I hope that no doctor would carry out the procedure under these circumstances. How can it be said that consent has been freely given if there is a financial inducement? Would the addict continue with the procedure if the money was withdrawn? Like hell they would. Unethical in the extreme :mad:
Well what we certainly can say is that poor addicted babies did not give their consent to be born this way.
Define "drug addict" first eh?
I mean, I hate to upset a lot of you, but.....pssst..ALCOHOL is a DRUG!!!
and as there more alcohol addicts than all the "other drug" addicts put together, I hope you are including them as well, or are we only to count those who are addicted to drugs that our "betters" prohibit us from using?
After all, alcohol is one of the most highly addictive and damaging drugs known to mankind, over 600 000 people have died from "misuse" of this drug world wide so far this year,
but no doubt the OP is only referring to the "drugs" that we have been told are "bad" for us, usually by the same people who make a LOT of money from advertising the wet drug,
double standard anyone? :cool:
Not to mention that children with alcohol withdrawal syndrome don't so so well.This might seem odd,but I know some hard core drug addicts who have gorgeous children. I don't know why that is, just one of life's oddities.
Define "drug addict" first eh?
I mean, I hate to upset a lot of you, but.....pssst..ALCOHOL is a DRUG!!!
and as there more alcohol addicts than all the "other drug" addicts put together, I hope you are including them as well, or are we only to count those who are addicted to drugs that our "betters" prohibit us from using?
After all, alcohol is one of the most highly addictive and damaging drugs known to mankind, over 600 000 people have died from "misuse" of this drug world wide so far this year,
but no doubt the OP is only referring to the "drugs" that we have been told are "bad" for us, usually by the same people who make a LOT of money from advertising the wet drug,
double standard anyone? :cool:
No, not double standards at all. Do you imagine for a minute that those of us who are concerned about babies being born with an addiction, think that alcoholics make wonderful parents?
Define "drug addict" first eh?
I mean, I hate to upset a lot of you, but.....pssst..ALCOHOL is a DRUG!!!
and as there more alcohol addicts than all the "other drug" addicts put together, I hope you are including them as well, or are we only to count those who are addicted to drugs that our "betters" prohibit us from using?
After all, alcohol is one of the most highly addictive and damaging drugs known to mankind, over 600 000 people have died from "misuse" of this drug world wide so far this year,
but no doubt the OP is only referring to the "drugs" that we have been told are "bad" for us, usually by the same people who make a LOT of money from advertising the wet drug,
double standard anyone? :cool:
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is horrendous. I also feel the same way about mothers who smoke during pregnancy. They are poisoning their children, before they're even born.
It's a question of attitudes, someone who uses illegal drugs is USUALLY automatically branded an "addict"
which is a bit like saying everyone who enjoys a drink is an alcoholic,
I am NOT defending drug use at all here but I would like to see ALL "recreational drugs" treated equally, there is no such thing as a good drug any more than there is a bad drug,
its just that the drink pushers are the biggest suppliers on the block and they have the biggest gang on their side,
ask any copper, which "drug" gives them the most problems,;)
How is unethical, when we provide financial inducement to have children?.
You're not comparing like with like. Sterilisation requires an invasive medical procedure that carries risk and requires freely given consent from the patient. Childbirth is the end of a biological process. I'd also question the "financial inducement" part of your argument since the benefits on offer do not cover the costs of raising a child.
Would it be unethical if she said "I'll pay you the equivalent of child benefit for 18 years if you don't have children"?.
It may be to some, not to me. My issue is with performing medical procedures without the full and free consent of the patient. If the patient was offered money to use reliable contraception, I'd have no problem with it (would not have to be 18 years worth of child benefits!)
Self righteous tossers being those who care more about children than alcohol and drugs I suppose? :rolleyes:
I don't have any kids, and if I DID have kids I wouldn't use drugs around them and I would educate them into the pitfalls of getting into ANY drug too deeply,
perhaps better education instead of hysteria and downright lies about all drugs would lead to less people using them when they are parents,
because IF you start to "sterilise" drug addicts in order to protect their children, what's next?
low achievers? people below a certain IQ? ...hey why not ugly people as well? petty criminals?,
come on together we CAN make the "perfect" world,.... problem is I for one wouldn't want to live in it,:mad:
Well what we certainly can say is that poor addicted babies did not give their consent to be born this way.
No child gives their consent to be born - if you are advocating sterilisation due to risks to the child, why limit this to drug addicts?
There was a woman on the local news a few weeks ago who has a genetic condition that means that any child born to her will be severely disabled if it survives. So far she has had three die within days of being born and one that has survived but has extreme disabilities and will always require 24 hour care. Do you think she should have been paid to be sterilised?
I'm not sure about sterilising. I would support development of vaccines against drug use. Such that taking certain drugs brings on a vomiting attack. That sort of thing. We could have compulsory immunisation of babies
I don't think you can force it on anyone but if they are willing then absolutely it is a good thing, no child should come into this world and suffer drug withdrawal and then end up having to live at risk with an addict.
One way to test it out would be to offer money to the drug addicts, some of the most extreme and incapable would jump at the chance
For the wrong reasons. Instead of offering money to sterilise them why not pay to put them through rehab which would save the taxpayer more money in the long run.
I wouldn't either, I would say the same as the last poster, forced rehab is a better option.
If you sterilise anybody then they get out of drugs then it would certainly be travesty.
Rehab using more effective means than the current standard would be most beneficial (i.e: prescribed diamorphine rther than methadone treatments). Many more would be willing to partake.
I don't have any kids, and if I DID have kids I wouldn't use drugs around them and I would educate them into the pitfalls of getting into ANY drug too deeply,
perhaps better education instead of hysteria and downright lies about all drugs would lead to less people using them when they are parents,
because IF you start to "sterilise" drug addicts in order to protect their children, what's next?
low achievers? people below a certain IQ? ...hey why not ugly people as well? petty criminals?,
come on together we CAN make the "perfect" world,.... problem is I for one wouldn't want to live in it,:mad:
I think when you label people 'self righteous tossers' for caring about children, you must expect a little flak. And no, of course I don't agree with your other potential 'victims.
Rehab using more effective means than the current standard would be most beneficial (i.e: prescribed diamorphine rther than methadone treatments). Many more would be willing to partake.
I've never been in rehab but I'd assume that a big part of succeeding is really wanting to suceed and you can't force that.
No child gives their consent to be born - if you are advocating sterilisation due to risks to the child, why limit this to drug addicts?
There was a woman on the local news a few weeks ago who has a genetic condition that means that any child born to her will be severely disabled if it survives. So far she has had three die within days of being born and one that has survived but has extreme disabilities and will always require 24 hour care. Do you think she should have been paid to be sterilised?
A genetic condition that she didn't choose to have. I do think however that regardless of the extremely sad circumstances,she should perhaps be advised to be sterilised.
It's not regarded as an illness by me. It's self-inflicted. Drug addicts are just weak-minded people. This country simply cannot afford to mollycoddle people like it has in the past. The choice should be simple, sort yourself out or piss off and die.
People with Downs syndrome are infertile, aren't they?
No they're not, not in all cases. So do you think those that aren't should also be sterilised.
What about alcoholics?, those on benefits?, illegal immigrants?.
Comments
Well what we certainly can say is that poor addicted babies did not give their consent to be born this way.
Not to mention that children with alcohol withdrawal syndrome don't so so well.This might seem odd,but I know some hard core drug addicts who have gorgeous children. I don't know why that is, just one of life's oddities.
No, not double standards at all. Do you imagine for a minute that those of us who are concerned about babies being born with an addiction, think that alcoholics make wonderful parents?
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is horrendous. I also feel the same way about mothers who smoke during pregnancy. They are poisoning their children, before they're even born.
Exactly. I am more concerned about the welfare of the babies than the mother's right to conceive.
Self righteous tossers being those who care more about children than alcohol and drugs I suppose? :rolleyes:
which is a bit like saying everyone who enjoys a drink is an alcoholic,
I am NOT defending drug use at all here but I would like to see ALL "recreational drugs" treated equally, there is no such thing as a good drug any more than there is a bad drug,
its just that the drink pushers are the biggest suppliers on the block and they have the biggest gang on their side,
ask any copper, which "drug" gives them the most problems,;)
You're not comparing like with like. Sterilisation requires an invasive medical procedure that carries risk and requires freely given consent from the patient. Childbirth is the end of a biological process. I'd also question the "financial inducement" part of your argument since the benefits on offer do not cover the costs of raising a child.
It may be to some, not to me. My issue is with performing medical procedures without the full and free consent of the patient. If the patient was offered money to use reliable contraception, I'd have no problem with it (would not have to be 18 years worth of child benefits!)
I don't disagree with this, but offering people money to be sterilised does cause (in my opinion) insurmountable ethical problems.
I don't have any kids, and if I DID have kids I wouldn't use drugs around them and I would educate them into the pitfalls of getting into ANY drug too deeply,
perhaps better education instead of hysteria and downright lies about all drugs would lead to less people using them when they are parents,
because IF you start to "sterilise" drug addicts in order to protect their children, what's next?
low achievers? people below a certain IQ? ...hey why not ugly people as well? petty criminals?,
come on together we CAN make the "perfect" world,.... problem is I for one wouldn't want to live in it,:mad:
No child gives their consent to be born - if you are advocating sterilisation due to risks to the child, why limit this to drug addicts?
There was a woman on the local news a few weeks ago who has a genetic condition that means that any child born to her will be severely disabled if it survives. So far she has had three die within days of being born and one that has survived but has extreme disabilities and will always require 24 hour care. Do you think she should have been paid to be sterilised?
eugenics, a certain Bavarian corporal was quite fond of the idea,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
Quite so, although eugenics can actually be used positively, in theory at least.
For the wrong reasons. Instead of offering money to sterilise them why not pay to put them through rehab which would save the taxpayer more money in the long run.
Predictable. :yawn:
If you sterilise anybody then they get out of drugs then it would certainly be travesty.
Rehab using more effective means than the current standard would be most beneficial (i.e: prescribed diamorphine rther than methadone treatments). Many more would be willing to partake.
I think when you label people 'self righteous tossers' for caring about children, you must expect a little flak. And no, of course I don't agree with your other potential 'victims.
I've never been in rehab but I'd assume that a big part of succeeding is really wanting to suceed and you can't force that.
A genetic condition that she didn't choose to have. I do think however that regardless of the extremely sad circumstances,she should perhaps be advised to be sterilised.
No they're not, not in all cases. So do you think those that aren't should also be sterilised.
What about alcoholics?, those on benefits?, illegal immigrants?.