Should Ireland do the same...

davem75

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519


Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised

Drug addicts across the UK are being offered money to be sterilised by an American charity. Project Prevention is offering to pay £200 to any drug user in London, Glasgow, Bristol, Leicester and parts of Wales who agrees to be operated on.

The first person in the UK to accept the cash is drug addict "John" from Leicester who says he "should never be a father". The move has been criticised by some drug charities who work with addicts.

Drug treatment charity Addaction estimates one million children in the UK are living with parents who abuse drugs. Pregnant addicts can pass on the dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.
Mrs Harris set up her charity in North Carolina after adopting the children of a crack addict.

Damage to children

Speaking to the BBC's Inside Out programme, she said: "The birth mother of my children obviously dabbled in all drugs and alcohol - she literally had a baby every year for eight years.
"I get very angry about the damage that drugs do to these children."
After paying 3,500 addicts across the United States not to have children, she is now visiting parts of the UK blighted by drugs to encourage users to undergo "long-term birth control" for cash.
John, a 38-year-old addict from Leicester, is the first person in the UK to accept money to have a vasectomy after being involved in drugs since he was 12.
Maria Cripps Dovetail Centre
He said: "It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time.
"I won't be able to support a kid; I can just about manage to support myself."
Simon Antrobus, chief executive of Addaction, said while no-one wanted to see children brought up in a drug-using environment, there was no place for Project Prevention in the UK.
"It exploits very vulnerable people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol at probably the lowest point in their lives," he said.
The Reverend Robert Black, of Victory Outreach, which works with former addicts in east London, said he thought Project Prevention's aims were "very devious".
Reversible contraception
Maria Cripps, project manager at the Hackney Dovetail Centre which works with drug users and their carers, said: "I think Barbara uses some very extreme examples to get her point across. It might work in America but Great Britain is a very different country."
But Reverend Martin Blakebrough, director of Camden's Kaleidoscope Project in north London, said sterilisation was "worth considering" if it was right for the individual.
A spokesperson at the British Medical Association said: "The BMA's ethics committee does not have a view on the charity Project Prevention.
"As with all requests for treatment, doctors need to be confident that the individual has the capacity to make the specific decision at the time the decision is required.
"The BMA's ethics committee also believes that doctors should inform patients of the benefits of reversible contraception so that the patients have more reproductive choices in the future."

Absurdum

let's just kill them instead

Ste_D

Great idea. Maybe we could start sponsoring junkies to get the snip! It will save us all a fortune in the long run!

Cuddlesworth

I heard they found the perfect place to do it, somewhere up near Krackow in Poland.

Biggins

I suppose it could be an option for an individual to decide on and take. It should never be a state mandate however.

Pookah

Yes.

If only to reduce the amount of scumbag threads on After Hours, in 18 years time.

fonecrusher1

Hows this for an idea to stem the flow of rampant scummer breeding?

If you incur more than 5 convictions you get sterilised? Im constantly seeing stories about habitual criminals with several convictions being involved in fatal assaults. The accused has 8,9,10 previous convictions for various crimes...etc etc same old depressing description.

Obviously the idea of going to prison doesn't trouble them at all. Being sterilised might actually register on the average primitive scummer brain as a severe punishment.

Wertz

American neo-fascists and borderline eugenics. I'll bet you they're "christians" too.

Anyone that takes that pittance in exchange for their one actual purpose of being on the planet in the first place is better removed from the gene pool, so in reality this charity are doing the world a service....but not in the way they think.

orourkeda

it'd be more fun to burn them

Notorious97

200 quid? How dear is a bullet?

senordingdong

Wertz wrote: »

American neo-fascists and borderline eugenics. I'll bet you they're "christians" too.

Anyone that takes that pittance in exchange for their one actual purpose of being on the planet in the first place is better removed from the gene pool, so in reality this charity are doing the world a service....but not in the way they think.

Gene pool could do with some chloriene regardless.

candy-gal1

Yes, we should do this! One of the things that p***** me off is how scumbags, scangers, drug addicts/junkies are allowed to breed!! this should sort a lot of problems imho.

southsiderosie

I don't actually have a problem with this if it's a reversible process. At first they were paying for women to get their tubes tied in the US, but I think they have switched to using IUDs which are effective for up to five years. That way, if a woman gets cleaned up, she can get the IUD removed and still have children.

Gone Drinking

I've two fostered brothers, both were born herion babies. They lived with their mother, in terrible conditions till they were 2 and 3, then they were taken by the state and given to us. After a few years on and off drugs, their mother has been drink/drugs free for the guts of 10 years.

One of them has just started college, the other is sitting his leaving cert this year. Good lads, rarely in trouble, never anything serious.

Just an example of how the current system does work for some people.

Logical Fallacy

Wertz wrote: »

Anyone that takes that pittance in exchange for their one actual purpose of being on the planet in the first place is better removed from the gene pool, so in reality this charity are doing the world a service....but not in the way they think.

Humans have long gone past the point of reproduction being our "one" purpose, social evolution and all that.

Can't wait to see the kind of knock on effect this idea has on STD's in communities of drug users.

squeakyduck

I think £200 is the least you should have to pay to get a man to have the snip. It will save some poor child the embarrassment of his/her dad trying to nick money off his/her friends or trying to sell them gear!

Sticky_Fingers

I heard a radio interview she gave to the BBC last year and while the idea initially sounds like it was thought up by a complete right wing ideologue I thought she made a valid point that perhaps deserves some serious consideration. People will no doubt bleat about civil rights and how it is somehow taking advantage of people when they are at their lowest but if they are in such dire straits that they are willing to voluntarily undergo life changing surgery for the sake of £200 so they can score more drugs then they are in no fit state to look after a child in the first place.

Its an unpleasant solution to a horrible problem but at least she is willing to do something and deal with the situation in a pragmatic way instead of wringing her hands and tutting like the isn't-it-terrible brigade.

Here's the BBC interview for those who are interested (second from the top):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qvbj

Jaysus that's horrific.

Wertz

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't actually have a problem with this if it's a reversible process. At first they were paying for women to get their tubes tied in the US, but I think they have switched to using IUDs which are effective for up to five years. That way, if a woman gets cleaned up, she can get the IUD removed and still have children.

Is that what this charity are suggesting (article doesn't make it clear)? If it's reversible then that changes things somewhat and allows for people to clean up their act in the future and go on to live normal lives with kids etc. If it's simply making sure any addict is removed from the gene pool permanently then I have a huge problem with it, especially if it were to gain credence as a state policy.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Humans have long gone past the point of reproduction being our "one" purpose, social evolution and all that.

Only because our numbers have grown so vastly in the last few centuries....like it or not we are still an animal species and as such our only real reason to be here is to procreate and die...if we manage to contribute to the greater good and benefit society along the way then that's good too....but either way life goes on.

candy-gal1 wrote:

Yes, we should do this! One of the things that p***** me off is how scumbags, scangers, drug addicts/junkies are allowed to breed!! this should sort a lot of problems imho.

I'd be just as concerned that some people on these forums are allowed to breed when attitudes like this prevail.

The social welfare system that facilitates people to have children for long term finanical gain is what's at fault here, not the drug addicts that take advantage of it. It's encouraging people that can barely look after themselves to have kids that then supplement their income and housing needs...kids suffer and usually go on to repeat the mistakes of the parents.

This sytem would be thin end of wedge stuff: it starts off with drug addicts, then illicit drug users, then alcoholics, then ex convicts...where does it stop?

fonecrusher1

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't actually have a problem with this if it's a reversible process. At first they were paying for women to get their tubes tied in the US, but I think they have switched to using IUDs which are effective for up to five years. That way, if a woman gets cleaned up, she can get the IUD removed and still have children.

Sounds prefectly alright to me.

Except i think it should be selective temporary sterilisation for those who through their own reocurring deviant behaviour have been judged unfit to father/mother potential offspring. When they have been satisfactorily rehabilitated & complete maybe 2 years of non criminal activity the process is reversed.

In a nutshell; keep acting like a lawless dirtbag & we'll just deny you having kids.:)

southsiderosie

Wertz wrote: »

Is that what this charity are suggesting (article doesn't make it clear)? If it's reversible then that changes things somewhat and allows for people to clean up their act in the future and go on to live normal lives with kids etc. If it's simply making sure any addict is removed from the gene pool permanently then I have a huge problem with it, especially if it were to gain credence as a state policy.

According to this article, they offer both tubal ligation and IUds. The payout is the same for either. I guess the tubal option makes sense if some addicts already have kids, but I wonder if someone in the throes of addition is making a rational decision when they permanently sterilize themselves for cash. But like I said before, I think the IUD option makes sense, since the long term implications are far less severe.

Shenshen

Biggins wrote: »

I suppose it could be an option for an individual to decide on and take. It should never be a state mandate however.

^^ This.
An argument could be made to get the operation free of charge, but offering money as an incentive? No.

fonecrusher1

Wertz wrote: »

The social welfare system that facilitates people to have children for long term finanical gain is what's at fault here, not the drug addicts that take advantage of it. It's encouraging people that can barely look after themselves to have kids that then supplement their income and housing needs...kids suffer and usually go on to repeat the mistakes of the parents.

So whats your solution then?

Sticky_Fingers

Shenshen wrote: »

^^ This.
An argument could be made to get the operation free of charge, but offering money as an incentive? No.

The problem with this though is that there already exists widely available free birth control for people in this situation but the participants in this scheme do not avail of it.The only thing that brings these people through the door is the money, it's a nasty and unpleasant truth but that is all the people think about when they agree to take part in these schemes.

fonecrusher1

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The problem with this though is that there already exists widely available free birth control for people in this situation but the participants in this scheme do not avail of it.The only thing that brings these people through the door is the money, it's a nasty and unpleasant truth but that is all the people think about when they agree to take part in these schemes.

To be honest, it sounds like a gene pool cleaner to me.

Dravokivich

Wait... does this mean that there's a Junke / Scummer Gene that's being passed on that we haven't been told about?

Wertz

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

So whats your solution then?

I was going to suggest removing drugs from the hands of blackmarket supply, instead moving to supply by the state, cutting out the felonious element of drug use and treating addicts as a medical issue, not as a criminal one...but I'm wasting my breath/fingertips with that argument in this thread, so I won't bother.

The Aussie

Wont somebody please think of (Jeremy Kyles ratings) the children...

PeterIanStaker

The Aussie wrote: »

Wont somebody please think of (Jeremy Kyles ratings) the children...

We'll have those all important DNA results after the break . .

Herb Powell

Pretty disgusting. Doesn't really deal with the root causes of the problem. Vague response I know, but that's how I feel.

Sticky_Fingers

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

We'll have those all important DNA results after the break . .

Lets hope they are presented in an extra thick envelope with razor sharp corners:D

Lux23

No. Medium term contraceptives like those implants should be offered to drug users but no way should anyone who is under the influence of mind altering drugs should be forced to make a decision like this. Its just too Nazi like for me.

liah

I'm in the only-if-it's-reversible camp.

People can give out about human rights and normally I'm definitely behind that, but when children are involved it's a different matter. Absolutely no child deserves to grow up with junkie parents.

If the junkies showed themselves to be totally rehabilitated (and I'm a great believer in the idea that people can change) then they should have all the rights in the world to have children. But until they're clean they really should not reproduce.

It just wouldn't be fair on the kids.

PeterIanStaker

Maybe they should give skangers vouchers that can only be used to buy contraceptives.

We could call it Johnny Cash. :cool:

Br4tPr1nc3

i think its weird that an american charity are offering english junkies money to be sterilized.

why arent they doing it with americans?

PeterIanStaker

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

why arent they doing it with americans?

Cos Jerry Springer and Maury would be out of work?

Sticky_Fingers

Lux23 wrote: »

No. Medium term contraceptives like those implants should be offered to drug users but no way should anyone who is under the influence of mind altering drugs should be forced to make a decision like this. Its just too Nazi like for me.

But you cool letting them have kids? This isn't Sophie's Choice, they initiate contact with the scheme and voluntarily take part in it. As stated before, if they are so messed up on drugs that they are willing to get themselves sterilised for money for their next fix then they are in no fit state to care for children.

Shenshen

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The problem with this though is that there already exists widely available free birth control for people in this situation but the participants in this scheme do not avail of it.The only thing that brings these people through the door is the money, it's a nasty and unpleasant truth but that is all the people think about when they agree to take part in these schemes.

I think a lot of alternative birth control has one major downside... you need to remember to take/use it. That can be a challenge for normal, healthy adults, so I would imagine it's even trickier for drug-addicts.
As such, it would make sense to offer a free operation.

Now, if the operation that's being offered was reversible, it changes things somewhat. I'm still not 100% sure anybody should ever be offered money to undergo any operation of any kind, but if its reversible, it might be an option.

Shenshen

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

But you cool letting them have kids? This isn't Sophie's Choice, they initiate contact with the scheme and voluntarily take part in it. As stated before, if they are so messed up on drugs that they are willing to get themselves sterilised for money for their next fix then they are in no fit state to care for children.

Well, then why not give them money to have the implants instead? Why the need for an operation?

Son Of A Vidic

Fcuk! that's some slippery slope were getting on.

Ruu_Old

Can we use them for food instead?

nommm

Absolutely not. As if Junkies don't do stupid things for money that they will eventually regret when they sort out their life.

Sticky_Fingers

Shenshen wrote: »

I think a lot of alternative birth control has one major downside... you need to remember to take/use it. That can be a challenge for normal, healthy adults, so I would imagine it's even trickier for drug-addicts.
As such, it would make sense to offer a free operation.

Now, if the operation that's being offered was reversible, it changes things somewhat. I'm still not 100% sure anybody should ever be offered money to undergo any operation of any kind, but if its reversible, it might be an option.

They offer three options to women, 2 are long term but not permanent (effective for 8 and 10 years but can't remember what they are) while one is permanent. The men are offered the snip but there has been very little take up from males.

The Waltzing Consumer

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, then why not give them money to have the implants instead? Why the need for an operation?

I think they offer a range of birth control methods, one just happens to be getting the snip.

whydoibother?

Is sterilization reversible?:( Is consent not a problem here? Are these people in a fit state of mind to give consent so that it's really their choice. I mean even if they are not actually under the influence of anything at the moment they make their decision, is someone who is at such a low point in their life generally and probably desperate for money, depressed, helpless etc. capable of the necessary powers of reasoning to make that decision?

The Waltzing Consumer

whydoibother? wrote: »

Is sterilization reversible?:( Is consent not a problem here? Are these people in a fit state of mind to give consent so that it's really their choice. I mean even if they are not actually under the influence of anything at the moment they make their decision, is someone who is at such a low point in their life generally and probably desperate for money, depressed, helpless etc. capable of the necessary powers of reasoning to make that decision?

I think that is the dilemma here my friend. If they are in such a bad state of health and mind and people are arguing that they do not have the capacity to make the clear decision to get sterilized or not, how the hell do they have the capacity to raise a child?

Sticky_Fingers

whydoibother? wrote: »

Is sterilization reversible?:( Is consent not a problem here? Are these people in a fit state of mind to give consent so that it's really their choice. I mean even if they are not actually under the influence of anything at the moment they make their decision, is someone who is at such a low point in their life generally and probably desperate for money, depressed, helpless etc. capable of the necessary powers of reasoning to make that decision?

She outlines the process followed in the BBC radio interview

1: Person initiates contact with the scheme and required forms are posted out
2: Person then goes to their doctor to discuss the procedure and it can only continue once the doctor signs the form and states that the person understands fully what is involved
3: They have the procedure and once confirmation is given then the scheme gives them the money

It is not a spur of the moment thing where they just walk off the street into a clinic and have the procedure carried out, it takes a while to complete all the steps and they have time to think about what they are doing.

Amhran Nua

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't actually have a problem with this if it's a reversible process.

Agreed. This is no panacea, but it might make a lot of difference. Whats needed is to decriminalise hard drugs like heroin, so addicts don't feel like they are going to be arrested if they turn themselves in, maybe legalise softer ones to cut the money flowing to criminal gangs, and enact a two fisted zero tolerance policy for drug dealing and supply. Serious minimum terms, CAB confiscation, the lot. Top it off with a zero tolerance policy in prison and widespread rehabilitation techniques that go beyond just getting addicts off the drugs but put an emphasis on giving them the tools they need to rebuild their lives and relocate away from problem areas, and you're just about there.

Permanent sterilisation would be a monstrosity however.

fonecrusher1

Wertz wrote: »

I was going to suggest removing drugs from the hands of blackmarket supply, instead moving to supply by the state, cutting out the felonious element of drug use and treating addicts as a medical issue, not as a criminal one...but I'm wasting my breath/fingertips with that argument in this thread, so I won't bother.

You are wasting your breath because you & i both know that will never happen. The theory has been thrown around for years & thats exactly what it will remain. A theory.

At least the plan mentioned in the original post is a viable solution & not just more talk.

Wertz

Viable solution? Only in the opinions of some.
There's loads of "viable solutions" suggested to deal with the problems of drug abuse, but they're not in keeping with the moral outlooks of the politicians and lawmakers who preside over the ever more festering problem using the same ideas backed by more threats and longer jail sentences that still don't have any real impact...

Anyway, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating...it'll be interesting to see how many take this woman up on her offer and if succesful, where society goes from here...

irelandrover

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

You are wasting your breath because you & i both know that will never happen. The theory has been thrown around for years & thats exactly what it will remain. A theory.

At least the plan mentioned in the original post is a viable solution & not just more talk.

Do people really think that this solution works. Alcohol is legal and we still have alcoholics. What makes people think if we legalise drugs then we will have less drug addicts. the only point about legalising drugs is it gets tax money instead of funding drug gangs. which in my opinion is a good enough reason for doing it.

Back on topic. I think the plan is a good idea if it is reversible. Drug addicts should not be able to have children. But if they clean up their act then they should have that option. And to the person that said they wanted to see what it does to HIV infection among drug addicts, was that serious?