Cash for vasectomy 'exploitative and ethically dubious' says drugs charity - Telegraph

Quote:

Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope, spoke out after the 38-year-old addict, identified only as John, was given £200 in exchange for a vasectomy. John, who has been addicted to opiates for 15 years and has been involved with drugs since he was 11 or 12, said the cash incentive spurred him into going ahead with the procedure. "It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time and something that I'd already made my mind up that I wanted to do. Just hadn't got around to it," he said. Mr Barnes said: ''It is a fundamental principle of the NHS constitution that all treatment should be both informed and consensual; we believe that offering cash incentives to often very poor and marginalised people in return for sterilisation runs directly counter to this. ''It is exploitative, ethically dubious and morally questionable.'' He said the premise that people with drug problems should be sterilised ''further entrenches the significant stigmatisation and demonisation experienced by this group, making it less likely that people will come forward for help and support when they need it most''. ''And where should the line be drawn?'' he asked. ''Potential parents experience a range of problems or circumstances which may present risks for the welfare of their babies and children. ''Who would be targeted next - people who smoke, have mental health problems, or live in poverty? ''Ensuring access to good quality treatment and welfare and safeguarding systems is the most effective, rational and humane approach to this complex issue, not sterilisation for cash.'' Project Prevention, the charity running the scheme, has made similar payments to thousands of men and women in America in a crusade to prevent them having children who may inherit their addictions. The charity began offering the cash incentive to British addicts after paying 3,500 American men and women addicted to drugs or alcohol to be sterilised. John said he was given 30 days to make a decision after calling the charity's helpline, and had the operation on the NHS in September. He told BBC London's Inside Out, to be screened on Monday night: "It came as a bit of a shock to me knowing I was the first in Britain. "I would have thought people would be snapping up the offer as soon as it came apparent as it was there. "I won't be able to support a kid. I can just about manage to support myself. Just about got it together to do that." The woman behind the project, Barbara Harris, from North Carolina, said she set up the charity after adopting four children whose mother was addicted to crack. She said: "I got very angry about the damage that these drugs do to these children. "It was unbelievable. Isaiah could not sleep, he couldn't eat, his eyes were big, noise bothered him, light bothered him. It broke my heart." But the scheme has attracted criticism from people who feel the charity is exploiting vulnerable people and led to accusations of social engineering. Ms Harris added: "I've been called everything. I've been spat on. "Typically I just say to my critics: 'If you believe these women should continue to take drugs and have children, then step up in line and adopt their babies'. It's that simple." But the scheme has met criticism from addiction charities. A spokesman for Addaction, the drug and alcohol treatment charity, said: "Addaction firmly believes there is no place for Project Prevention in the UK because their practices are morally reprehensible and irrelevant. "Sex education and contraceptive advice is part of drug treatment work in this country. Women who use drugs can access all types of contraception free on the NHS including a number of long term options." The project also pays addicts to get long-term birth control including intrauterine contraceptive devices or a contraceptive implant.

Prissy, prissy.

Seems like a good idea.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

''Who would be targeted next - people who smoke, have mental health problems, or live in poverty?

No, yes and yes. Or, at least, we should debate it. I know that the sterelisation of mentally handicapped people was a Nazi stample and ran into trouble in Sweden. And certainly "forced sterelization" doesn't sound appealing or humane.

OTOH, why exactly would we want to produce more babies with a very high likelyhood of mental handicap? (NB: I assume there's a genetic link - If not, I am obviously changing my pov).

Quote:

''Ensuring access to good quality treatment and welfare and safeguarding systems is the most effective, rational and humane approach to this complex issue, not sterilisation for cash.''

Really? I'd like a cost-benefit analysis on that one. Coz it seems to me that, if someone is from the underclass or fall into it, the amount of cash and effort to re-socialise them, rehabilitate them and re-educate them is going to be utterly colossal...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

If someone wants to pay a someone else to get sterilised that's a private contract and good luck to the pair of them. The moment the state steps in it gets creepy.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

I fail to see the difference.

Okay, yes, because we've just been through the 20C, we are used to states carrying out unspeakable evil in the name of "the greater good"/social engineering but, as Contra would remind you, private organisations certainly used to be as evil as states.

And, furthermore, the emphasis, whether the actor is the state or a charity, should be on "volontary". No "forced sterelization program". But volontary ones? With incentives? Why not? How's that different from giving tax breaks to married people or parents? This is social engineering too...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.