Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
IOU

Sterilize Drug Addicts – and Pay Them?

Recommended Posts

Sterilize Drug Addicts – and Pay Them?

 

February 8, 2010 by Marijke Durning, RN

Filed under Prevention, Womens Health

 

2 Comments

 

Pay women who are drug addicts to be sterilized. Good or bad? What about if men can be sterilized (and paid) too? Would that make a difference? What if committing to long-term contraception was an option – how would you feel then?

 

Does this smack of preserving the ultimate race, keeping quality control of babies, or a smart thing to do? Well, regardless of how you feel about it, it’s already happening in the United States, thanks to Project Prevention.

 

Project Prevention’s mission statement:

 

Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control.

 

Project Prevention is a national, 501 © 3 organization that has paid clients in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

 

Our mission is to reduce the number of substance exposed births to zero.

 

Because every baby deserves a sober start!

 

The organization has been subject to many criticisms, from accusations of racism to social engineering and yet, it is still here and still receiving donations from people who believe in the cause.

 

According to an article that appeared last year in the LA Times, the organization, created and directed by Barbara Harris, pays 300.00 for a tubal ligation (sterilization). However, women may get an IUD and receive 75.00 when the device is inserted, another 100.00 when she goes for a 6-month check up, and an additional 125.00 at the end of each year the IUD is in place.

 

At first glance, it’s easy to look at it through different angles. Drug-addicted mothers who get pregnant often give birth to babies who are also addicted to drugs. The babies are often underweight and sickly. Many end up having medical needs that may not have been present had the child been born of a non-addicted mother. The economic cost of caring for such babies in the “system” is astronomical, but the social cost even more so. Many of these babies end up in a foster system that is ill-equipped to deal with them. The babies grow into older children and often end up being bounced from foster home to foster home, for a variety of reasons. The life can be a horrible one for many who aren’t lucky enough to end up in foster homes that love and nurture them as a child should be loved and nurtured.

 

By keeping the mothers from getting pregnant in the first place, these babies wouldn’t be born. But that brings the other argument. Who are we to say who should and shouldn’t be born? What if so many of the adults who make an enormous impact on the lives of others now weren’t born because someone else made the decision that their mother shouldn’t become pregnant?

 

The option does seem to be attractive to many women. According to the organization’s website, over 3,000 women have been paid for either sterilization or long-term birth control.

 

So, what do you think about it? Good idea? Bad idea?

 

http://www.blisstree.com/healthbolt/sterilize-drug-addicts-and-pay-them/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+b5media%2FHealthbolt+%28Healthbolt%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way should they be sterilised, seems a little Masterrace to me. I would say though that if you are addicted to drugs then you should not be entitled to welfare unless you are prepared to do something about your drug addiction. Why should the public pay their taxes to feed your habit when there is no way you iwll change your situation and actually get a job. By all means give them free birth control but not permanent sterilisation.

 

Personally I am for the legalisation and taxation of drugs, the taxes from the drugs then get put into rehabilitation/education and healthcare programs.

 

People who are addicted to hard drugs and don't have the decency to get clean for their children do not deserve to have children, if you can't even give that child the chance in life to be born clean then you shouldn't be allowed to have that child.

 

But now I expect everyone to moan and cry about how drugs aren't hurting anyone and that would be a violation of the parents rights - to which I say bullshit what about the child's rights.

 

I have had problems with hard drugs in the past, I got clean. I have no sympathy for any junkie that doesn't pull their shit together and get clean, especially if they have children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably through private donations i would guess.as much as i dont like the thought of drug abusers giving birth to children they cant handle i dont think they should be sterilized.who is to say that they won't be able to beat their habit and then make it as a productive member of society later on? that being said as long as the taxpayers aren't paying for it and its not government run i mean i cant really find fault with it other than the fact that i think its wrong.so far i dont agree with it but as long as im not paying for it and the gov. isn't forcing it on me then whatever.

 

and decy has the right idea with the drug taxation being then funneled into treatment programs.i have been thinking the same thing for a while now and its nice to see someone with similar views on the matter. it makes more sense then trying to eradicate drugs all together while making users criminals and sending them to jail, which are already in most cases overflowing. sure it will get them sober in the time they are in jail but to actually beat that addiction your gonna need proper treatment, both for the drugs and the underlying issues that cause people to use them. i dont think you will find either of these things in a prison. especially in america.

 

 

just a thought tho haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I don't agree with the sterilisation aspect of it, it is too permanent. If they had free access to birth control pills then they could be able to not have kids whilst addicted to drugs/getting help off drugs. Once clean and moving on with their lives they could just come off birth control and start a family. I don't see why they should be written off for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^seriously.just renamed and repackaged as a humanitarian effort to stop kids from suffering or something.atleast it starts out that way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the whole permanence of it, but I'm under no illusion that being responsible with pills is a top priority for an active addict.

I can understand how medical professionals with first hand daily experiences caring for

drug addicted infants, born with permanent disabilities, might feel this is a "good thing".

Because it's not actually being forced I don't equate this to some Nazi plot.

 

On the other hand I have several friends who've recovered from serious addictions.

They tend to be a little grouchier than most but I feel like they would be just as good at parenting than as general population.

In fact, many of them are more successful than your average Joe, not just financially, but generally making the most of life.

It would suck if they had one more permanent consequence to bad decisions.

 

Ultimately I can't say I'm against it though because of my own beliefs in not forcing my opinions on others.

It's kind of like abortion to me, although I think it's wrong, it's not my decision to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government should offer everybody money to be sterilized. That's my only problem with it.

 

Also when you think about how much money they're spending to sterilize drug addicts. Think about an unwanted child and how detrimental they'll be to society. City of new york came out with a bunch of statistics showing that places where abortion are allowed have lower crime rates, and showed that unwanted kids are far more likely to become troublemakers and be more of a detriment to society/cost more money to the state in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like the whole permanence of it, but I'm under no illusion that being responsible with pills is a top priority for an active addict.

I can understand how medical professionals with first hand daily experiences caring for

drug addicted infants, born with permanent disabilities, might feel this is a "good thing".

Because it's not actually being forced I don't equate this to some Nazi plot.

 

On the other hand I have several friends who've recovered from serious addictions.

They tend to be a little grouchier than most but I feel like they would be just as good at parenting than as general population.

In fact, many of them are more successful than your average Joe, not just financially, but generally making the most of life.

It would suck if they had one more permanent consequence to bad decisions.

 

Ultimately I can't say I'm against it though because of my own beliefs in not forcing my opinions on others.

It's kind of like abortion to me, although I think it's wrong, it's not my decision to make.

 

^this.i can understand giving them free contraceptives but as far as permanent sterilization is just going to far.then again if its not being forced on them its all good.but the thought of money to a fiend for something like getting sterilized is quite enticing and it might be something that they're gonna regret if and when they choose to get clean and have children.it would seem to me that their judgement would be clouded from the drug use.i would really like to know how much they are gonna get paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the government should offer everybody money to be sterilized. That's my only problem with it.

 

Also when you think about how much money they're spending to sterilize drug addicts. Think about an unwanted child and how detrimental they'll be to society. City of new york came out with a bunch of statistics showing that places where abortion are allowed have lower crime rates, and showed that unwanted kids are far more likely to become troublemakers and be more of a detriment to society/cost more money to the state in the long run.

 

lolwut? the thought of the government endorsing any program that involves sterilizing the masses,forced or not, seems pretty scary to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Dudes get snipped all the time. Girls get their tubes tied all the time. Now imagine the government payed people $300 to have it done. That'd push every person thinking about doing it just over the line to doing it. It's not going to convince the masses to do shit. And fuck people and their desire to be parents. Most people make shitty parents and shouldnt have fucking kids anyway. Why risk having a baby who's just going to grow up and get payed to push carts into parked cars at Safeway?

 

8 billion people in the fucking world. You got two choices. Add one more asshole to the grid or take $300. What's it gonna be?

 

 

Obviously im kidding, but sort of half-kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a lot of different thoughts that i have on this article. so in no particular order of importance these are them.

 

first IUD isn't the same as sterilization. an IUD you can have taken out. it just cost like $900. that is a huge guess on my part cause i have never had one but i know for a fact it cost $900 to put it in so just assuming the removal cost.

 

this reminds me a lot of two eugenic.....proposals that i heard about a while ago.

 

the first one is when i was doing all this research on the use of food as a weapon. i was reading the transcripts of the china talks between henry kissinger and chairman mao. in the discussions kissenger states that the united states should adopt a two child policy. which. obviously didnt happen.

 

the second is from a futures political design course i took. the purpose of our class was to design colonies on mars and the professor suggest removing girls ovaries once they reached puberty to control population growth. this was because these would be artificial colonies that were not designed for exponential growth.

 

i was super uncomfortable with this, even on an academic theoretical exercise. more especially because it is an academic setting and no one else seemed to see this or uncomfortable with this.

 

i think this, my course, is an example of institutionalizing the idea of eugenics. making it ok. gradually soothing minds that should be alerted to seeing this sort of political designs for what they are in to a delirium of acceptance.

 

this is also seem in programs like this. i would add in IMHO however that should be most evident because in who elses opinion would i be stating? anyways, shit like this program are framed in confronting one social ill with another more grave political solution and that is gradually make citizens comfortable with population extermination.

 

against it.

 

also hate junkies. fuck that shit. fuck popping out babies and being on fucking drugs. fuck popping out babies(do you not see the fucking world, how selfish to bring a baby into this over and over again but whatever not gonna force ladies to get sterilized or abortions)

 

i just dont think that this addresses the issue of drug use in society. i have more in my head about this point but yeah ill think about it more. however i have heard about this shit for a long time.

 

my two cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think offering a financial incentive to junkies is stupid, they aren't going to think of the consequences they will just look at it as more money for drugs, if they want to be sterilised so they don't bring babies into the world then let them have it done for free, don't add incentives.

 

I would rather then be offered an incentive to stop using rather than to sterilise them. I'm all for giving second chances and if they clean themselves up there is nothing to say they cannot be successful parents, hell I had a heroin problem, got clean and am now a very good dad (I wasn't using at any point when having a child and was clean for many years before even getting with my wife)

 

I'm all for free birth control, it should be offered to everyone, not just junkies, we have a huge problem with teenage pregnancy in the UK, they should all be given access to education and birth control simple as that. But then I am also for free abortions to WHOEVER wants them. If a junkie is pregnant then they should be given the option of abortion because frankly they don't deserve to be bring a child in the world if they are in the grip of addiction, but they shouldn't be forced into it, but then I also think they should be proving they are able to raise a child, a junkie will always put drugs first when you have a child the child comes first, if they can't demonstrate that then they shouldn't be raising a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who abuse drugs they shouldnt be having kids anyway. From a darwinist/geneticist point of view, drug abuse/addiction are genetic traits, so why pass those along if we don't have to? I think everyone's problem with this is how potentially effective this could be. No sober person is going give up their ability to have kids for $300. I think everyone who defaulted on their home loans and credit cards should be offered the same thing: "We'll clear your credit history, but you never get to have kids." It's darwinism in the modern age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you there Soup, but then I don't know how serious you are being with that suggestion. While addictive natures can be passed along it doesn't mean that person will get addicted to drugs, no one in my family past has ever been addicted to any drugs or booze yet I did, how do you know that the addictive gene isn't then going to be the route of someones obession with say trying to find a cure to cancer?

 

Things aren't simply down to genetics, social factors play a huge part in it as well. Would you then suggest cordoning off sections of society for people who have no bad credit, no history of addiction and then allowing a 2 tier society of haves and have nots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if i totally believe geneticists. When you say "social conditioning" you're also talking about parenting. Bipolar parents make their kids bipolar either through genetics or just a bipolar style of parenting. Those kinds of behaviors eventually lead to a lack of coping skills, then habitual drug use and quite possibly full-blown junky-dom. Im not saying kids with bipolar disorder are fucked, im just saying that the fucked ones who fear having kids should be offered $300 for NOT contributing to future generations.

 

Cordoning off the poor? Wayyy ahead of you. America's already segregated by class.It's sad but im the most un-classicist person I've ever met.

 

Regardless, unwanted kids are a helluva burdeon on the taxpayer. Prison's full of unwanted kids so anybody who doesnt want to have a kid should be payed not to. It just makes sense for the prison system to "pass the savings onto you" and it makes more sense to first offer this to the would-be parents of the kids most likely to end up in jail. Im not saying it's not fucked up. Im just saying statistically, there isnt much hope for a would-be kid whose would-be mom is a crackwhore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, unwanted kids are a hell of a burden, with so many bad parents in society. I do believe people should have the choice to have kids or not, but as a parent (and I consider myself a very good parent, as is my wife) I see so many examples of bad parenting that it drives me fucking crazy. I sometimes joke to my wife there should be some kind of test you need to pass before you're allowed to have children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fairly uncomfortable with this concept, mostly because of its obvious parallels to eugenics programs of the past. However I am also pro personal liberty and for that reason I would not deny anyone the option to choose for themselves. I am much more comfortable with an incentive towards impermanent sterilisation. This would mean that those in the throws of addiction are less likely to have children. Great! Permanence would mean anyone who had known about the program while being addicted and was in desperate need of some fast cash would never be able to be a parent. Not so great. There may be links between genetic coding and susceptibility to addiction. Although it would be a large stretch to argue that this is the only cause of addiction, factoring out any context based argument.

 

I think one thing that needs to be mentioned is that the true value of the $300 offered is relative to each individuals situation. Those in a heavier state of addiction, the offer of $300 will be very difficult to refuse. Where as those with a lighter addiction may not face such pressing physical needs to feed the addiction. Further more, not all junkies are born of a lower socio economic demographic. Which means the offer of $300 maybe more tempting to those with no support network, ie family prepared to give loans or access to other money/resources. Again, this suggests that those who belong to bottom of the economic hierarchy are more likely to opt into this program.

 

In order to meet even the most basic of ethical standards I would suggest that the program have a 'cool off' period where the person opting into the program signs up for it then waits for a reasonable period of time before going through any procedure. This would be in order to prevent a momentary lapse of judgement having permanent consequences. I would also suggest that an independent body does a psychological assessment before any application can be approved.

 

Objectively this is a privately run eugenics program. Those with money and a particular agenda have arbitrarily chosen traits as indicators of who should be able to procreate and who shouldn't. The only difference is this is an opt in program based on incentive rather than an opt out program based on court decisions.

 

This might be interesting to some.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the term "crackbaby" comes to mind, once you actually SEE a crackbaby or a cokebaby, you'll understand this is probably for the better. It's not like this is something that offers no choice, it's not dragging people in by the hair. it's an incentive. people can/used to be able to donate blood for money, then that was abused by drug addicts, who are always, and who WILL always be looking for quick cash. why not pay them to prevent strife, confusion, and poor health problems in someone else's life. I also think that the sterilization of oneself FOR money used to buy hard drugs might be an extremely sobering situation, and might actually be 'rock bottom' for women who have instinctive tendencies to play the mother role, and losing that forever to buy drugs would straighten their ass out.

 

i hope so at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also get kick backs from the government if you actually have children.

 

I don't see how this would help anything. How about establishing programs to actually rehabilitate people that have built up dependencies on illegal narcotics. Instead of just throwing people into prison.

 

Instead of thinking you are going to cure drug abuse by stopping all of the drug abuser's from having children. I think it's just as likely for someone coming from a background where everything is offered to them, to turn to drugs, as it is someone who doesn't. It's just that the people who actually have support, usually also have some money to throw at the problem.

 

I think actual education on said issue's would help a lot more. Not all of the scare tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt really trying to cure anything. It's a financial investment. The state's putting $300+the surgery down now to save 10's of thousands of dollars in fostercare, federal aid, prison housing etc. later. There is nothing in here about humanity at all.

 

I mean you cant deny the sense of it economically. Maybe in the long run this will open up more state dollars for rehabilitation centers later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×