ops lads yo work at night, off the books. Use petty cash vouchers and say the money is for stationary or something.

One eyed Jack

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes I do. What do you have to say about that? You don't think this happens week in, week out no?

No, no I don't.

I do think you're making the whole thing up though, from start to finish.

Kermit.de.frog

Samaris wrote: »

All the children that you speak of would technically be potential children in this case; sterilising addicts does nothing for the children already in the world, does it? You are talking about throwing out the concept of Human Rights in favour of rights of people not even concieved yet to prevent them being born. I mean, I get where you're:re coming from, but that just ain't going to fly.

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.

Kermit.de.frog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, no I don't.

I do think you're making the whole thing up though, from start to finish.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

Overheal

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

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.