Project prevention: Should Irish drug addicts be paid not to have kids?

Barbara Harris heads a US charity which pays (primarily) women living with drug addiction to undergo tubal ligation or contraceptive implants. She features in this video by Vice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkERSYPLzqc

One of the obvious problems with Project Prevention in the US, probably isn't such a big issue as it is in Ireland: that of an alleged, or unintended, bias against ethnic minorities. Most drug addicts in Ireland are likely to be white and Irish.

I agree that women who are addicted to drugs should be incentivised not to become pregnant, by way of cash or other welfare incentives, but not by way of permanent sterilisation. I think this should be offered by the State, because it is society that will benefit from this.

Ideally, I think abortion should also be incentivised for these women, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I suspect many of us have little in common with Barbara Harris, but she's absolutely correct on one thing: there is nothing to be gained when a women who is addicted to prohibited drugs/ alcohol becomes pregnant. She has fostered children who were born with addiction. There is also a kid who features in that video who was born with serious intellectual disability, possibly due to his mother's drug-use during pregnancy. I don't think that is defensible.

I'm not talking about eugenics here, but about delaying contraception, if and until the parent is free from addiction to such drugs.

What do you guys think?

.......

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony

Anyone who takes drugs such as heroin or cocaine are idiots and they can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

El Weirdo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who takes drugs such as heroin or cocaine are idiots and they can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

You go, girl!

pablo128

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All the yummy mummys in their Range Rovers will love that idea. I'm sure of it.

Dravokivich

Well, it takes 2, and what if it was only a man that was addicted, in a relationship? Are they only (or mainly) concerned with the potential for the baby to be affected by any drugs taken while an addicted woman is pregnant? And not the financial hardship that affects a family with children, especially with an addicted parent?

.......

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure that's possible yet.

Male birth control is still very much in the experimental phase, and vasectomy is still difficult to reverse.

In fact, Id take the addiction option out of it altogether and offer it free to anyone in receipt of a social welfare payment.

Every primary custodian of a child who is resident in this country is entitled to social welfare support.

One eyed Jack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not talking about eugenics here, but about delaying contraception, if and until the parent is free from addiction to such drugs.

That may not be how you intend it, but that's exactly what it sounds like, and exactly what it could lead to. It won't lead to that though because it's a stupid idea that really doesn't need to be encouraged.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

The Poolbeg incinerator has spare capacity last I heard.

.......

This post has been deleted.

diomed

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would give the child allowance to childless people.

rainbow kirby

Free LARCs or sterilisation to anyone who wants them? Yes

Forcing it? No

It needs to be the choice of the individual.

One eyed Jack

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That may not be how you intend it, but that's exactly what it sounds like, and exactly what it could lead to. It won't lead to that though because it's a stupid idea that really doesn't need to be encouraged.

Yeah, I was thinking about that ... don't we already apply 'soft' eugenic incentives anyway?

For example, look at how our economy is designed, whereby rich parents, and not 'good' parents can afford to have the most children? If you're a couple on a combined salary of, say €200,000, children are more likely to be seen as a blessing, than in the case of a couple earning below-average wages.

Nobody gets rich from having children, so there is an economic incentive for poor people to have fewer children in the first place.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Free LARCs or sterilisation to anyone who wants them? Yes

Forcing it? No

It needs to be the choice of the individual.

Well forced sterilisation wasn't mentioned at all in fairness. I'm just talking about formalising an incentive for those who are addicted to illicit drugs and alcohol.

harry Bailey esq

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who takes drugs such as heroin or cocaine are idiots and they can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

That's me told.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I was thinking about that ... don't we already apply 'soft' eugenic incentives anyway?

For example, look at how our economy is designed, whereby rich parents, and not 'good' parents can afford to have the most children? If you're a couple on a combined salary of, say €200,000, children are more likely to be seen as a blessing, than in the case of a couple earning below-average wages.

Nobody gets rich from having children, so there is an economic incentive for poor people to have fewer children in the first place.


Well forced sterilisation wasn't mentioned at all in fairness. I'm just talking about formalising an incentive for those who are addicted to illicit drugs and alcohol.

I would have thought quite the opposite was being employed currently in Ireland.
If you are dirt poor, you have nothing to lose by having children and plenty to gain. Like a house, children's allowance, one parent family payment, medical card ect.
If you have an average income, you get very little help. Meaning each additional child you have will make your 'wealth' level less than average. To the point where it can be financially beneficial for one parent to give up working.
If you have a large income. You'll be fine with or without having kids.

The way the system is currently, it most certainly does encourage you to have kids if you're poor. And there is a disincentive to have kids if you have an average income.

Having said that, I think the answer is to make it easier for the second group to have children. We have one of the youngest populations in Europe. We could keep it that way with smart medium term planning.

Unless there is definitive proof that addiction is inherited what is the point of it.

It would be better to do research on why some addicts do well as parents and try and identify the factors supporting good parenting.

.......

This post has been deleted.

What about parent with personality disorders or mental health issues in fact what about all the imperfect parents.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

Should the feral be sterilised? Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I give you exhibit A:

I won't even bother putting up the graphic images of animals that have been mutilated by the usual scummers at Halloween.

The prosecution rests.


Edit: I wouldn't support mandatory sterilisation though, just offer incentives. The free market will take care of the rest.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pablo128

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You do know that female sterilisation is free if you have a medical card?

.......

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I anticipated that someone might say that, which is why I only mentioned incentives.

Human beings spurn economic incentives all the time. Failure to understand this phenomenon has been one of the most historic blunders of classic liberalism.

I'm sure that when you were considering your career, you didn't just jump into the the most profitable one. Even if you did, that's not how most people operate. An economic incentive is only one, admittedly powerful, incentive. Economic incentives are never solely determinative of an individual's future choices.

I am not claiming that Ireland would solve the problem of drug-addicted mothers if the State merely incentivised women with drug addictions to have an IUD fitted, or to procure a termination. I'm only suggesting that it could be one (possibly very effective) approach. It absolutely will not be conclusive.

We can never truly talk of incentives as being conclusive.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I would have thought quite the opposite was being employed currently in Ireland.
If you are dirt poor, you have nothing to lose by having children and plenty to gain. Like a house, children's allowance, one parent family payment, medical card ect.

I think you're answering a point that wasn't made. I said that raising children will not make you wealthy -- at least not so long as your children are dependent upon you.

A single mother may be given a roof over her head, and in my view, the same basic shelter ought to be guaranteed to all individuals who belong in this society.The fact that she gets to rent a piece of shelter doesn't make her rich, even if another person doesn't get to rent that shelter.

People cannot have it both ways. There is indisputable empirical evidence that, if you believe that economic incentives work at all, then there is no better economic incentive than to get a job, to marry, and not to have children.

Funnily enough, this highly profitable 'married without children' scenario is the polar opposite of what is often claimed by our right-wing friends, who erroneously believe it is more profitable to stay single and have children by the new time.

I am a soon-to-be unmarried Dad, and believe me, if I were thinking with my wallet (and I'm certainly not), this is the very last thing I'd commit to. It is a financial armageddon, about which I am very excited.

so just to emphasise what I said above, I think we must be careful when we begin to get evangelical about economic incentives. They aren't always clear-cut.
But there may be a very effective role for them in situations like the one I described in the OP, involving drug addicts, where an individual has nothing to lose.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

Hitler. There. I just wanted to be the first to Godwin this!

Effects

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who takes drugs such as heroin or cocaine are idiots and they can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

Except it affects you so just telling someone to take a hike is a dumb approach.

One eyed Jack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I was thinking about that ... don't we already apply 'soft' eugenic incentives anyway?

For example, look at how our economy is designed, whereby rich parents, and not 'good' parents can afford to have the most children? If you're a couple on a combined salary of, say €200,000, children are more likely to be seen as a blessing, than in the case of a couple earning below-average wages.

Nobody gets rich from having children, so there is an economic incentive for poor people to have fewer children in the first place.

I'm not sure where to start with this really because you've made so many assumptions in one post, but I'll start with the idea that nobody gets rich from having children so there is an economic incentive for poorer people to have less children.

Poorer people generally don't have the education to be able to view economics from the perspective of people who are educated and socially mobile. They generally view children as a blessing rather than thinking about whether they can offer children the same standard of living as people who have both the education and the means which give them more freedom in their decision making capacity.

It's not just about whether parents are either 'good' parents or 'bad' parents (and educated, wealthy drug addicts also have better access to better quality drugs and better treatment options than poorer drug addicts), it's about the fact that parents who are drug addicts and their children need support to help them and their families, not thinly disguised condemnation from the likes of the woman in that video.

She gets half a million dollars in donations from people who can afford to donate to her cause to do their dirty work for them, because they know, and she knows that it's not at all about preventing pregnancies, it's about offering a quick fix solution to people who are looking for quick fixes. She says nobody has come up with a rational argument against what she's doing, but no argument against her efforts are going to sound rational to her because she doesn't care for rational arguments, and she knows that generally, wealthy people don't care a whole lot about social issues they aren't faced with. She's effectively providing a modern day NIMBYism service which we had in this country for a long time up until very recently, and there are a few people who see the horrors of it now, but there are still far more many people would advocate such measures if it meant they didn't have to deal with them - out of sight, out of mind.

The State however, has an obligation to provide for the welfare of it's citizens, and that means providing long term solutions, but because the State is failing in it's duty to provide for the welfare of all it's citizens, gives rise to people like this woman and gives rise to people looking for quick fix solutions as to how to deal with them. The State won't do it, wealthy people themselves won't do it, so that opens the market for individuals or organisations to offer what people looking for quick fix solutions see as a rational solution to the problem of poverty and the continued existence of the underclass.

It doesn't quite work like that though -

(You had to see that clip coming at some point surely? )

LadyMacBeth_

Abortions for some, miniature flags for others.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That may not be how you intend it, but that's exactly what it sounds like, and exactly what it could lead to. It won't lead to that though because it's a stupid idea that really doesn't need to be encouraged.

No, eugenics is terminating blood lines due to some alleged defect, e.g. racial, IQ of the parent, genetic disease etc.

This is something different - encourage those who are provably irresponsible and thus unfit parents, not to have children.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mrs OBumble

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

I would make short term sterilisation compulsory for all women, except if they can show they have the resources to potentially raise a child.

It wouldn't prevent all parenting-fails, but would stop a lot.

No eugenics involved: just show that you're:
1) Drug free,
2) Capable of abstaining from alcohol and understand why it's important to do so while pregnant.
3) Properly managing any diagnosed long-term illnesses, and know how to do so while pregnant, and
4) Have enough income to provide a basic home and support for the child either by yourself of with guaranteed family support.

suicide_circus

It's a womans body
It's a womans choice

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

No, eugenics is terminating blood lines due to some alleged defect, e.g. racial, IQ of the parent, genetic disease etc.

This is something different - encourage those who are provably irresponsible and thus unfit parents, not to have children.

It's exploiting people who are in unfortunate situations really. She and her private donors can paint whatever veneer they want on it, but it's nothing more than simply taking advantage of people in unfortunate situations. The same money she receives from private donors she could use to make sure the women she's exploiting would get the help and support they and their families actually need as opposed to giving a crack addict with seven children already $300 to get herself sterilised.

One eyed Jack

No, society must not interfere with an individual's choice to conceive

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not sure where to start with this really because you've made so many assumptions in one post, but I'll start with the idea that nobody gets rich from having children so there is an economic incentive for poorer people to have less children.

Poorer people generally don't have the education to be able to view economics from the perspective of people who are educated and socially mobile. They generally view children as a blessing rather than thinking about whether they can offer children the same standard of living as people who have both the education and the means which give them more freedom in their decision making capacity.

That's a really great point and I couldn't agree more.

I was too narrow in my wording, by suggesting that there are competing economic incentives -- in fact, there are irrational (and, separately) emotional incentives which may not be based on fact, but which are nonetheless valid.

My only quibble with your statement is that you seem to be implying that poor people's perception of children as a blessing is somehow misinformed. Apologies if I am misinterpreting you. Although, statistically, poverty may almost be 'heritable', that isn't to say that poor people are somehow less happy, or less deserving at a shot at happiness, than anybody else.

I don't want it to seem like I am suggesting that those on low incomes shouldn't have children. Even in their most private thoughts, I don't believe that most poor parents ever regret their children. Nor should they.

It's not just about whether parents are either 'good' parents or 'bad' parents (and educated, wealthy drug addicts also have better access to better quality drugs and better treatment options than poorer drug addicts), it's about the fact that parents who are drug addicts and their children need support to help them and their families

All of this is true. What I am saying, is that for the time being, society has limited resources to help children fulfil their potential. And until we find some better way of organising our society, we must be practical with the resources we have, by not bringing 'unnecessary' numbers of children into the world, in circumstances where those children are likely to end up in need of foster care and intensive medical care.

She says nobody has come up with a rational argument against what she's doing, but no argument against her efforts are going to sound rational to her because she doesn't care for rational arguments,

Well, do you have a rational argument for a drug-addicted woman having multiple pregnancies, such as one of the women featured in the video?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I would make short term sterilisation compulsory for all women, except if they can show they have the resources to potentially raise a child.

I suspect you might change your tune when the time comes for your state pension to be funded by future generations.

If the population pyramid plunges into decline, you might eat your words.