i think it would be ethical to offer them sterilisation for free. but offering a drug addict money for anything has a certain quality of coercion to it.
Arguably though, this is tatamount to saying "Hey folks, you are the dregs of society and top candidates for the Darwin awards. How about you just admit that you are a total failure and we will give you a reward."
PC? No. Ethical? Yes. The charity is not forcing addicts to do anything. They are offering an incentive for addicts to do something which will benefit everyone. An addict has no way to take care of a child properly, and that is being charitable and assuming the child will not suffer birth defects because of the addicted mother.
Ethical my arse. No, it's not forcing them to do anything, but neither was segregation forcing blacks not to take public transport. How can you play God and say that sterilising someone "will benefit everyone"? How do you know that the addict won't go clean and want children later with a partner, but can't? "An addict has no way to take care of a child properly." Straw man; there are many ways that children of addicts can be taken care of. "assuming the child will not suffer birth defects because of the addicted mother." Another straw man; are you also advocating sterilisation being offered to women who drink alcohol, who smoke, who have a medical history that will make them more likely to bear a child with birth defects?
I think this quote from the founder of the project is very revealing: "We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. "
At least, they **also** give people money to get a contraceptive implant...but I wonder if they subtly or not-so-subtly push people to get the sterilization procedure which is permanent and irreversible, instead of an implant which is neither.
There's also a matter of context. This is going on at the same time kids in HS are being told in "sex education" classes "don't have sex"...and very little else. If they want to keep people from having children they can't afford to raise, why don't they START with better sex education and freely available birth control? How about BC for anyone of any age who asks for it, and worry about paying drug addicts to get it later?
Tricky, tricky one. I've heard of this group before, and seen all the arguments.
On the one hand, it does sound a bit eugenist. And there's the issue of someone who's an addict being willing to do anything for money, and how exploitive this seems. On the other, drug-addicted babies and children left to fend for themselves by parents whose main concern is getting another fix...which is pretty damn compelling. And it is nominally voluntary, although such things have been court-ordered in this country before. Also of note: some men have agreed to vasectomies through the program, which I found interesting.
I used to know something about this woman's background, and would have to dig some more. As I recall, what spurred her to begin this was having been a foster parent to several children of addicts, but I could be wrong (could be thinking of someone else). I think I'll have to re-research this before forming any judgment, and even then I think it's a grey area.
drug-addicted babies and children left to fend for themselves by parents whose main concern is getting another fix...which is pretty damn compelling
Babies and children (and the sick, and the poor, and the elderley, etc) left to fend for themselves is as much a failure of society as it is the parents, but it's easier to blame the parents than look within ourselves; it's easier to demonise a crack mother.
Of course. And the US has serious problems with underfunded, unavailable social programs and social support for all kinds of parents/caregivers. I'm asuming also from your spelling that you are probably not an American (though I could be wrong).
But our agreement upon that isn't the issue.
It's also possibly useful to note that in the US, more often than not, the social services systems and the courts actually work to keep biological families intact, regardless of whether it's in the kids' best interest (talk to a child advocate if you don't believe me; I know a few). It's easy to talk about the demonization of the mother, which is not something I'm inclined to do anyway FWIW (since I became a parent, my harsher judgment of bad parenting has softened), and looking within ourselves, but what the hell is going to be done about it? What IS being done about it, beyond introspection?
So in the meantime, while we're beating our breasts about whether some women are demonized as bad mothers, and how we should look within ourselves, the reality is that the foster care system is filled to bursting with kids in limbo, who can't be placed in permanent homes because they are not "desirable" enough in adoptive terms (i.e., they have physical/emotional/developmental issues), or because the courts don't see fit to terminate the biological parents' rights regardless of fitness. The reality is we have a whole lot of kids who are not being served by any social services net, or have fallen completely through the cracks of the system -- because the system is f*cked, and there isn't enough of one anyway.
While I sympathize with people who have addiction issues, is it responsible for us to say, "Well, o.k., so you're having kids you are physically incapable of taking care of and we're all going to look down on you, but we're certainly not going to do a damn thing to help you out. And they're your kids. You deal with 'em." (I'm assuming you've known people with serious chemical dependencies. While it's strictly I.M.E., I have never met anyone in recovery who genuinely felt they had been a good parent while actively using. Never. Have you?) Reality is we don't help people out enough, agreed.
And thanks to our socially laissez-faire attitudes, we wind up f*cking over a whole bunch of kids. And their parents.
I have stated I feel very ambivalent about this program, but I would need more information -- how do people who have been in this program feel about it in retrospect, did it also include referrals for getting people clean if they wanted to, follow-up care, are people being pressured? -- before I'd make any definite judgment on it one way or the other. The article linked doesn't really give enough of an overview (it's also a very biased article, so even though I agree with their concerns, I would want to see several different viewpoints on it).
Because I have (too much) time tonight, herearea bunch oflinks from varying sources with varying viewpoints of varying quality. The first one I included partly because the letter-writer refutes the contention that the "spaying cats and dogs" quote originated with Harris (but sources?). And this is Harris's Web site.
So in the meantime, [...] the reality is that the foster care system is filled to bursting with kids in limbo, who can't be placed in permanent homes because they are not "desirable" enough in adoptive terms
I think you've hit one of the focii of the argument, to mix a hideous metaphor. Society has conditioned itself to become much more insular, an "It's not my problem, I'm alright Jack" attitude. Comparisons with the very delineated society of 50-100 years ago are interesting, particularly the social and support structures of families and neighborhoods [1]; grandparents involved in children-raising, child development through activities such as playing on the street, tighter social bonding in communities.
(Which leads me off on a tangent; levels of depression (in a medical context) being apparently so high now compared to, say, forty years ago. Is it because it's now more widely recognised by the medical community? Or because people then were too busy to be depressed?)
While I sympathize with people who have addiction issues, is it responsible for us to say, "[...] they're your kids. You deal with 'em."
No, indeed, but I don't feel it's responsible for us to say either, "It's your problem and since you won't/can't solve it, you're gonna get removed from the gene pool because I'm too selfish to want to take care of your kid myself." I think we're in agreement here.
how do people who have been in this program feel about it in retrospect,
You listed a bunch of things that you wanted to look at, which I agree with (and thanks for the links). However, I'm not sure that talking to the subjects would yield any useful data; they'd be too subjective and without any sort of useful control group.
[1] I'm 1/4 American. I spell about 1/4 of my words in Amercianese. :^)
Personally, I think most of the world should have sterilizations right now, starting with the Bush family, every one of them. And if someone wants to pay them to get it done, more power to them. I have no problem with drug addicts being sterilized.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The charity is not forcing addicts to do anything. They are offering an incentive for addicts to do something which will benefit everyone. An addict has no way to take care of a child properly, and that is being charitable and assuming the child will not suffer birth defects because of the addicted mother.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
From:
no subject
At least, they **also** give people money to get a contraceptive implant...but I wonder if they subtly or not-so-subtly push people to get the sterilization procedure which is permanent and irreversible, instead of an implant which is neither.
There's also a matter of context. This is going on at the same time kids in HS are being told in "sex education" classes "don't have sex"...and very little else. If they want to keep people from having children they can't afford to raise, why don't they START with better sex education and freely available birth control? How about BC for anyone of any age who asks for it, and worry about paying drug addicts to get it later?
From:
no subject
On the one hand, it does sound a bit eugenist. And there's the issue of someone who's an addict being willing to do anything for money, and how exploitive this seems. On the other, drug-addicted babies and children left to fend for themselves by parents whose main concern is getting another fix...which is pretty damn compelling. And it is nominally voluntary, although such things have been court-ordered in this country before. Also of note: some men have agreed to vasectomies through the program, which I found interesting.
I used to know something about this woman's background, and would have to dig some more. As I recall, what spurred her to begin this was having been a foster parent to several children of addicts, but I could be wrong (could be thinking of someone else). I think I'll have to re-research this before forming any judgment, and even then I think it's a grey area.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Babies and children (and the sick, and the poor, and the elderley, etc) left to fend for themselves is as much a failure of society as it is the parents, but it's easier to blame the parents than look within ourselves; it's easier to demonise a crack mother.
From:
It's a book...here it comes
But our agreement upon that isn't the issue.
It's also possibly useful to note that in the US, more often than not, the social services systems and the courts actually work to keep biological families intact, regardless of whether it's in the kids' best interest (talk to a child advocate if you don't believe me; I know a few). It's easy to talk about the demonization of the mother, which is not something I'm inclined to do anyway FWIW (since I became a parent, my harsher judgment of bad parenting has softened), and looking within ourselves, but what the hell is going to be done about it? What IS being done about it, beyond introspection?
So in the meantime, while we're beating our breasts about whether some women are demonized as bad mothers, and how we should look within ourselves, the reality is that the foster care system is filled to bursting with kids in limbo, who can't be placed in permanent homes because they are not "desirable" enough in adoptive terms (i.e., they have physical/emotional/developmental issues), or because the courts don't see fit to terminate the biological parents' rights regardless of fitness. The reality is we have a whole lot of kids who are not being served by any social services net, or have fallen completely through the cracks of the system -- because the system is f*cked, and there isn't enough of one anyway.
While I sympathize with people who have addiction issues, is it responsible for us to say, "Well, o.k., so you're having kids you are physically incapable of taking care of and we're all going to look down on you, but we're certainly not going to do a damn thing to help you out. And they're your kids. You deal with 'em." (I'm assuming you've known people with serious chemical dependencies. While it's strictly I.M.E., I have never met anyone in recovery who genuinely felt they had been a good parent while actively using. Never. Have you?) Reality is we don't help people out enough, agreed.
And thanks to our socially laissez-faire attitudes, we wind up f*cking over a whole bunch of kids. And their parents.
I have stated I feel very ambivalent about this program, but I would need more information -- how do people who have been in this program feel about it in retrospect, did it also include referrals for getting people clean if they wanted to, follow-up care, are people being pressured? -- before I'd make any definite judgment on it one way or the other. The article linked doesn't really give enough of an overview (it's also a very biased article, so even though I agree with their concerns, I would want to see several different viewpoints on it).
From:
And also...
From:
Re: And also...
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
I think you've hit one of the focii of the argument, to mix a hideous metaphor. Society has conditioned itself to become much more insular, an "It's not my problem, I'm alright Jack" attitude. Comparisons with the very delineated society of 50-100 years ago are interesting, particularly the social and support structures of families and neighborhoods [1]; grandparents involved in children-raising, child development through activities such as playing on the street, tighter social bonding in communities.
(Which leads me off on a tangent; levels of depression (in a medical context) being apparently so high now compared to, say, forty years ago. Is it because it's now more widely recognised by the medical community? Or because people then were too busy to be depressed?)
While I sympathize with people who have addiction issues, is it responsible for us to say, "[...] they're your kids. You deal with 'em."
No, indeed, but I don't feel it's responsible for us to say either, "It's your problem and since you won't/can't solve it, you're gonna get removed from the gene pool because I'm too selfish to want to take care of your kid myself." I think we're in agreement here.
how do people who have been in this program feel about it in retrospect,
You listed a bunch of things that you wanted to look at, which I agree with (and thanks for the links). However, I'm not sure that talking to the subjects would yield any useful data; they'd be too subjective and without any sort of useful control group.
[1] I'm 1/4 American. I spell about 1/4 of my words in Amercianese. :^)
From:
no subject