General Chat

I wrote a lot...but it boiled down to

NO!

lol

xx

How does any user of an addictive substance be it ,drugs,drink or other,know if they will make good parents till they are out of the grips of their addiction,some have been users of all sorts from a young age and never got to into a serious relationship away from others users,,,

so a process to clean them up or give them a view from outside a substance induced world..could be the making of a decent family man,,,

How is a hard user going to be competent ,rational enough to know they are making a choice best for them for life.......lots will have to be spent on councilling sessions before they could make that choice.

Dreadful, truly shocking!!

Who's next on the *hit list*??

Those other terrible addicts - smokers - followed by drinkers - followed by those with a genetic abnormality???

Mary

Glad to see voices of sanity here.

Not just whose desperation will we take advantage of next with this program -- but what other offers could be made?

Organs for transplant come to mind. There are lots of people who could use some cash in exchange for a kidney they probably don't need.

Decriminalize drug use, take the profit motive out of getting people hooked, pay for prevention and treatment programs ... improve people's living conditions to reduce the likelihood of addiction ... So many things that could be done, but hey, a quick fix is so much better, even if it is completely ineffective and not very civilized.

I have never heard of such rubbish either.I have a couple in my homeless hostel having a baby next week. (ceasarean) they are both on a methadon programme now.They are such a loving couple and they just cant wait for there baby to be here.They are living just for this baby and its the baby thats making them kick there habit.They also know all the pit falls but social services are backing them. Annie

i agree its the children i feel sorry for, a baby born on heroin is horrendous, and for a grown adult to do that to a child is abuse,

like i said i think its good in theory but it would thro so many more problems, and cause excuses to sue later on,

the thing is, they can use there money into helping them, but unless an addict wants helping there a lost course,

But adults put their children through worse (imo) and no one is shouting (yet) for the sterilisation of those likely to pass on ( for eg) genetic conditions..thank God they're not!

Sterilisation always has to be a choice, an informed,thoughtful, considered choice by the individuals for their reasons,NOT 'financial or social incentive' otherwise it is just the first tiny
( seemingly 'tiny') step on the road to genocide imo.

Who next would be offered an 'incentive' ? People with mental health issues, people with genetic disabilities, the deaf, the blind, the haemophiliacs, women with a history of breast cancer in the family...those with a lower IQ? Immigrants who want to stay ( you can come if you're sterilised so we stay British) !!!! )

You see where I am going with this...bet on it that if the door were ever opened in this way it would be hard to shut!

lol this is what I would have said in the post where I said "NO"!...NO NO NO would have done lol.

xx

Nazi Germany anyone???

Well said Cat, I rather thought it smacked of Herr Dr. Mengele
Julia in Derbyshire

very good points rose,

then there is the spin of people who want to be steralised but are turned down due to age etc, so why should people on drugs be paid to have it done when people not on drugs want it done but are turned down x

As ( I think ) this originated in America,Perhaps they should introduce these people to a certain Mrs. Bobbit. **M**.

No I think it's a bloody spine chilling idea

On the broader question of sterilizing the "unfit", I was just reading this famous US case again yesterday for something else. It's a US Supreme Court decision from 1927, written by their very eminent jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes.

What we have to remember is those were different times, and people did not have the knowledge we have, and in some cases the wisdom we have; and options for treating disorders and caring for people affected by them weren't available. The question is, now that we are more knowledgeable and wiser, and do have those options, why would we want to go back to then?

Also keep in mind that the US wasn't the only place where these practices happened, any more than Nazi Gremany was.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=200

U.S. Supreme Court
BUCK v. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
274 U.S. 200

BUCK
v.
BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded.
No. 292.

Argued April 22, 1927.
Decided May 2, 1927.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

... Carrie Buck is a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble- minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court in the latter part of 1924.

An Act of Virginia ... recites that >>> the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, etc.; ... that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who if now discharged would become a menace but if incapable of procreating might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society; and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, etc.

... The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order.

... We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.

>>> It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

>>> Three generations of imbeciles are enough. ...

This programe is NOT designed to just steralise Drug Addicts willey nilley,

Its going to be for those who do NOT wish to father children,,,because they feel they would be unfit to be a good parent,and dont want to bring a child into the world which they dont want .

Nobody is going to be forced or dragged off the street to have it done and people have to put themselves forward and be aproved...so its a personal choice.
If chosen then it will be done privatley free of charge at a cost of £200.

To compare it to the Nazi treatment is getting nickers in a twist that was an enforced treatment that nobody could step down from.

Some hard drug taker *John* has already gone forward,he doent want children,nor cares for children and feels a child would suffer under his addiction.

get some treatment *John*then make a sound of mind decision I would say.

We have strict rules here and wiithout approval from the med council they wont be licenced to be able to conduct any surgical surgery.

Are vasectomies not covered by the NHS?

They are certainly covered by the public health plan in Canada (as are tubal ligations). The US is different, of course. Most health insurance is private, and people without insurance usually can't afford elective medical care.

What is the purpose of offering the service privately in the UK? Any drug user, or anybody else, who wants a sterilization procedure can surely just ask their doctor for a referral.

This is USAmerican garbage, really.

And the purpose goes way beyond doing good works for disadvantaged people.

The aim is clearly to (further) stigmatise drug users.

Kay, I think I would dispute this, though it is reasonable comment

"Its going to be for those who do NOT wish to father children,,,because they feel they would be unfit to be a good parent,and dont want to bring a child into the world which they dont want want.

Nobody is going to be forced or dragged off the street to have it done and people have to put themselves forward and be aproved...so its a personal choice"

I believe that if such a programme existed..voluntary though it may be...the powers that be ( and that might not be the state as such , it may be family, public opinion) would put immense pressure on people (addicts) to sign up for it...just as people historically put pressure on young girls to give their child up for adoption.

And in any case there is absolutely no point in it if it only applies to men, female drug users don't JUST get pregnant by male drug users. The same would have to apply to women and there you have an absolute minefield... women being as much at the mercy of hormones as men ( before anyone shoots me... how many of 'us' thought we did or didn't want children and changed our minds as the biological clock ticked on?)

yes Janey they do it on NHS,,

but you have to meet a certain criteria,,its not done on NHS on a whim.

of course there are private clincics that carry this out but easier to get it done privately.after talks..

I know Rose,

it makes less sense for this to apply to males only.

Its a barmy idea from start to finish.

i disagree, Kay. When we start looking at a group of people as being somehow less than ourselves and start trying to coerce them into something as radical as that, that we wouldn't want for ourselves, we're crossing a line. Hitler didn't start off exterminating people in death camps, it was a long journey.

Ive already said its a barmy idea from start to end,,,,

I agree someone now in 5 years time can be a far cry on from the person they are today,in a well meanig relationship where they would welcome a child to cement their togetherness.

If others take this offer then I hope they are given the deep support they will need,,,,,but I hope this country kicks this absured idea back where it belongs.

Dont anyone read posts properly.}