Sterilization. At last a good news story.

Pookah · 19-10-2010 10:20AM

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.

General Zod · 19-10-2010 10:23AM

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.

curlzy · 19-10-2010 10:32AM

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 · 19-10-2010 10:35AM

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

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-10-2010 11:15AM

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.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-10-2010 11:20AM

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

General Zod · 19-10-2010 11:51AM

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.

123balltv · 19-10-2010 12:39PM

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:

up for anything · 19-10-2010 12:41PM

123balltv wrote: »

99% of kids from junkies end up doomed

Link?

Ash.J.Williams · 19-10-2010 12:46PM

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!!

Mister men · 19-10-2010 12:49PM

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

optogirl · 19-10-2010 12:52PM

LarrytheLantern wrote: »

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

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

Yes. Eugenics is surely the answer :rolleyes:

senordingdong · 19-10-2010 12:57PM

optogirl wrote: »

Yes. Eugenics is surely the answer :rolleyes:

Could have prevented countless problems before they occured.

mahamageehad · 19-10-2010 12:59PM

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

readyletsgo · 19-10-2010 01:14PM

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!

Gone Drinking · 19-10-2010 01:14PM

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.

The Waltzing Consumer · 19-10-2010 01:20PM

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.

steddyeddy · 19-10-2010 01:21PM

Should people who have huntingtons disease be sterilized because they could pass it on to their son or daughter?

readyletsgo · 19-10-2010 01:25PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Should people who have huntingtons disease be sterilized because they could pass it on to their son or daughter?

People seem to be getting very mixed up here, this is for junkies ONLY!!!

EDIT: A choice for junkies ONLY!!!

The Waltzing Consumer · 19-10-2010 01:26PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Should people who have huntingtons disease be sterilized because they could pass it on to their son or daughter?

I think this thread is not going to be good if people start mixing up things like forced sterilization and choice.

I think your question is irrelevant because no one is forcing anything. If someone who has huntingtons disease chooses to be sterilized, who are you to interfere?

Odysseus · 19-10-2010 01:34PM

I'm amazed at the balance here on a AH thread, usually it's "well they are all scum" attitude. I spend a lot of my working day with addicts and see the effects of bad parenting, however, been an addict does not make you a bad parent. I often have to make the decision on whether to contact social services, I'm teaching tonight and part of my lecture is on infant withdrawal syndrome. However, whilst it is bad with heroin it can be managed by a medical team; benzos are much more difficult than opiates.

One of the projects I run a clinic in has a specific therapy programme for the child of the clients, trying to break that cycle. Addiction is only one factor you are looking at when trying to decide if the child is at risk. Personally the ethics of this doesn't sit well with, and the big question as pointed out above is where do we stop? This really is in my opinion a very big step back in terms of treatment, for both addicts and their children.

mahamageehad · 19-10-2010 01:40PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I think this thread is not going to be good if people start mixing up things like forced sterilization and choice.

I think your question is irrelevant because no one is forcing anything. If someone who has huntingtons disease chooses to be sterilized, who are you to interfere?

But are they not?? An addiction is a serious problem and most junkies can't see past their next hit. So i think offering money as an incentive to someone with that mindset is just plain wrong. Because it is not an informed, sane choice. To them, it's just easy money

The Waltzing Consumer · 19-10-2010 01:46PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

But are they not?? An addiction is a serious problem and most junkies can't see past their next hit. So i think offering money as an incentive to someone with that mindset is just plain wrong. Because it is not an informed, sane choice. To them, it's just easy money

Okay, I understand what you are saying.

But as I said above, if you think that some addicts have this mindset, that means that can't have the mindset to raise a child, as that is a lot more complicated and significant then making a medical decision.

If they cannot see past their next hit, how can they raise a child?

Is it better to damn a child into a lifestyle where there parent cannot see past their next hit and cannot make as you say, an informed sane choice about anything?

mahamageehad · 19-10-2010 01:56PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Okay, I understand what you are saying.

But as I said above, if you think that some addicts have this mindset, that means that can't have the mindset to raise a child, as that is a lot more complicated and significant then making a medical decision.

If they cannot see past their next hit, how can they raise a child?

Is it better to damn a child into a lifestyle where there parent cannot see past their next hit and cannot make as you say, an informed sane choice about anything?

I'm all for doing something about the problem! But this, in my sense of ethics, is wrong. Especially with regards female junkies (i'm biased because I'm female) - there are so many other alternatives available! Mirena coil is good for 5 years, contraceptive injection is good for 3. A junkie in their early 20's has a perfectly good chance of turning it all around in 5 years and becoming a functional member of society. Someone filled with regret that they threw any chance of having kids away for less than a weeks worth of drugs. Extreme example but it keeps coming into my head. Linky

candy-gal1 · 19-10-2010 02:01PM

Seriously, how is this bad?! if there was more of this the city would possibly be a nicer place. No scumbags, no scangers, no junkies, no drug pushers! Just normal decent people trying to make a living, but without the threat of s***heads.

Do It Now!!

candy-gal1 · 19-10-2010 02:03PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

I'm all for doing something about the problem! But this, in my sense of ethics, is wrong. Especially with regards female junkies (i'm biased because I'm female) - there are so many other alternatives available! Mirena coil is good for 5 years, contraceptive injection is good for 3. A junkie in their early 20's has a perfectly good chance of turning it all around in 5 years and becoming a functional member of society. Someone filled with regret that they threw any chance of having kids away for less than a weeks worth of drugs. Extreme example but it keeps coming into my head. Linky

Okay, but what junkie is actually going to do that?! its their choice to do drugs/harress people etc so they should not be allowed to breed and pass on more scangeryness to the next generation and the next. just my opinion.

The Waltzing Consumer · 19-10-2010 02:06PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

I'm all for doing something about the problem! But this, in my sense of ethics, is wrong. Especially with regards female junkies (i'm biased because I'm female) - there are so many other alternatives available! Mirena coil is good for 5 years, contraceptive injection is good for 3. A junkie in their early 20's has a perfectly good chance of turning it all around in 5 years and becoming a functional member of society. Someone filled with regret that they threw any chance of having kids away for less than a weeks worth of drugs. Extreme example but it keeps coming into my head. Linky

Okay, that is some good points. I think the group that offers sterilization has a range of other birth control methods too, it's just this one is a headline maker.

You did not answer my questions regarding the kids though

My name is URL · 19-10-2010 02:17PM

Horrible initiative imo. What next? Sterilize the poor, and the mentally unfit? It's a slippery slope, and sad that so many see it as a solution to a problem. It won't stop people from becomming addicts, and it won't make anyone want to clean up their act. Sorry for the Godwin, but this reminds me of Himmler's Final Solution

candy-gal1 · 19-10-2010 02:22PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Horrible initiative imo. What next? Sterilize the poor, and the mentally unfit? It's a slippery slope, and sad that so many see it as a solution to a problem. It won't stop people from becomming addicts, and it won't make anyone want to clean up their act. Sorry for the Godwin, but this reminds me of Himmler's Final Solution

But if some junkie wants to have a baby, and then realises that they have to quit drugs to do it then they will either quit or just die off.
Im sorry if this sounds heartless but for anyone whos ever had scangers and scum make life a hell for them then you know what i mean.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-10-2010 02:22PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Should people who have huntingtons disease be sterilized because they could pass it on to their son or daughter?

I'd have no problem with someone offering them money to be sterilised.

Sterilization. At last a good news story.

Comments