American charity pays British drug addicts to be sterilised

[Masami von Weizegger]

Drug addicts across the UK are being offered money to be sterilised by an American charity.

Project Prevention is offering to pay £200 to any drug user in London, Glasgow, Bristol, Leicester and parts of Wales who agrees to be operated on.

The first person in the UK to accept the cash is drug addict "John" from Leicester who says he "should never be a father".

The move has been criticised by some drug charities who work with addicts.

'Bribery'

Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris admitted her methods amounted to "bribery" but said it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy.

Drug treatment charity Addaction estimates one million children in the UK are living with parents who abuse drugs.

Pregnant addicts can pass on dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.

Mrs Harris set up her charity in North Carolina after adopting the children of a crack addict.

Damage to children

Speaking to the BBC's Inside Out programme, she said: "The birth mother of my children obviously dabbled in all drugs and alcohol - she literally had a baby every year for eight years.

"I get very angry about the damage that drugs do to these children."

After paying 3,500 addicts across the United States not to have children, she is now visiting parts of the UK blighted by drugs to encourage users to undergo "long-term birth control" for cash.

John, a 38-year-old addict from Leicester, is the first person in the UK to accept money to have a vasectomy, after being involved in drugs since he was 12.

He said: "It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time.

"I won't be able to support a kid; I can just about manage to support myself."

Simon Antrobus, chief executive of Addaction, said while no-one wanted to see children brought up in a drug-using environment, there was no place for Project Prevention in the UK.

"It exploits very vulnerable people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol at probably the lowest point in their lives," he said.

The Reverend Robert Black, of Victory Outreach, which works with former addicts in east London, said he thought Project Prevention's aims were "very devious".

Reversible contraception

Maria Cripps, project manager at the Hackney Dovetail Centre which works with drug users and their carers, said: "I think Barbara uses some very extreme examples to get her point across. It might work in America but Great Britain is a very different country."

But Reverend Martin Blakebrough, director of Camden's Kaleidoscope Project in north London, said sterilisation was "worth considering" if it was right for the individual.

A spokesperson at the British Medical Association said: "The BMA's ethics committee does not have a view on the charity Project Prevention.

"As with all requests for treatment, doctors need to be confident that the individual has the capacity to make the specific decision at the time the decision is required.

"The BMA's ethics committee also believes that doctors should inform patients of the benefits of reversible contraception so that the patients have more reproductive choices in the future."

The crux of the issue appears to be whether such drug addicts will agree to sterilisation in a desperate lunge for cash for drugs rather than out of a true desire to prevent bringing an unwanted or unhealthy child into the world. In which case the answer is "duh".

While it is possible, if unlikely, for someone to beat drug addiction and go on to lead a full and healthy life, the option for sterilisation should be on the table (and it is, of course, you just don't normally get paid to do it).

Personally, from an admittedly quick read of the arguments pro and con, I feel the positives outweigh the negatives. Bribing drug addicts into sterilisation is surely a better option than them bringing potentially unwanted and physically and mentally damaged children into the world. Any issues with essentially giving drug addicts money for drugs is moot seeing as addicts can and frequently go to extreme lengths to obtain money to feed their habit and this is one of the few ways for them to do so that can be considered a net gain for society.

[PainRack]

WTF?

Exactly WHAT is the point of sterilising addicts? So that you don't get brain damaged kids? Wouldn't efforts to...... you know, keep them clean, or supplying them with drugs and conception, improved social services and other wellness programs be much less drastic?

[HarrionGreyjoy]

I think the key detail here is that vasectomies are *reversible*. Though admittedly, I'm more or less in favor of strongly encouraging them for everyone, not just drug addicts.

This charity's surely operating in an ethically sketchy area, but I'm not precisely sure I'm opposed in this specific case. It's voluntary, it's reversible, and it almost certainly has net positive effects. My only concern might be any precedent this sets for other eugenics-riffic ideas.

[Dillon]

I think this is great. Is it sad? Sure. But I don't think anyone would disagree that drug addicts are generally really shitty parents. This is helping make them less likely to be parents.

[eion]

Sounds good to me. The "money being used for drugs" issue can even be reduced by issuing the money in gift cards that obviously wouldn't be accepted by a drug dealer, or if you like as scrip for rent, groceries, etc.

This program would allow more money to be spent on fewer unwanted children, which means a larger impact can be made on their lives, not to mention the fact that without the added stress of raising children, some of these addicts may be able to establish more stable lives and care for themselves.

With all my horrible genes (tendency towards alcohol abuse being one of them), I'm not planning on passing them on to anyone. If someone offered me 200 bucks in cash and a free vasectomy I would have to seriously consider it.

[Rye]

WTF?

Exactly WHAT is the point of sterilising addicts? So that you don't get brain damaged kids? Wouldn't efforts to...... you know, keep them clean, or supplying them with drugs and conception, improved social services and other wellness programs be much less drastic?

Sterilise them because they're desperate, stupid people who should not be anyone's parents. If they're desperate enough to take the money for another fix then they are not going to be good parents, simple as. Then the social services will have to be damage control, likely for that child's entire life.

There are already systems set up trying to keep them clean and social services, no, they are not enough and they never will be.

[Mr. Tickle]

Personnally I find this idea deeply repulsive and frankly digusting. How dare we pass judgement on another human being's "fitness" to have a child, where do you draw the line? Parents who are obese are more likely to have obese unhealthy children, should we then offer a year's supply of creamcakes to those overweight to get sterlised to save costs to the health service? How about the mentally ill?

[Zed]

We already sterilize the mentally ill. It's common practice in mental institutions.

[Rye]

Personnally I find this idea deeply repulsive and frankly digusting. How dare we pass judgement on another human being's "fitness" to have a child, where do you draw the line? Parents who are obese are more likely to have obese unhealthy children, should we then offer a year's supply of creamcakes to those overweight to get sterlised to save costs to the health service? How about the mentally ill?

Yeah, I am sure a desperate drug user's home is the perfect place to raise a family. I expect you're all for adopting the children they can't look after?

Of course you're not, and of course their homes are dysfunctional and ruin a goodly proportion of the children brought up in them.

And yes, if the overweight would take money to be sterilised to get extra cream cakes into their holes, they would not make good parents either and we should oblige them.

[Losonti Tokash]

We already sterilize the mentally ill. It's common practice in mental institutions.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that last time that happened was over 30 years ago.

[Hamstray]

Pregnant addicts can pass on dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.

John, a 38-year-old addict from Leicester, is the first person in the UK to accept money to have a vasectomy, after being involved in drugs since he was 12.

Uhuh, because John obviously could get pregnant otherwise...

[Archaic`]

This charity's surely operating in an ethically sketchy area, but I'm not precisely sure I'm opposed in this specific case. It's voluntary, it's reversible, and it almost certainly has net positive effects. My only concern might be any precedent this sets for other eugenics-riffic ideas.

The precedent already existed. The Indian government did it with their citizens years back in an effort to stem rampant population growth. Anyone could go under the knife for theirs though, not just drug addicts.

[Broomstick]

Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris admitted her methods amounted to "bribery" but said it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy.

Actually, no, it's not. Back in the 1990's I worked at a clinic with a special unit for pregnant addicts where we found MOST of the damage suffered by the kids born to pregnant addicts came not from the illicit drugs themselves but from other factors, such as the illicit drugs being cut with poisonous/toxic shit, poor nutrition, untreated STD's, and a lot of other shit preventable by proper and ordinary pre-natal care. In fact, alcohol abuse during pregnancy tended to have far worse outcomes than narcotic abuse once you separated out toxic shit and made sure the women ate decently.

Which is NOT to say addicts getting pregnant is OK, just that sterilization isn't the only valid approach to the problem.

Pregnant addicts can pass on dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.

Dependency on, say opiates, does NOT cause organ and brain damage. Now, taking opiates that contain a lot of parcetamol in the mix, THAT can cause organ damage, sure. At the clinic we saw people fucked up by their heroin being cut with rat poison or scouring powder. Sure, it's their addiction that lead to that, but it's not a problem inherent in the drugs. Alcoholics drinking mouthwash or vanilla extract, or, god help them, rubbing alcohol (we had THREE of those at the clinic over the years) can get fucked up, too, but I don't think this women is proposing sterilizing alcohol abusers is she? This is demonization of drugs and pregnant addicts which I find distasteful. Drug abuse is bad, no question, but let's stick to actual facts here.

After paying 3,500 addicts across the United States not to have children, she is now visiting parts of the UK blighted by drugs to encourage users to undergo "long-term birth control" for cash.

Sterilization is NOT "long term birth control", it's taking people out of the gene pool permanently.

And I will note that her "charity" in the US was quite controversial as well, and many disapproved of it. Of course, the fact that it tended to focus on minority addicts didn't help, either. You can imagine how the black community reacted to a perception that a woman was seeking to sterilize black people.

Maria Cripps, project manager at the Hackney Dovetail Centre which works with drug users and their carers, said: "I think Barbara uses some very extreme examples to get her point across. It might work in America but Great Britain is a very different country."

Again, this was hardly approved of in the US.

Hey, if an addict wants to get sterilized that can be done. I know, because at the clinic we had people seeking it. If it is their choice that's fine and should be supported, but coercion in these matters is wrong and far too open to abuse.

The crux of the issue appears to be whether such drug addicts will agree to sterilization in a desperate lunge for cash for drugs rather than out of a true desire to prevent bringing an unwanted or unhealthy child into the world. In which case the answer is "duh".

Addicts will cheerfully agree to a lot of harmful shit in exchange for money and/or drugs - that doesn't make it OK to make them an offer. It's called taking advantage of people, and it's gross even where it's not illegal.

While it is possible, if unlikely, for someone to beat drug addiction and go on to lead a full and healthy life, the option for sterilization should be on the table (and it is, of course, you just don't normally get paid to do it).

It's no more unusual to beat drug addiction than to beat alcoholism - which is a drug addiction although society likes to pretend otherwise. As you noted, sterilization is already on the table. We shouldn't be bribing people to accept it.

Personally, from an admittedly quick read of the arguments pro and con, I feel the positives outweigh the negatives. Bribing drug addicts into sterilization is surely a better option than them bringing potentially unwanted and physically and mentally damaged children into the world. Any issues with essentially giving drug addicts money for drugs is moot seeing as addicts can and frequently go to extreme lengths to obtain money to feed their habit and this is one of the few ways for them to do so that can be considered a net gain for society.

Having worked with actual drug addicts for a number of years, the situation is more complex than that. You are assuming that no one ever gets better, that all drug addicted women are prostitutes (many never reach that low) or similar slime balls, all drug addicts are criminals (many aren't, managing to somehow pay for their addictions without resorting to crime), and basically have subscribed to a stereotype being actual reality.

Also, MOST children of addicts are NOT damaged. It is truly unfortunate that there is this meme that all children of drug addicts are fucked up and damaged, because it leads to bias against the very normal children that are the far more typical outcome. That DOES NOT mean doing drugs during pregnancy is OK, or that being a drug addict and a parent is OK, just that children are much more resilient than the public thinks they are. Clearly, it's better for a child not to experience those things, but children do and go on to lead quite normal lives.

I think the key detail here is that vasectomies are *reversible*. Though admittedly, I'm more or less in favor of strongly encouraging them for everyone, not just drug addicts.

This charity's surely operating in an ethically sketchy area, but I'm not precisely sure I'm opposed in this specific case. It's voluntary, it's reversible, and it almost certainly has net positive effects. My only concern might be any precedent this sets for other eugenics-riffic ideas.

And who told you that? Seriously, since when are vasectomies "reversible"?

Yes, a small number of vasectomies can be reversed, but it's quite typical that after a few years post-snip the man's bodies generates antibodies to his own sperm, his own immune system destroying them, so that even if you reconnect the plumbing he's stll shooting blanks. Vasectomies should never be done with the thought they are reversible.

And yes, there is very much a concern of "eugenics-riffic ideas" Terrible things were done in the first half of the 20th Century in the name of improving the race and preventing damage to children. If you're at all familiar with that history you don't want to see a repeat. It a case where slippery slopes really did occur.

Sounds good to me. The "money being used for drugs" issue can even be reduced by issuing the money in gift cards that obviously wouldn't be accepted by a drug dealer, or if you like as scrip for rent, groceries, etc.

Oh, come on - they'll just sell the gift card. Or, if you find a way around that, they'll offer to buy groceries for someone else in exchange for cash or drugs. Get real. Just give them fucking cash and let them get high if you're going to do this. You've already made it plan you don't think they're worthy of reproduction, you don't give a fuck about helping them with their actual problem, just cut to the chase already and avoid making anyone go through hoops.

This program would allow more money to be spent on fewer unwanted children, which means a larger impact can be made on their lives, not to mention the fact that without the added stress of raising children, some of these addicts may be able to establish more stable lives and care for themselves.

First of all - what makes you think addicts put off childbirth until they're addicted? It's not at all unusual for drug users to have children BEFORE they get into trouble with drugs. You also assume that all children of addicts are unwanted. Having seen pregnant women give up using drugs (at least until the child is born) and parents who are motivated at least in part to give up drugs for their children's sake I don't think the issue is that clear. Yes, SOME addicts don't want kids. You know what? It's pretty easy for them to give 'em up, and quite a few of them do. Maybe after the second one like that we should offer free sterilization or something. In other cases the kids are very much wanted and if you can get the parents some REAL help they can go on to be decent parents. I've seen plenty of instances where the children of uneducated, heroin addicted parents go on to be drug-free college educated professionals contributing to society. Of course, no one publicizes the success stories, do they? We only hear about the worst of the worst.

In other words, addicts are individuals. Some don't want kids. Some want their kids and keeping them can be a motivation to get their lives back on track. And in some cases, if you take someone's kids away, they kill themselves. I know this, because I used to process the paperwork on dead patients back at the clinic. We did have some people kill themselves after losing custody - really, at that point, they had nothing more to live for, so ..... Well, I suppose some would say good riddance, but not me. I'm weird. I don't think you lose your humanity when you get addicted.

We already sterilize the mentally ill. It's common practice in mental institutions.

No, that was outlawed in the 1970's, thank god. It is VERY difficult to get someone sterilized against their will in the US these days. I only wish that had happend about 15-20 years earlier.

Yeah, I am sure a desperate drug user's home is the perfect place to raise a family. I expect you're all for adopting the children they can't look after?

Of course you're not, and of course their homes are dysfunctional and ruin a goodly proportion of the children brought up in them.

It should be decided on a case-by-case basis. All addicts are not alike. IF the parent(s) are able to care for the children then they should be allowed to keep them - but they should be watched. If the parents can't care properly for the children then take them away - but non-drug addicts can be abusive and neglectful. And some addicts manage to keep their jobs and incomes. Case-by-case. Because not every addict is skid-row bum.

Also, as pointed out - if they're opening this up to the men it's not a matter of keeping the addict non-pregnant. Not that I have a problem with men electing not to reproduce. But it reeks of "sterilize the unfit" more than actually helping people get better. It sounds like you're giving up on addicts, throwing them on the trash heap. I'm sorry, that's not acceptable to me at all. No, not everyone will get better but that's no reason to stop trying to actually help people.

[Broomstick]

This charity's surely operating in an ethically sketchy area, but I'm not precisely sure I'm opposed in this specific case. It's voluntary, it's reversible, and it almost certainly has net positive effects. My only concern might be any precedent this sets for other eugenics-riffic ideas.

The precedent already existed. The Indian government did it with their citizens years back in an effort to stem rampant population growth. Anyone could go under the knife for theirs though, not just drug addicts.

Yeah, that was fine so long as it was voluntary, but it got a lot less popular when reports started surfacing of coercion or even flat out sterilizing people against their will and protests to the contrary.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So, yeah, this thing's entirely voluntary. If people are stupid/desperate to go under the knife for some drug money, have at. I don't see why people are bitching about this, it's not like the charity's holding addicts down against their will and cutting their balls off or anything.

[PainRack]

Sterilise them because they're desperate, stupid people who should not be anyone's parents. If they're desperate enough to take the money for another fix then they are not going to be good parents, simple as. Then the social services will have to be damage control, likely for that child's entire life.

There are already systems set up trying to keep them clean and social services, no, they are not enough and they never will be.

Have you worked with drug addicts before? A good number of them are good parents when the fix isn't upon them. Needle clinics resolve that problem.

[eion]

Sounds good to me. The "money being used for drugs" issue can even be reduced by issuing the money in gift cards that obviously wouldn't be accepted by a drug dealer, or if you like as scrip for rent, groceries, etc.

Oh, come on - they'll just sell the gift card. Or, if you find a way around that, they'll offer to buy groceries for someone else in exchange for cash or drugs. Get real. Just give them fucking cash and let them get high if you're going to do this. You've already made it plan you don't think they're worthy of reproduction, you don't give a fuck about helping them with their actual problem, just cut to the chase already and avoid making anyone go through hoops.

I'd prefer if they be offered no money at all and made the choice purely on its merits. It's not a question of being worthy of reproduction, it's a question of them being so strung out they can't remember to use birth control. Perhaps an alternative program would be free IUDs (or some other maintenance free long term birth control) for women and reversible vasectomies for men.

This program would allow more money to be spent on fewer unwanted children, which means a larger impact can be made on their lives, not to mention the fact that without the added stress of raising children, some of these addicts may be able to establish more stable lives and care for themselves.

First of all - what makes you think addicts put off childbirth until they're addicted? It's not at all unusual for drug users to have children BEFORE they get into trouble with drugs. You also assume that all children of addicts are unwanted. Having seen pregnant women give up using drugs (at least until the child is born) and parents who are motivated at least in part to give up drugs for their children's sake I don't think the issue is that clear. Yes, SOME addicts don't want kids. You know what? It's pretty easy for them to give 'em up, and quite a few of them do. Maybe after the second one like that we should offer free sterilization or something. In other cases the kids are very much wanted and if you can get the parents some REAL help they can go on to be decent parents. I've seen plenty of instances where the children of uneducated, heroin addicted parents go on to be drug-free college educated professionals contributing to society. Of course, no one publicizes the success stories, do they? We only hear about the worst of the worst.

I'm not interested in anecdotes of either stripe; we ought not to create policy based on anecdote. Yes, it is VERY easy to give up unwanted children for adoption. And it's also often very difficult to place those children. Sure, the addict might overcome their addiction in the short term, for a year or two or five, or ten, but if it comes back it will do even more damage to the child's life, and if that child should be placed into foster care, well I'm sure you're as aware as I on the diminished chances of older minors being placed with new families.

In other words, addicts are individuals. Some don't want kids. Some want their kids and keeping them can be a motivation to get their lives back on track. And in some cases, if you take someone's kids away, they kill themselves. I know this, because I used to process the paperwork on dead patients back at the clinic. We did have some people kill themselves after losing custody - really, at that point, they had nothing more to live for, so ..... Well, I suppose some would say good riddance, but not me. I'm weird. I don't think you lose your humanity when you get addicted.

I am not, and I hope no one else here is, advocating compulsory sterilization for anyone. They ought to be offered a choice; in fact they should get many choices: Do they want long term birth control or sterilization, do they want to abort the fetus, do they want to be relocated to a remote cabin in Alaska to keep them as far away from their drug of choice as is possible?

We need to be doing more to help addicts. We need to be spending more on existing programs and exploring innovative ways to help them and their children as well. Considering the increasing violence in Mexico and its roots in our desire for drugs, I'm tempted to suggest a return to the days of the Great Binge when you could buy heroin at every local drugstore. At least then we could insure that the product was pure and manufactured by greedy, but nonviolent, American drug companies.

[JME2]

This article...I'm getting flashbacks to the eugenics insanity from the early 20th century.

[Samuel]

Sure, the addict might overcome their addiction in the short term, for a year or two or five, or ten, but if it comes back it will do even more damage to the child's life, and if that child should be placed into foster care, well I'm sure you're as aware as I on the diminished chances of older minors being placed with new families.

My mother was addicted to cigarettes. She stopped when Katie was born. She hasn't smoked since. So yeah, it is an anecdote, but it shows that "never overcome addiction" or "inevitably relapse" is a bunch of BS.

[TithonusSyndrome]

This article...I'm getting flashbacks to the eugenics insanity from the early 20th century.

I'm getting flashbacks to the John Birch Society whenever I hear people invoke the term "eugenics" over a voluntary offer. Emotionally charged words with nefarious connotations, that are only superficially descriptive of a policy at best, are the province of the likes of the Tea Party. Let's try to stay classy here.

[Sephirius]

Sure, the addict might overcome their addiction in the short term, for a year or two or five, or ten, but if it comes back it will do even more damage to the child's life, and if that child should be placed into foster care, well I'm sure you're as aware as I on the diminished chances of older minors being placed with new families.

My mother was addicted to cigarettes. She stopped when Katie was born. She hasn't smoked since. So yeah, it is an anecdote, but it shows that "never overcome addiction" or "inevitably relapse" is a bunch of BS.

So she smoked all through the pregnancy then?

[Broomstick]

Sounds good to me. The "money being used for drugs" issue can even be reduced by issuing the money in gift cards that obviously wouldn't be accepted by a drug dealer, or if you like as scrip for rent, groceries, etc.

Oh, come on - they'll just sell the gift card. Or, if you find a way around that, they'll offer to buy groceries for someone else in exchange for cash or drugs. Get real. Just give them fucking cash and let them get high if you're going to do this. You've already made it plan you don't think they're worthy of reproduction, you don't give a fuck about helping them with their actual problem, just cut to the chase already and avoid making anyone go through hoops.

I'd prefer if they be offered no money at all and made the choice purely on its merits.

That would be MY preference, too - offer free birth control, from condoms all the way up through sterilization, but do not offer a reward for people to undergo surgery, even minor surgery.

It's not a question of being worthy of reproduction, it's a question of them being so strung out they can't remember to use birth control. Perhaps an alternative program would be free IUDs (or some other maintenance free long term birth control) for women and reversible vasectomies for men.

If they're that strung out I question if they can legally/morally give informed consent to a surgical procedure.

And I fully support long term things like IUD's... but again, vasectomies should NOT be seen a reversible! Yes, sometimes the plumbing can be reconnected but it is not a reliably successful procedure. Vasectomies should always been seen as permanent. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you a bridge in Brooklyn.

I'm not interested in anecdotes of either stripe; we ought not to create policy based on anecdote.

OK, the difference between me and Joe Public down the street is that I worked at an inner city clinic where we saw a LOT of addicts of various types and scientific research was conducted on-site. It's not FOAF or "my cousin's friend's wife's brother's nephew" type of bullshit. It's based on actual experience trying to help addicts get over their addiction, not random hearsay and rumor.

Does that mean everything I say should go unquestioned? No, of course not. And there have been changes in treatment since I worked in the area, including some new pharmaceutical approaches that just didn't exist back then. But I'm not just pulling shit out of my ass here.

Yes, it is VERY easy to give up unwanted children for adoption. And it's also often very difficult to place those children. Sure, the addict might overcome their addiction in the short term, for a year or two or five, or ten, but if it comes back it will do even more damage to the child's life, and if that child should be placed into foster care, well I'm sure you're as aware as I on the diminished chances of older minors being placed with new families.

Will you agree to permanently remove the children of people who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, then? Because unless you're willing to go that far it's not fair treatment.

Again, you assume that the child of addict is automatically damaged by their parents' addiction. I am in favor of monitoring such parents, but not in summarily removing their children because, as you point out, there are some deep flaws in the foster care and adoption systems in many countries. Long term foster care can be as damaging, or worse, than leaving the children with their parents.

We need to be doing more to help addicts.

I think we all agree to that - but I think you and I want that help to be effective and truly helpful.

We need to be spending more on existing programs and exploring innovative ways to help them and their children as well. Considering the increasing violence in Mexico and its roots in our desire for drugs, I'm tempted to suggest a return to the days of the Great Binge when you could buy heroin at every local drugstore. At least then we could insure that the product was pure and manufactured by greedy, but nonviolent, American drug companies.

Yes - there are definitely issues involved with that, but if it was available cheaply addicts would have less need to steal or sell their bodies, if they could get clean needles there would be less disease, we might be able to get crime out of it. Drug prohibition was enacted with the best of intentions, but I'm not sure if the tradeoffs were worth it.

Needless to say, of course, it should be combined with very hefty penalties for things like fucked up driving - addicts should not be permitted to endanger others.

[Chaotic Neutral]

This is a great idea, it should be offered to everyone regardless of drug addiction. It's not as if there is a massive need for more humans.

[Samuel]

Sure, the addict might overcome their addiction in the short term, for a year or two or five, or ten, but if it comes back it will do even more damage to the child's life, and if that child should be placed into foster care, well I'm sure you're as aware as I on the diminished chances of older minors being placed with new families.

My mother was addicted to cigarettes. She stopped when Katie was born. She hasn't smoked since. So yeah, it is an anecdote, but it shows that "never overcome addiction" or "inevitably relapse" is a bunch of BS.

So she smoked all through the pregnancy then?

Katie is my cousin. She is 2 years older than me. I'm sorry for not being clear. My mother never smoked during either of her two pregnancies. I assumed it was obvious she is in fact the best mother in the entire world.

[eion]

It's not a question of being worthy of reproduction, it's a question of them being so strung out they can't remember to use birth control. Perhaps an alternative program would be free IUDs (or some other maintenance free long term birth control) for women and reversible vasectomies for men.

If they're that strung out I question if they can legally/morally give informed consent to a surgical procedure.

Well clearly you wouldn't ask them if they wanted to be sterilized while they are still suffering from withdrawal. We can get people clean inside treatment centers, we've more or less cracked that, it's keeping them clean once they've left the centers that is the problem. You'd offer the choice inside, when they're clear headed.

And I fully support long term things like IUD's... but again, vasectomies should NOT be seen a reversible! Yes, sometimes the plumbing can be reconnected but it is not a reliably successful procedure. Vasectomies should always been seen as permanent. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Sadly the male reproductive system is proving more difficult to confuse than the female one. And while I know that not all vasectomies are reversible, I do believe it is the case that the testicles themselves continue to function normally and produce sperm normally, it is only that the vasa deferentia are severed and thus sperm cannot be ejaculated. It may be a simple enough matter to extract a portion of sperm directly from the testicles of anyone whose vasectomy could not be reversed. Another solution would be to offer free sperm bank storage of the man's sperm to allow them to have children in the future, or encourage them to adopt children. It is worth noting that the success rate for vasectomy reversal using vasovasostomy is somewhere around 95%.

I'm not interested in anecdotes of either stripe; we ought not to create policy based on anecdote.

OK, the difference between me and Joe Public down the street is that I worked at an inner city clinic where we saw a LOT of addicts of various types and scientific research was conducted on-site. It's not FOAF or "my cousin's friend's wife's brother's nephew" type of bullshit. It's based on actual experience trying to help addicts get over their addiction, not random hearsay and rumor.

Does that mean everything I say should go unquestioned? No, of course not. And there have been changes in treatment since I worked in the area, including some new pharmaceutical approaches that just didn't exist back then. But I'm not just pulling shit out of my ass here.

My issue is not with the veracity of your experience, or with your relevant history of dealing with drug addiction and helping drug addicts. The issue is that the evidence you provided was not scientifically gathered, at least as I understood your statement. Now, if you were conducting a controlled study of the differing rates of success of those addicts who had outside support structures (family, children, etc.) vs. those that did not, that would be something I'd be very interested in hearing about. But if just in the normal course of your duties you observed that addicts with children seemed to do better than addicts without children that evidence carries far less weight.

Yes, it is VERY easy to give up unwanted children for adoption. And it's also often very difficult to place those children. Sure, the addict might overcome their addiction in the short term, for a year or two or five, or ten, but if it comes back it will do even more damage to the child's life, and if that child should be placed into foster care, well I'm sure you're as aware as I on the diminished chances of older minors being placed with new families.

Will you agree to permanently remove the children of people who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, then? Because unless you're willing to go that far it's not fair treatment.

My statement was not advocating the forcible removal of children from anyone's care based solely on their chemical dependencies. It was advocating the reduction in the number of unplanned and unwanted children being brought into environments that are far from ideal and more often than not cause lasting damage by providing the potential parents with choices.

Again, you assume that the child of addict is automatically damaged by their parents' addiction. I am in favor of monitoring such parents, but not in summarily removing their children because, as you point out, there are some deep flaws in the foster care and adoption systems in many countries. Long term foster care can be as damaging, or worse, than leaving the children with their parents.

All the more reason that addicts should be presented with a variety of options to help reduce the strain on the foster care system and reduce the number of unplanned children brought into the world.