FabSwingers.com forum: Project Prevention

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Project Prevention pay drug addicts to be sterilised.

Is it exploitative and wrong or good ol' common sense.

Is it every person's right to have children regardless or are there reasons why those rights should be restricted or even removed?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

I have been listening to many of the arguments against Project Prevention …. The main one being “these addicts are not in any condition to make a choice about sterilisation because of the nature of their illness”

I like that argument… because if they are not of a suitable mental state to make a rational decision about being sterilised… how the hell are they in a suitable mental state to bring a baby into the world…a baby which will no doubt have withdrawals as its first experience of life outside of the womb.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

I support... can be reversed when they are clean.

good luck to them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Vasectomy reversal is not always possible and secondly it is very rare for the NHS to carry out vasectomy reversals, you need to have rock solid reasons for reversal under the NHS, this is usually only permitted after the death of another child to a couple.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

"I have been listening to many of the arguments against Project Prevention …. The main one being “these addicts are not in any condition to make a choice about sterilisation because of the nature of their illness”

That was my original concern too,offer money to a drug addict for sterilisation? they would'nt give a shit about that just be more interested in the money and not think of the consequences

Until that is if they ever become clean which some do,start living a normal life and want to raise a family and then they can't because of a decision that was made when they wer'nt fit to make any

No easy solution,for women there are contaceptives that last months,if they keep up to date with it but theres nothing to stop men from fathering children apart from condoms or vasectomy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The thing that annoys me with this is that a few years back I wanted to be sterilized and was refused on the nhs.

I am glad that I didnt do that now, but.. I still have friends that cant have it.

I also think that although the reasons behind this are good, I do think that it is going to cause problems later on..

Another thing, is I know a very nice family that couldnt have children and they adopted a little girl that was given up by her mother because of drug addiction.. This little girl is now having a very good life and she has happy parents.

So would that then make even less children available for adoption etc.

So many things but I think offering money to drug addicts to do stuff is counterproductive.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Until that is if they ever become clean which some do,start living a normal life and want to raise a family and then they can't because of a decision that was made when they wer'nt fit to make any

That's working on the assumption they are childless and not scattered a litter or two already.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Until that is if they ever become clean which some do,start living a normal life and want to raise a family and then they can't because of a decision that was made when they wer'nt fit to make any

That's working on the assumption they are childless and not scattered a litter or two already."

Sadly they more than likely have and those kids would have been taken away already and been bought up with other families

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was listening to this debate on 5 Live yesterday as I drove home.

One of the arguments put forward against this charity sterlising drug addicts is that it targets those from the lower classes only. Rich people don't need the £200 and wouldn't look at an offer like this whereas addicts from poorer background will take any offer in order to secure funds for their next fix.

It seems to be targetting men only as well as there has been no mention of sterlising female drug addicts, who are more likely to pass on the consequences of their addiction to their unborn foetus. I understand that sperm is weakened through alcohol or drug abuse and that each sperm struggles to break through the egg to fertilise it, thus making the likelihood of passing a drug addiction to a foetus through male drug dependency extremely remote. (I'm open to debate on that though as I haven't found any reports that confirm that only the mother's drug abuse can harm the foetus.)

Also, one of the caller's on % Live yesterday was a former user who, had he been sterilised as an addict, would not have had the healthy 4y/o daughter he now has. He got himself clean, met a lovely woman and they planned & started their family. None of that would have happened had he been sterilised.

The charity concerned seems as though they've come up with a spiffing idea to combat babies born with a drug dependency and have the money available to offer a solution but haven't stopped to ask themselves whether that solution is correct or not.

Their ethos appears to be prevent babies from ever being born and that will arrest the problem, when the real root of the cause are the drugs itself and those who peddle them.

The sooner this charity is stopped via the law courts the better.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

In the USA they mainly target women.... "Project Prevention, started in 1997, says it has paid money out to 3,242 addicts, or clients as it prefers to call them. Most of them were women and 1,226 were permanently sterilised. Thirty-five men have had vasectomies."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In the USA they mainly target women.... "Project Prevention, started in 1997, says it has paid money out to 3,242 addicts, or clients as it prefers to call them. Most of them were women and 1,226 were permanently sterilised. Thirty-five men have had vasectomies."

I'd be keen to see the stats for the amount of lawsuits they've become embroiled in by now-clean users who would like to start a family but can't.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

I'd be keen to see the stats for the amount of lawsuits they've become embroiled in by now-clean users who would like to start a family but can't."

Does everyone have the right to start a family?

People are turned down for IVF treatment all the time for being smokers, over weight, too old.... a panel of people choose if they have the right or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Let's also be clear on something.... the minority get clean and stay clean.

The majority don't.

We can't be sure of the long term implications on the lives of babies born to addicts.

We do know the babies go through withdrawals.

We do know that many babies are not taken into care and are reased in what sort of surroundings.... what chance do many of those have of not repeating the cycle?

People state random examples of people who got their life together... I can state an equal number of incidents where babies have been given methadone to stop them crying whilst the parents get high.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd be keen to see the stats for the amount of lawsuits they've become embroiled in by now-clean users who would like to start a family but can't.

Does everyone have the right to start a family?

People are turned down for IVF treatment all the time for being smokers, over weight, too old.... a panel of people choose if they have the right or not."

For those who with no medical precondition that prevents them from conceiving naturally then yes, they do have a right to procreate, whatever their circumstances. Who has the right to play God apart from God?

When we go down the road of sterilisation for social reasons then we are entering the realms of Nazi Fascism and Master-race planning. Babies born addicted to drugs are symptomatic of social issues regarding drug abuse and drug supply that should be addressed before ever going down this particularly unwholesome road.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

So until we sort out the problem of drug users and dealers, we have to accept that babies will suffer?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So until we sort out the problem of drug users and dealers, we have to accept that babies will suffer?"

Unfortunately, yes. Who is to say which baby should be born and which shouldn't? It smacks of something altogether unpleasant and let's face it, it's far easier to kill an unborn human being with no rights whatsoever than it is to get hard with drug dealers and inflict a life of hard sweat and toil on those we catch peddling misery.

Where do we stop?

Alcohol abuse? ... Sterilisation for you mister, can't have you getting wankered every night and leaving younguns to fend for themselves!

Tobacco abuse? ... yup, you too, no point you having kids if you're gonna die early of cancer and the state has to pay for them.

Solve the causes of drug dependency, not the consequences of it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

no way, the principle is so very very wrong. another way must be found.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So until we sort out the problem of drug users and dealers, we have to accept that babies will suffer?"

just sort the drug dealers but that is never going to happen in this mafia run world is it. same thing with great ideas about cutting defense budgets, more to it than meets the ey.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iggles and BeardyCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

Remove the cash incntive and change it to anyone with a drug habit involved in crime to feed said habit is sterilised along with any drug adict that has had prvious kid put into care.

it's sick how people can just keep giving birth, hand the poor child to the state, then go off and do it all over again....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why limit it to drug users. Any bottom feeders could be given the same offer. Even make it obligatory for some. Was a thread about cutting peoples hands off for stealing. How about 5 years in the nick and you come out without your balls.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

wtf is a bottom feeder?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iggles and BeardyCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

Personaly i'm all for it being extended, if a person is a bad parent and has thier child removed they should be sterilise... it worked for my mother back in the 70s before the uk got so damn soft hearted and result was even once she cleened up her act, instead of being able to pop out another poor kid, she had to live with the realization of what she had done.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

"Why limit it to drug users. "

Because the person who set this up wanted to focus on preventing the suffering of babies born to drug users.... they are somewhat different to the possible suffering of a child born to someone with bad dress sense selling knock off handbags.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Personaly i'm all for it being extended, if a person is a bad parent and has thier child removed they should be sterilise... it worked for my mother back in the 70s before the uk got so damn soft hearted and result was even once she cleened up her act, instead of being able to pop out another poor kid, she had to live with the realization of what she had done."

Enforced Sterilization in the UK?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Think its more persuasion in the UK rather than enforced. But we all know the types that come under pressure for sterilization, 35 years old 10 kids from 10 different dads, never done a days work.

But its only hearsay rather than fact.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Enforced Sterilisation in the UK under the Mental Health Act is only done under Judicial Re_iew of individual cases, this has been the way since 1930 when it was known as the Mental Treatment Act.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

The biggest thing which doesn’t sit right with me is that the project is run by a Joe Bloggs.

I do believe there are some addicts out there who had a chance to sort out their act for the sake of a child and blew it…. big time. I have no concerns about such individuals being offered sterilisation.

Not only do we have to put up with the consequences of their actions to feed their habit… the crimes which keep the dealers pockets bulging. We pay the cost of their methadone/ buprenorphine… which all comes from a stretched budget. Then when they find that are up the duff (possibly from a punter) there is the added cost and drain on resources in social support and healthcare.

Not all drug addicts are the same…. but there are plenty who would be doing us all a favour by not breading.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razydriver8Couple
over a year ago

plymouth

[Removed by poster at 19/10/10 13:49:28]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razydriver8Couple
over a year ago

plymouth

I'd be keen to see the stats for the amount of lawsuits they've become embroiled in by now-clean users who would like to start a family but can't.

Does everyone have the right to start a family?

People are turned down for IVF treatment all the time for being smokers, over weight, too old.... a panel of people choose if they have the right or not."

off subject , i know, but we were turned down for IVF due to my age and the fact that i have 2 kids from a previous marriage, but my partner has no viable sperm through no fault of his own... he had chemo to cure the cancer he was diognosed with at 30 and even though he stored,, we cant use it unless we pay £5000 a go + more for blood tests ect.

back on subject... this doesnt stop people using drugs... the money would go much further is used to help them get clean,or fight the reasons a person become drug dependent in the first place..

reposted cos i cant spell ,..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

back on subject... this doesnt stop people using drugs... the money would go much further is used to help them get clean,or fight the reasons a person become drug dependent in the first place..

What if the reason they are drug dependant is because they were born to and raised by a drug addict?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why limit it to drug users.

Because the person who set this up wanted to focus on preventing the suffering of babies born to drug users.... "

By preventing those babies from ever being born?

Sounds like an easy 'sweep it under the carpet' solution to me instead of tackling the real problems.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think there is an easy answer to the problem of addicts or it would have been solved before. But surely it isn't a bad thing to prevent people who struggle to look after their self from having children?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think there is an easy answer to the problem of addicts or it would have been solved before. But surely it isn't a bad thing to prevent people who struggle to look after their self from having children?"

It's the whole "I say you shouldn't have children" thing I have a problem with. I just don't think that anybody has the right to prevent another human being to procreate, regardless of their circumstances.

What is the meaning of life? To extend it beyond our own finite lifespan by having children?

Sterilising people while they are relatively young, and often making a lot of mistakes as they amble through life, means condemning them to a lonely old age if they manage to get their act together and make it that far.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

in the meantime those who are making mountains of money producing, trading-in and pushing these drugs are happily procreating in their lovely homes and sending their kids to good schools, whilst everybody concentrates on snipping those they have made their victims. ..... tra la la

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Be Nice that gives me an idea!

How about we steralise all convicted drug dealers, male and female, now Thats a plan!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All these drug addicts are adults with the right to chose if they want it or not!!!!

They are not picking up "junkies" off the streets and dragging them in for this!!

Talk about CHOICE...why deny them this if they agree to having it done???? Yea ok, they getting £200 for it...but its still their CHOICE!!!

The woman who started this project fosters kids born with drug withdrawal and she saw for herself the damage that it does...all well and saying these kids could be adopted out to loving parents but that can not be guaranteed!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Project Prevention pay drug addicts to be sterilised.

Is it exploitative and wrong or good ol' common sense.

Is it every person's right to have children regardless or are there reasons why those rights should be restricted or even removed?

it is everyones right to have a child but at the end of the day noones forcing them to be done they are doing it on their own accord for money

now look at it this way if someone is that dependant on drugs they will go to such extreams to get £200 is it not a good thing that they cant have kids? imagine the life that child would have with a parent thats so desparate to get drugs!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread