Drug abuse of mothers may lead to involuntary commitment

[Tiriol]

Article about the proposed change can be found here. This discussion is going on in Finland (something the article doesn't point out), for clarification.

Involuntary Commitment for Substance Abusing Mothers?
published yesterday 02:55 PM, updated today 11:26 AM

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is proposing that expectant mothers with substance abuse problems be committed against their will if the unborn child is deemed in danger.

Under current laws, the state may intervene to commit pregnant women for up to five days on foetal health protection grounds. A working group under the ministry now wants to see the period for forced commitment extended to 30 days and that women could be held for the entire duration of their pregnancies, should the situation warrant it.

The working group, however, underscores the importance of preventive drug treatment services, and it says involuntary commitment is considered a final resort after all other avenues have been exhausted.

YLE

I was not sure whether to post this into SLAM or N&P (since this involves morality to some extent), but since this is a news item, I decided to create a topic in here.

I agree with this proposal, including the importance of preventive measures (since obviously involuntary commitment means that the unborn child has already been endangered). By abusing substances during pregnancy, the mother endangers the child considerably and also possibly society's resources if her uncaringness results in some defects in the child that requires state attention and aid.

Any thoughts or opinions?

[Solauren]

I think anyone with a substance abuse problem should be commited. They are a stress on, and potiental danger, to those around them. It's nice to see a step in that direction.

The only problem is see with this from a political stand-point, would be people screaming 'it's my body!', and an increase in abortions by substance abusers to avoid commitment.

[General Zod]

The only thing that makes me suspicious about this, is would it affect abortion laws at all? I realize that Finland's much more sane regarding some areas than America, but if this were passed in the US red flags would be going off that people were trying to use it as a wedge to overturn abortion rights.

[Edi]

No effect on abortion laws. Most likely this would be a law that required commitment of the pregnant woman after she had passed the point where abortion is no longer legal without specific medical reasons and thus her intention to keep the child would be rather clear.

[TimothyC]

I think anyone with a substance abuse problem should be commited. They are a stress on, and potiental danger, to those around them. It's nice to see a step in that direction.

So all of the smokers and alcoholics get locked up? How about caffeine addicts? How about people like me who have suffered withdraw symptoms from going off of prescribed medications before?

Protecting children is a laudable goal, I just want to know where the line gets drawn, something that I myself have never quite figured out.

[Dark Hellion]

So all of the smokers and alcoholics get locked up? How about caffeine addicts? How about people like me who have suffered withdraw symptoms from going off of prescribed medications before?

Oh yum, taking a statement that wasn't meant to be technically precise (Sols quote) and turning into a nice big slippery slope. I wish I had a steel trap mind that could churn out fallacies like that.

Besides the fact that the word PROBLEM should be a big hint at what is actually being talked about. Smokers have a very disgusting habit to be sure. But generally it makes them smelly, asswipes who are a bit poor from spending hundreds of dollars a month on cancer sticks. Heroin addicts only experience massive physical and psychological changes and their addiction drives them to do things like steal money and goods from loved ones or prostitute themselves. I sure am glad that it is so difficult to distinguish between the majority of drugs cause massive harm to families and society and those generally used as social lubricants.

[Edi]

I think anyone with a substance abuse problem should be commited. They are a stress on, and potiental danger, to those around them. It's nice to see a step in that direction.

So all of the smokers and alcoholics get locked up? How about caffeine addicts? How about people like me who have suffered withdraw symptoms from going off of prescribed medications before?

Protecting children is a laudable goal, I just want to know where the line gets drawn, something that I myself have never quite figured out.

Kindly take your slippery slope fallacies and shove them. We're talking about Finland, not the US, and we actually have a legislature that has its head screwed on straight most of the time when drafting legislation like this. Before you jump gleefully down that chute you just finished oiling, kindly take note of the point I made in my previous post.

[Solauren]

I think anyone with a substance abuse problem should be commited. They are a stress on, and potiental danger, to those around them. It's nice to see a step in that direction.

So all of the smokers and alcoholics get locked up? How about caffeine addicts? How about people like me who have suffered withdraw symptoms from going off of prescribed medications before?

Smokers; No. As disguisting as their habit is, it's never been considered a potiental danger to others. (At least not an immediate potiental danger). I am for denying them medical coverage to deal with the side effects of their addictions. And I say this as the grandson of a woman that had lung cancer. I even told her, straight to her face; Sorry you have to go through it, but you knew the dangers years ago,and only recently choose to quit. It's your own damned fault.

Caffeeine addicts; I've never heard of someone getting a caffeine buzz and hurting someone, and that being medically backed up and not some freak-occurance. Caffeeine use posses no danger to others.

Alcholics; Yes. Alchol leads to a decrease in judgement and inhibitions and an increase in aggression. Angry, stupid, and doesn't care. I'd call that a threat.
Also, two words; Drunk Drivers.

Prescribed Medication Addicts; Variable. Prescribed medication causing addictions is a seperate problem. However, if the drug in question is causing problematic and potientally dangerous behaviour, and forced commitment is the only way to clear out their systems, then Yes.

Other Substance Abuse Addictions; Depends on the consequences of the addiction.

Are there addictive substances that are only dangerous in rare circumstances? If so, if you cause one of those rare circumstances, then yes, lock them up. Otherwise, only if needed to deal with another issue.

However, any addictive substance that can cause violent/dangerous behaviour, or have a development impact if used while pregenant, or in the presence of a small child; then yes, lock them up.


And believe it or not, I'm for the legalization of some narcactics. I'm just more infavour of responsible / intelligent use.

[TimothyC]

<Snip response>

Thank you Solauren for your response. I tend to agree with most of your positions except for smoking, and that is because of the health risk of second/third hand smoke.

[Solauren]

Second + hand smoke is not as big, or immediate a concern when compared to the other substances, for society as a whole.

However, in the case of pregnancies, or parents with children in general (born or not), it is a problem, and should be treated as such.

[Kanastrous]

Smoking during pregnancy is absolutely a threat to the health of the unborn child.

Put the smokers in schutzhaft if they don't quit when they discover they're pregnant, along with the alcohol drinkers.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/t ... /index.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/factsheets/FAS_alcoholuse.pdf

[Solauren]

Kan..

I said to society as a whole. I acknowledge and support the fact it's a threat to the child during pregnancy (and early childhood years)

[Broomstick]

Illinois tried involuntary incarceration of pregnant mothers during the time period I worked at a methadone clinic. The result was a lot of miscarriages - cold turkey detox from opiates almost invariably results in abrupt termination of the pregnancy as the body does not tolerate sudden withdrawal AND the stress of pregnancy very well. The mothers also frequently experienced medical complications, such as life-threatening hemorhaging.

I do hope anyone proposing such a move is willing to provide the medical expertise and expense to preserve the health of the mother and child. Simply locking a pregnant woman in a rubber room for a week is not going to cut it.

Also - you can lock anyone up for a week and get the drugs out of their system. That does NOT cure addiction - as soon as they're out they'll go right back to abusing. Treating addiction is a process that takes years to truly complete. Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about the mother, just lock her up while pregnant and when she has the kid farm it out to adoptive parents and kick the strung-out bitch to the curb cause, ya know, she's human trash, right? (Wrong - please read that as sarcasm. I didn't spend four years working in the drug rehab industry without believing that addicts can be treated and redeemed)

Illinois moved to treating pregnant addicts with an intensive outpatient program with much better results for both mothers and children.

[Darth Wong]

I think anyone with a substance abuse problem should be commited. They are a stress on, and potiental danger, to those around them. It's nice to see a step in that direction.

So all of the smokers and alcoholics get locked up? How about caffeine addicts? How about people like me who have suffered withdraw symptoms from going off of prescribed medications before?

Protecting children is a laudable goal, I just want to know where the line gets drawn, something that I myself have never quite figured out.

Are you saying that if you think there might be some debate over where to draw the line, then there should be no line at all? Why can't we admit that there should be a line, and also admit that there will always be contention over where that line should be drawn?

[Darth Wong]

Illinois moved to treating pregnant addicts with an intensive outpatient program with much better results for both mothers and children.

I'm all for sympathy to those who need treatment, but quite frankly, I wouldn't object to forcible sterilization of people with serious drug problems, to forestall this problem. I know some people will scream that it reminds them of Nazi eugenics, but this is not ethnically driven. If they clean up their act, they can always adopt someday.

[TimothyC]

Are you saying that if you think there might be some debate over where to draw the line, then there should be no line at all? Why can't we admit that there should be a line, and also admit that there will always be contention over where that line should be drawn?

I was wondering where others would draw the line, because as I stated, I've never figured out where I think the line should be drawn. I may be reluctant to draw the line at certain places, but I'm not against the line entirely.

I hope that I'm making some sort of sense here.

[Broomstick]

Illinois moved to treating pregnant addicts with an intensive outpatient program with much better results for both mothers and children.

I'm all for sympathy to those who need treatment, but quite frankly, I wouldn't object to forcible sterilization of people with serious drug problems, to forestall this problem. I know some people will scream that it reminds them of Nazi eugenics, but this is not ethnically driven. If they clean up their act, they can always adopt someday.

I understand your position, Mike, however, I was focusing on women who were, at the time, already pregnant rather than whether or not they should have been pregnant at all or whether or not they should get pregnant again. There is some merit to your position, but given the history of "eugenics" in the US I have to remain opposed to it in my nation. Your nation may have a sufficiently different culture to make it workable with minimal abuse.

[Kanastrous]

Illinois moved to treating pregnant addicts with an intensive outpatient program with much better results for both mothers and children.

I'm all for sympathy to those who need treatment, but quite frankly, I wouldn't object to forcible sterilization of people with serious drug problems, to forestall this problem. I know some people will scream that it reminds them of Nazi eugenics, but this is not ethnically driven.

Alas in the US it's a virtual certainty that some section will always be there to point out that drug abuse is more common in certain socioeconomic groups than others, then point out that those groups are disproportionately composed of people representing certain ethnicities, then start shrieking at you that you are a eugenics-loving racist because since the behavior constellates with membership in certain ethnic groups, the effect is supposedly the same.