nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sterilization. At last a good news story.

LarrytheLantern

A drug addict has become the first man in Britain to be sterilised in exchange for cash under a controversial new project.

The man, known as John, who has been addicted to heroin for 15 years, was given £200 (€230) by an American charity in return for having a vasectomy.

Project Prevention, the charity running the scheme, has made similar payments to thousands of men and women in America in a crusade to prevent them having children who may inherit their addictions.

The 38-year-old man said he had been involved with drugs since the age of 11 or 12 and that the offer of money had "spurred" him into having the operation.

He said: "It was kind of what spurred me into doing it in a way.

"It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time and something that I'd already made my mind up that I wanted to do. Just hadn't got around to it."

The charity began offering the cash incentive to British addicts after paying 3,500 American men and women addicted to drugs or alcohol to be sterilised.

John said he was given 30 days to make a decision after calling the charity's helpline, and had the operation on the NHS in September.

He told BBC London's Inside Out, to be screened on Monday night: "It came as a bit of a shock to me knowing I was the first in Britain.

"I would have thought people would be snapping up the offer as soon as it came apparent as it was there.

"I won't be able to support a kid. I can just about manage to support myself. Just about got it together to do that."

The woman behind the project, Barbara Harris, from North Carolina, said she set up the charity after adopting four children whose mother was addicted to crack.

She said: "I got very angry about the damage that these drugs do to these children.

"It was unbelievable. Isaiah could not sleep, he couldn't eat, his eyes were big, noise bothered him, light bothered him. It broke my heart."

But the scheme has attracted criticism from people who feel the charity is exploiting vulnerable people and led to accusations of social engineering.

Ms Harris added: "I've been called everything. I've been spat on.

"Typically I just say to my critics: 'If you believe these women should continue to take drugs and have children, then step up in line and adopt their babies'. It's that simple."

But the scheme has met criticism from addiction charities.

A spokesman for Addaction, the drug and alcohol treatment charity, said: "Addaction firmly believes there is no place for Project Prevention in the UK because their practices are morally reprehensible and irrelevant.

"Sex education and contraceptive advice is part of drug treatment work in this country. Women who use drugs can access all types of contraception free on the NHS including a number of long term options."

The project also pays addicts to get long-term birth control including intrauterine contraceptive devices or a contraceptive implant.

- BBC London Inside Out investigation will air on Monday at 1930 on BBC One.

- Nick Collins

© Telegraph.co.uk

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Waltzing Consumer

mahamageehad wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they're likely to be good or bad parents! You can't just decide a whole group of people shouldn't be allowed to breed, no matter how bad the circumstances!! Who would be put in charge of such a thing..??

It's a slippery slope- all people with "bad" circumstances should be sterilised (ie. junkies etc) then all people with "bad" genes maybe- disabilities and disease that may be passed on it childbirth, AIDs and HIV sufferers to the top of the line. Next the alcoholics. Don't you know haw bad drinking is for a child in the womb. And then the recreational drug users and smokers. Nicotine addiction is terrible for a child. Then the gingers maybe.

hey maybe we should just sterilize anyone that isn't of a certain race, with certain hair and eye colour...

21st century style

Everything you said here is right, it is a slippery slope if a state decided who could procreate and who could not.

The major point you have missed here is that it is not the state.

It is free and people can choose to have the snip or not. Any adult can choose to get the snip, it is not illegal, and the state has no right interfering.

The dilemma that people see here is they see the addict as a person who does not have the mental or physical capacity to make an informed decision regarding having this operation.

But by admitting that some addicts have no mental or physical capacity to make a simple and obvious medical decision, that would imply that have no mental or physical capacity to bring a child into the world and raise that child.

So it is a choice between the perception of taking advantage of a drug addict in giving them the snip, or letting the person who has no capacity to make decisions, raise a child.

So if I had the choice of protecting a child or protecting an addict, the child comes first. In reality, people care a lot when it comes to unborn children, even if they are drug addict children, but once that baby is born, people don't give a f**k what kind of environment the child is brought up in. Bit sad.

Gone Drinking

123balltv wrote: »

I think this is a great idea 99% of kids from junkies end up doomed

Did you just pluck that figure out of the air?

Stop talking sihte, if you have an opinion on the subject fair enough but make sure its a credible one.

readyletsgo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Good news story?

More saddening than good tbh.

Saddening?? This is Brilliant news!!!

Whats wrong with people on here, one less junkie having babies is great news!

Its up to the Junkie to do it or not, who gives a **** about them at all really? I walk by a 'batch' of about 10 junkies off there tits on drugs/drink each morning with kids hanging around them (and garda's see them too), its saddening to see that every morning!
They are given 30 days to decide if they want to do it or not. 30 days to decide if they want to continue shooting up or if they want to have babies. If they want off the herion they will give up, if not then why should they have a child and raise it in misery?

PS: there is 7billion people on the plant at the moment, i think we'll be alright for babies in the future... this is one way to help reduce the amount of people here, in a way, junkies doing this are helping!

mahamageehad

senordingdong wrote: »

That depends...are this low income family likely to be bad parents and breed crime?
Or are the low income family going to work hard and do a good job raising their children?

Oh come on now...this is not aimed at people who are living on a tight budget, this is aimed at people live (possibly homelessly) on a heroin budget.

It doesn't matter if they're likely to be good or bad parents! You can't just decide a whole group of people shouldn't be allowed to breed, no matter how bad the circumstances!! Who would be put in charge of such a thing..??

It's a slippery slope- all people with "bad" circumstances should be sterilised (ie. junkies etc) then all people with "bad" genes maybe- disabilities and disease that may be passed on it childbirth, AIDs and HIV sufferers to the top of the line. Next the alcoholics. Don't you know haw bad drinking is for a child in the womb. And then the recreational drug users and smokers. Nicotine addiction is terrible for a child. Then the gingers maybe.

hey maybe we should just sterilize anyone that isn't of a certain race, with certain hair and eye colour...

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Great idea let's begin our new eugenics phase on the junkies, then we'll target the unemployed and the Africans, and then ...............finish things off by the reinstating the final solution!!

21st century style

senordingdong

optogirl wrote: »

Yes. Eugenics is surely the answer :rolleyes:

Could have prevented countless problems before they occured.

optogirl

LarrytheLantern wrote: »

i find it disturbing that we allow these types to procreate.

"a snip in time .............":)

Yes. Eugenics is surely the answer :rolleyes:

Mister men

This needs to be rolled out here on a bigger scale. We should start at the dail.

Ash.J.Williams

Great idea let's begin our new eugenics phase on the junkies, then we'll target the unemployed and the Africans, and then ...............finish things off by the reinstating the final solution!!

up for anything

123balltv wrote: »

99% of kids from junkies end up doomed

Link?

123balltv

it breaks my heart to see junkies with kids
it would even break my heart to see them try to look after a dog let alone
innocent kids.
I think this is a great idea 99% of kids from junkies end up doomed
last night I did cry a little coming home from work now this was late about 10:30 a child I'd say bout 9 outside a pizza shop there was bout 7 junkies
all standing around this child injecting,dealing,pouring vodka into pepsi
bottles etc imagine this woman trying to get up at 8 in the morning to wash,feed,dress this child for school in the morning I betcha that poor kid gets to school very late,hungry,dirty :mad: I want them sterilized :mad:

General Zod

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd say statistically irrelevent. I'm a hell of a lot more worried about a child being born addicted to heroin than a potential tiny increase in chlamydia or gonnorrhoea cases. Plus there's a good chance the non-junkie will insist on barrier protection.

True there are more serious STDs like hep/HIV but the risk of catching these from needle sharing far exceeeds that of catching them from sexual contact.

I wouldn't even consider that argument when debating this issue.

without seeing the statistical levels for both increase in STI's and children born addicted to heroin you can't dismiss one as statistically irrelevant and accept the other (which I would say would be close to being the same). There's no coorelation or causation between the two but it's fair for both to be discussed.

Sterilisation isn't something that should be entered into lightly, especially not with immediate cash reward to mentally vunerable people.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That wouldn't be suitable for junkies. Look at the contraindictions:

Junkies are high risk for viral hepatits due to needle sharing (once you've used a needle for a non-prescription drug you are automatically banned from donating blood, even if its for steroids)

If they're willing to become infertile for cash they're probably willing to prostitute themselves, so the other STIs mentioned would also stop it from being usuable

While it wouldn't be a catch all solution I offered it as an example of long term contraception to someone who enquired as to what options there were, and it certainly would be a preferable solution to sterilisation for some people.

Bottle_of_Smoke

General Zod wrote: »

one example, the mirena coil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUD_with_progestogen

That wouldn't be suitable for junkies. Look at the contraindictions:

Pregnancy
Postpartum puerperal sepsis
Immediately after a septic abortion
Before evaluation of unexplained vaginal bleeding suspected of being a serious condition
Malignant gestational trophoblastic disease
Cervical cancer (awaiting treatment)
Active liver disease: (acute viral hepatitis, severe decompensated cirrhosis, benign or malignant liver tumours)
Current or recent breast cancer[17]
Endometrial cancer
Current PID
Current purulent cervicitis, chlamydial infection, or gonorrheal STIs
Known pelvic tuberculosis
Conditions where the theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages of inserting a levonorgestrel IUS:

Postpartum between 48 hours and 4 weeks (increased IUD expulsion rate with delayed postpartum insertion)
Current deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolus (PE)
Benign gestational trophoblastic disease
Ovarian cancer
Very high individual likelihood of exposure to gonorrhea or chlamydial STIs
Active liver disease: (acute viral hepatitis, severe decompensated cirrhosis, benign, or malignant liver tumours)

Junkies are high risk for viral hepatits due to needle sharing (once you've used a needle for a non-prescription drug you are automatically banned from donating blood, even if its for steroids)

If they're willing to become infertile for cash they're probably willing to prostitute themselves, so the other STIs mentioned would also stop it from being usuable

Bottle_of_Smoke

General Zod wrote: »

Drug addicts don't have sex with only other drug addicts. and removing the chance of getting pregnant can lead to an increase in unprotected sex, and an increased chance of STD's.

and it's funny, noone discusses these options when the drug in question is alcohol.

I'd say statistically irrelevent. I'm a hell of a lot more worried about a child being born addicted to heroin than a potential tiny increase in chlamydia or gonnorrhoea cases. Plus there's a good chance the non-junkie will insist on barrier protection.

True there are more serious STDs like hep/HIV but the risk of catching these from needle sharing far exceeeds that of catching them from sexual contact.

I wouldn't even consider that argument when debating this issue.

General Zod

Pookah wrote: »

There was an English social worker on, in the same segment of the programme, who advocated long-term contraception instead of sterilisation (I'm not exactly sure what that is),

one example, the mirena coil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUD_with_progestogen

curlzy

While I don't like junkies, (was robbed at knife point by one) I still don't think we should treat them like vermin. I would be 100% against this idea, it's completely unethical, granted having a child you can't look after is unethical but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

General Zod

Drug addicts don't have sex with only other drug addicts. and removing the chance of getting pregnant can lead to an increase in unprotected sex, and an increased chance of STD's.

and it's funny, noone discusses these options when the drug in question is alcohol.

Pookah

The American woman was on Newsnight, last night, stating her case.

They showed the effects on babies born as heroin and crack addicts, and it was heartbreaking. The babies will most likely have health and emotional problems throughout their lifetimes.

In the sense of reducing that suffering, and reducing future health costs, it makes sense for addicts to voluntarily sterilise.

On the other hand, they're junkies, and it's really only the cash payment that is inducing them to volunteer. It seems it's less their own choice but the addiction choosing for them.

There was an English social worker on, in the same segment of the programme, who advocated long-term contraception instead of sterilisation (I'm not exactly sure what that is), but even she was hard-pressed not to admit the efficacy of what the American programme is acheiving.

I would admit to being torn on the issue, myself.

up for anything

senordingdong wrote: »

Oh come on now...this is not aimed at people who are living on a tight budget, this is aimed at people live (possibly homelessly) on a heroin budget.

At the moment it is. Ideas like this grow legs though. Today - junkies, tomorrow - anybody who doesn't meet with somebody else's idea of proper living! Where does something like this stop? Who is going to draw the line?

People who shouldn't breed

Junkies
Alcoholics
Serial murderers
Nicotine addicts
Homeless people
People on social welfare
Low income people
People who get less than 2 honours in their LC
Unemployed people

For my money I would offer all the people who have drunken, unprotected sex, money to be sterilised. If they are that stupid they shouldn't be passing on their genes. Seriously.

rugbug86

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not genetic is it?

No, it's not genetic as such, but a pregnant woman who is injecting heroin can pass this heroin through to the child, thus the child is born with the addiction. Preventing women getting pregnant can stop this.

Bottle_of_Smoke

up for anything wrote: »

You're speaking like there is a 100% success rate in both types of reversal. There isn't. Far from it.

Tubal Ligation Reversal

Vasectomy Reversal

It makes my flesh crawl to think that someday I could be in a position where I make a life changing decision because I am offered what seems like easy money. Christmas is only a couple of months away and already I'm having sleepless nights about how to arrange Santa. Another month and I'll be desperate and distraught. Kidney anyone?

Well as I said I don't think they should tie tubes for women, instead have longer term hormonal options.

If a male version of that came about I'd be in preference of it too. However for now I am aware of vaesectomy risks but do not feel they outweigh the risk of a junkie conceiving a child

squeakyduck

I saw this story on another forum yesterday. I think it's a good idea, 200 is a tiny bit to pay to save a poor child being born into drug abuse, poverty and sadness.

senordingdong

mahamageehad wrote: »

I don't know I can see why this is a good idea but again as said before it doesn't sit well with me. What next giving lower income families a car for sterilisation?? Line up the long term dolers and offer it to them for an extra weeks pay..??

That depends...are this low income family likely to be bad parents and breed crime?
Or are the low income family going to work hard and do a good job raising their children?

up for anything wrote:

Christmas is only a couple of months away and already I'm having sleepless nights about how to arrange Santa. Another month and I'll be desperate and distraught. Kidney anyone?

Oh come on now...this is not aimed at people who are living on a tight budget, this is aimed at people live (possibly homelessly) on a heroin budget.

up for anything

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Think its a great idea.

Vasectomy is reversible if they ever sort themselves out. For women they should give them that injection that stops them getting pregnant for a few years. Tube tying is a bit more complicated to reverse and a more sever operation in general

You're speaking like there is a 100% success rate in both types of reversal. There isn't. Far from it.

Tubal Ligation Reversal

Vasectomy Reversal

It makes my flesh crawl to think that someday I could be in a position where I make a life changing decision because I am offered what seems like easy money. Christmas is only a couple of months away and already I'm having sleepless nights about how to arrange Santa. Another month and I'll be desperate and distraught. Kidney anyone?

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Think its a great idea.

Vasectomy is reversible if they ever sort themselves out. For women they should give them that injection that stops them getting pregnant for a few years.

From what I know women are already given the depo injection as part of their treatment, which lasts 3 months.
For men, I do think it's a good idea, as long as their is an opt out clause. Where the charity pays for the procedure to be reversed, whether the person is clean or not.

But as Dudess says, it is pretty sinister...

mahamageehad

I don't know I can see why this is a good idea but again as said before it doesn't sit well with me. What next giving lower income families a car for sterilisation?? Line up the long term dolers and offer it to them for an extra weeks pay..??

senordingdong

The-Rigger wrote: »

It's a sad situation undoubtedly.
But, I look at it like this: If someone is willing to sterilise themselves for £200, then they are not likely to have the will power to ensure they don't bring a child into the world in their current circumstances, something imo which must be avoided.

I don't think it's sad...I think it's too little too late.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Think its a great idea.

Vasectomy is reversible if they ever sort themselves out. For women they should give them that injection that stops them getting pregnant for a few years. Tube tying is a bit more complicated to reverse and a more sever operation in general

K-9

The-Rigger wrote: »

It's a sad situation undoubtedly.
But, I look at it like this: If someone is willing to sterilise themselves for £200, then they are not likely to have the will power to ensure they don't bring a child into the world in their current circumstances, something imo which must be avoided.

I think that is the point here.

How could you trust them to bring up a baby in that environment?

The state either provides the mother with proper treatment and care, or sh*t like this happens.

No matter how idealistic a society you have, tough case like this are going to happen. Babies likes this should be brought into care but that isn't going to happen.

Jesus Wept

It's a sad situation undoubtedly.
But, I look at it like this: If someone is willing to sterilise themselves for £200, then they are not likely to have the will power to ensure they don't bring a child into the world in their current circumstances, something imo which must be avoided.

scientific1982

A bit too naziesque for my liking.