Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Sterilising Drug Addicts for Money
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-11545519
Do you agree that drug addicts should be sterilised for money or do you think it's wrong and asking for trouble?
Do you agree that drug addicts should be sterilised for money or do you think it's wrong and asking for trouble?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by milly143. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think it's a good idea for someone is has a long standing addiction, unlikley to come clean any time soon. Many drug addicts are ill equipped to look after themselves both financially and physically and would not be able to provide the right care for a child. I'm not overly concernced about the money aspect. Whilst on one hand you could say you shouldn't be giving an addict money which may just go on drugs, that bit of money might prevent someone being mugged, etc to feed a habit.
i suppose if its reversable, should the addict become clean, turn their life around and decide they want a family, then i see no harm...it would save a lot of babies an children suffering, and ending up in care.
its good that some addicts woudl welcome this...that they recognise they have issues, and dont just want to have kids for benefits or simply because they dont care enough to prevent it
as long as its not forced on anyone, nor should the cash be given directly to the addict...i doubt many would spend it on the op, with a wad in their pockets...
its good that some addicts woudl welcome this...that they recognise they have issues, and dont just want to have kids for benefits or simply because they dont care enough to prevent it
as long as its not forced on anyone, nor should the cash be given directly to the addict...i doubt many would spend it on the op, with a wad in their pockets...
i cant see the problem, some drug addicts will get pregnant have a baby and be excellent parents but for every 1 like this there's probably at least 5 who become a drain on social services the welfare state.
As far as i'm aware the person gets £200 which doesn't come from the taxpayer, even if the money did come from the tax payer it is a lot less than the child/children would cost the state in benefits etc.
Also these addicts cant just walk into the place and get it done there and then, they have to have a number of consultations before it is done to make sure they are making the right decision which in most cases they are.
As far as i'm aware the person gets £200 which doesn't come from the taxpayer, even if the money did come from the tax payer it is a lot less than the child/children would cost the state in benefits etc.
Also these addicts cant just walk into the place and get it done there and then, they have to have a number of consultations before it is done to make sure they are making the right decision which in most cases they are.
I, on the other hand of most people, believe that this is completely unethical.
People who are on drugs, are in no fit state of mind (psychologically) to decide what is best for their lives.
All they care about is getting money for their next 'hit' therefore, a little procedure like this is a perfect excuse to recieve the money.
They would be better investing in as lumination stated, educational courses, rehab and counselling.
If, however people feel that this is the way forward, to sterilise these people. Then there should be a set out procedure of-
3 months counselling, to make sure that this is the right option for them.
Along with aftercare, and an attempt at rehabilitation.
With NO cash incentive.
If you say, well that won't work. That's exactly my point. The only reason they're doing it is for the money, and not looking at the long term effects.
I overheard someone say something about 'nazi germany'
Can't help but see their point.
People who are on drugs, are in no fit state of mind (psychologically) to decide what is best for their lives.
All they care about is getting money for their next 'hit' therefore, a little procedure like this is a perfect excuse to recieve the money.
They would be better investing in as lumination stated, educational courses, rehab and counselling.
If, however people feel that this is the way forward, to sterilise these people. Then there should be a set out procedure of-
3 months counselling, to make sure that this is the right option for them.
Along with aftercare, and an attempt at rehabilitation.
With NO cash incentive.
If you say, well that won't work. That's exactly my point. The only reason they're doing it is for the money, and not looking at the long term effects.
I overheard someone say something about 'nazi germany'
Can't help but see their point.
I think this is very, very wrong - it is very manipulative and judgemental and I regard it a step on the road to eugenics which makes the assumption that people with substance misuse issues will never/can never change - which is not true.
It is asking people to make a significant and life changing decision at a time in their life when they are not able to make such a decision, and offering the lure of money to influence the decision. There are long term contraceptive options available - short of medical sterilisation which at least offer people a choice later once they are in recovery.
I know many people now working with addicts and living "normal" (whatever that means!), productive lives - complete with happy, well adjusted children, who are good in their work in addicts as they are former addicts themselves.
It also seems like the thin edge - where do we go next in judging who can and cannot have children.
It is asking people to make a significant and life changing decision at a time in their life when they are not able to make such a decision, and offering the lure of money to influence the decision. There are long term contraceptive options available - short of medical sterilisation which at least offer people a choice later once they are in recovery.
I know many people now working with addicts and living "normal" (whatever that means!), productive lives - complete with happy, well adjusted children, who are good in their work in addicts as they are former addicts themselves.
It also seems like the thin edge - where do we go next in judging who can and cannot have children.
I am now the parent of a child of an addict.
I agree with it. I doubt the addict in question did spend it on rent arrears as addicts lie through their teeth. But that is not the point...
If you use the "they are not equipped to know what they are doing" argument, then they shouldn't be equiped to have children.
If you talk about the cost. It has cost a lot more than £200 to put my child through the courts, Social Services, Child Protection Meetings, councelling.
Whilst I am glad my child is alive, there was never any doubt her mother would not be able to care for her properly. We all knew that from the moment she announced her pregnancy. It took 4 years of the whole family worrying, being pawned off by Social Services, for the child to be put in a place of safety. Emotionally that child now has no mum to bring her up. I try my very best but am not her real mum. It breaks her heart, it then breaks mine.
We dread hearing there may be another baby on the way. Given the hedonistic wreckless life mum leads, it is always a big possibility. Already 2 children by 2 different men, all her friends kids are in care.
My childs dad was her drug dealer.....
I doubt the scheme would be like "you're on drugs, let's sterilise you". This is for long term addicts and it is very hard to change a lifestyle. I don;t give a Sugar if they do it for the quick cash. I know it sounds a bit draconian, but I am all for it.
I agree with it. I doubt the addict in question did spend it on rent arrears as addicts lie through their teeth. But that is not the point...
If you use the "they are not equipped to know what they are doing" argument, then they shouldn't be equiped to have children.
If you talk about the cost. It has cost a lot more than £200 to put my child through the courts, Social Services, Child Protection Meetings, councelling.
Whilst I am glad my child is alive, there was never any doubt her mother would not be able to care for her properly. We all knew that from the moment she announced her pregnancy. It took 4 years of the whole family worrying, being pawned off by Social Services, for the child to be put in a place of safety. Emotionally that child now has no mum to bring her up. I try my very best but am not her real mum. It breaks her heart, it then breaks mine.
We dread hearing there may be another baby on the way. Given the hedonistic wreckless life mum leads, it is always a big possibility. Already 2 children by 2 different men, all her friends kids are in care.
My childs dad was her drug dealer.....
I doubt the scheme would be like "you're on drugs, let's sterilise you". This is for long term addicts and it is very hard to change a lifestyle. I don;t give a Sugar if they do it for the quick cash. I know it sounds a bit draconian, but I am all for it.
I'm still out on this, because I don't feel that someone on drugs is always in full control of their mental and emotional faculties.
Milly, I think the surgery was performed privately. The doctor who did it is one of our GPs. He is registered to perform minor surgery from the practice and my husband was referred to him for the same op some years ago, before we were on the practice's list. My husband paid £100 at the time and it was an alternative to waiting several months for a hospital appointment.
Male sterilisation *can* be reversed, but it's not always successful.
Milly, I think the surgery was performed privately. The doctor who did it is one of our GPs. He is registered to perform minor surgery from the practice and my husband was referred to him for the same op some years ago, before we were on the practice's list. My husband paid £100 at the time and it was an alternative to waiting several months for a hospital appointment.
Male sterilisation *can* be reversed, but it's not always successful.
i have clearly misunderstood..i thought they meant give them £200 to spend on having the op...and i couldnt see many doing that...
is paying them £200 just for their pockets if they do this, just bribery?
i think its a good idea as long as its reversible...perhaps women could just be fitted with the coil or someting similar...?
is paying them £200 just for their pockets if they do this, just bribery?
i think its a good idea as long as its reversible...perhaps women could just be fitted with the coil or someting similar...?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles129 mins ago
Crosswords163 mins ago
Crosswords202 mins ago
ChatterBank215 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles232 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.