Charity funds addicts contraception

E

enlightenment

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
1
Points
0
A US charity has paid 26 female drug addicts in Britain to have contraceptive coils or implants fitted, according to reports.


Project Prevention said it has made initial payments of £60 and a UK-based charity is hoping to launch a similar scheme.

Barbara Harris, who founded the US charity, attracted criticism in October after offering to pay British addicts £200 if they were sterilised.

Martin Barnes, chief executive of charity DrugScope, said the concept is "exploitative, ethically dubious and morally questionable".

No women took up the incentive, but Ms Harris hopes focusing on birth control will be more successful.

She told Radio 5 Live: "It's tough to kick a drug habit, but at least if these women get on birth control it's one less thing that they have to worry about in their lives.

"People have to understand that these women don't want to conceive children that are just going to be taken away from them."

UK charity Kaleidoscope Project is planning to launch a similar incentive scheme in which addicts could receive up to £50 to use at a supermarket if they attend a family clinic and discuss the consequences of having sex.
Bryan Cusick, drugs services manager for Kaleidoscope in Kingston, south-west London, said: "It's important we accept the fact that - although we might not agree with their methods - the work of Project Prevention has started an important debate."

A British Medical Association spokesman said: "We do not have a view on Project Prevention. If a GP receives a request from a drug addict patient for sterilisation or long-term contraception, the focus of the consultation must be on the overall interests of the patient."

Charity funds addicts contraception - Yahoo! News UK


**************************************************

I agree with the sentiment behind this. The payment for sterilisation one, perhaps less so, but being incentified to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and a baby born into the world of an addict? Yes, I support that.
 
When one thinks of the emotive issues of kids who suffer at the hands of addicted parents, it's hard not to agree ... but however you dress it up, its eugenics.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
When one thinks of the emotive issues of kids who suffer at the hands of addicted parents, it's hard not to agree ... but however you dress it up, its eugenics.

God bless,

Thomas
Click to expand...

Eugenics?

Hardly.

It is simply encouraging more responsibilty, in my eyes.
 
Sam Albion said:
Do junkies automatically make bad parents?
Is the state of "being-a-junky" a medical, or social problem?
Click to expand...

Well, if you were a smack head, for example, then there is every chance that if you fell pregnant, the baby would be born with an addiction - and getting pregnant knowing the pain this causes to the baby is utterly irresponsible. On top of that, any social work dept will soon tell you of the direct link between problem households and those whose parents are addicts.

This is not a mandatory thing, it is a voluntary thing, the person themselves must want it, it is only contraception, so really, I applaud this charity for trying to do something practical about this problem.

So do the UK charity who are to copy the idea..
 
what if smackheads who, by virtue of their addiction, will do anything for money for drugs, decide one day, while withdrawing, that they will forgo their ability to ever have children again, via sterilisation, in exchange for cold, hard cash? The same scheme is doing the same thing in the USA; they are paying mothers to be sterilized. They can't do it here, in England, because they wouldn't get away with it (unless the mothers had learning difficulties... go look at the court of protection if you don't believe me)...

I think that, just because your Mum is a junky, it doesn't mean that she won't wash your bum and change your nappy. I don't think that just because she's a junky she'll pimp you out. I don't think that just because your Mum's a junky she won't love you and do the best she can for you. Maybe it's not the way to go about it but... maybe having a baby, and all that entails, might be good for some junkys, give them the push they need to get out, move on, etc. The State interventionists could use it as leverage; let's face it, nothing else is working...
 
Sam Albion said:
what if smackheads who, by virtue of their addiction, will do anything for money for drugs, decide one day, while withdrawing, that they will forgo their ability to ever have children again, via sterilisation, in exchange for cold, hard cash? The same scheme is doing the same thing in the USA; they are paying mothers to be sterilized. They can't do it here, in England, because they wouldn't get away with it (unless the mothers had learning difficulties... go look at the court of protection if you don't believe me)...

As far as I know, Sam, not only could it be done here, it was tried, initially by this charity. It was voluntary - no one took up the offer.

I think that, just because your Mum is a junky, it doesn't mean that she won't wash your bum and change your nappy. I don't think that just because she's a junky she'll pimp you out. I don't think that just because your Mum's a junky she won't love you and do the best she can for you. Maybe it's not the way to go about it but... maybe having a baby, and all that entails, might be good for some junkys, give them the push they need to get out, move on, etc. The State interventionists could use it as leverage; let's face it, nothing else is working...
Click to expand...

Well, all I can do Sam is speak from personal experience. There is not one addict that I know whose life would be improved by deciding to have a baby, indeed, I would regard it as a high risk strategy. They need to get themselves clean first, before thinking of brining another human life into the world, imo.
 
Exactly - isn't it better that people make important decisions about their life while in full use of their faculties?

The whole issue does have a kind of "once a junkie, always a junkie" mentality.

Ask a heroin addict if they'd like to be a fire engine for £60. See what the response is.

Is that informed consent, or are they being exploited?

Thomas gets it more succinctly, though.
 
enlightenment said:
Eugenics?
Hardly.
It is simply encouraging more responsibilty, in my eyes.
Click to expand...
It's not though, is it? There's no support, no therapy ... contraception allows one to **** without responsibility, and her offering is not therapy, it's money for the next fix.

Greymare's right, I think, in the US it's sterilisation, but the UK wasn't having that, so she's stepped it down to contraception.

God bless,

Thomas
 
What is wrong with encouraging/incentifying people to use contraception, especially those with an addiction to something such as heroin or crack?

Seems sensible, imo..
 
This thread needs to be titled:

"Charity funds addicts' contraception" (with apostrophe)

or

"Charity funds the contraception of addicts"



Otherwise, mistaken nouns and verbs might be confused as:

"Charity funds, addicts and contraception"

or

"Charity funds and addict's contraception"

or

"Contraception of addicts of charity funds"
 
I said:
Exactly - isn't it better that people make important decisions about their life while in full use of their faculties?

The whole issue does have a kind of "once a junkie, always a junkie" mentality.
.
Click to expand...

There is a somewhat common expression that has been employed with "offenders" of various scope, and I paraphrase:

The best of one's reasoning capacity and actions has brought you here to this particular cusp of time and events.:eek:

Should the above indeed be the case one should re evaluate the information, available and utilized, as well as those processes utilized, and/or under utilized which have lead one to arrive where one is now.:confused:

In short, should one have taken a different cup of tea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top