[size=18pt]Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised[/size]

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.

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 the 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, team leader at Islington's Dovetail service which is part of Cranstoun Drug Services, 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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519

IMHO
i think its wrong simply because any strung up addict would do it, to get easy money to score more drug, not because they really want to.

there are many GOOD people who, thanks to one bad choice, becomes addicted to drugs TEMPORARILY. with the right help they finally go to rehab, clean up their act and become great human beings again (some will be addicts for the rest of their lives, of course).

the money will be better spent sending them to rehab rather than sterilizing them and sweeping the REAL problem under the rug.
- is that gonna stop them from robbing us?
- is that gonna stop them from having unprotected se-x?
- is that gonna stop them from possibly contracting deadly disease and infecting GOOD people?
- is having children really the main problem with drug addicts?!

there are many people out there that should be sterilized and THEY are not addicts.

^^^ Hi darrrrrling! [sub]I dont take no for an answer you know[sub]

@ Topic

I always say some people should not be allowed to have children and addicts are one of such people!

However, 'bribing' them is not the right approach. If you ask me, a known addict should be sterilized without giving a dime. With or wothout his consent. It shd be a law! Let's see if they won't get cured of their addiction by force.

^^^^^^lol, hey sunshine, you damn well know you wouldnt last a week but hey, the next time you pass by South America, i will be glad to take you out for a "friendly" drink.

btw, would you feel the same way if someone dear in your family (that you knew was a good person) became addicted to hard drugs?

^^ Addiction of any sorts is a vice. It's a weakness that should not be encouraged. Children should not be made to endure that just because the person in question is a loved one!

Not everybody is born to have children. If you can't control your substnce intake, how can you raise an off spring

Ps: You know how unlike poles attract? That's me and you!

^^^^^by substance intake, would you consider alcoholics as well?! have you never met people who would lose their minds while drunk and be great parents the next day?

i understand that its a weakness but we as human fall for many other weaknesses on a daily. just because this one MAY make a person unreliable shouldnt make them bad parents "forever" (emphasis on FOREVER).

some people become weak from LOVE and subsequently end up being unreliable parents because of that, others get weak due to stress/work etc, should we consider them for sterilization too?

shouldnt we give each and everyone of these sick people a chance to get better before wiping them out of the reproductive human population?

lol, do you really believe you could be comfortable with someone as open minded as i am? your principles and mine are completely different:
- i think you once said that keeping your exes as friends is a big NO NO while most of my exes are very close to me. how will you cope?
- not being able to kiss you PASSIONATELY in public (or wherever i feel the need for it)will be a big turnoff for me.
- having kinky se-xual encounter is part of my life. wouldnt you run away by the time i take you out to a public place and start handling you under the table?
- i expect my women to be fully honest with their desires and fantasies, you probably wouldnt.
- i believe that a spouse should become a freak in the bedroom in order to satisfy/fulfill her mate's desires, would you be ready to swing from the chandelier with a catwoman costume one?

and thats just for the se-x part!

^^^ Catwoman hanging from a chandelier? Boy the work 'freak' comes to mind. Okay maybe you are not the man of my dreams afterall!

But seriously, I put them all in the same level . . . Alcoholics, dopers e.t.c Remember, addiction is the word here. We all take alcohol but when it comes to the point when you can barely function or exist in real life because you are always puking your guts at the nearest gutter . . . that's a no no!

@Topic,Not a good idea.
What happens when the addict turns a new leaf?
Uju and MBJ . . match made in heaven.

MRbrownJAY:

IMHO
i think its wrong simply because any strung up addict would do it, to get easy money to score more drug, not because they really want to.

If they have such poor decision making process because they are strung up, why should be give them the liberty, when they are strung up, to raise kids which requires even more delicate decision-making and HUGE minute-by-minute responsibilities?

MRbrownJAY:

there are many GOOD people who, thanks to one bad choice, becomes addicted to drugs TEMPORARILY. with the right help they finally go to rehab, clean up their act and become great human beings again (some will be addicts for the rest of their lives, of course).

This is probably the only point that can make me change my mind.

That is if a majority are actually able to clean up and live normal lives. I don't have any figures but my gut feeling tells me very few addicts (less than 20%) are actually able to get over their addiction, and that is after loads of other people's money (e.g. tax-payers or family) is spent sending them to rehab for a vice that is most times usually their selfish, irresponsible choice.

MRbrownJAY:

the money will be better spent sending them to rehab rather than sterilizing them and sweeping the REAL problem under the rug.
- is that gonna stop them from robbing us?
- is that gonna stop them from having unprotected se-x?
- is that gonna stop them from possibly contracting deadly disease and infecting GOOD people?
- is having children really the main problem with drug addicts?!

there are many people out there that should be sterilized and THEY are not addicts.

It cost £200 a week for the UK govt to care for a EACH child in foster care. Imagine how this cost will reduce drastically if we give a one-off £200 payment to prevent these kids being born in the first place.

No one says it will solve all problems. We can deal with the prevention of suffering of innocent kids through this process. We can then allow police to deal with crime and health professionals to deal with diseases especially with the excess funds saved from not having to foster the kids they abandon.

Ujujoan:

^^^ Hi darrrrrling! [sub]I dont take no for an answer you know[sub]

@ Topic

I always say some people should not be allowed to have children and addicts are one of such people!

However, 'bribing' them is not the right approach. If you ask me, a known addict should be sterilized without giving a dime. With or wothout his consent. It shd be a law! Let's see if they won't get cured of their addiction by force.

LWKMD

I love the emotion behind this.

MRbrownJAY:

btw, would you feel the same way if someone dear in your family (that you knew was a good person) became addicted to hard drugs?

Any decision based on such emotions instead of objectivity, in my opinion, is not something I think should be taken seriously.

So we should not even jail people because their loved ones care about them?

They might even be a good person but, apart from if they got addicted to drugs/alcohol at a young age due to irresponsible parenting then, they are irresponsible people.

^^^ True!

Good or not, an irresponsible person is an irresponsible person. Why bring children into this world to suffer?

And if you do something wrong, you get punished for it. Irrespective of how 'good' you are.

Children don't choose their parents and they shouldn't be made to endure such abuse, just because their father or mother is a good/irresponsible person!

MRbrownJAY:

^^^^^by substance intake, would you consider alcoholics as well?! have you never met people who would lose their minds while drunk and be great parents the next day?

Great parents?

Till their next bout of drinks in a few hours?

Obviously, alcoholics will be to a lesser extent worthy of this approach (and I bet that is why you used them instead of a coke head), but there are alcoholic extremes that should definitely be put in the same category.

MRbrownJAY:

i understand that its a weakness but we as human fall for many other weaknesses on a daily. just because this one MAY make a person unreliable shouldnt make them bad parents "forever" (emphasis on FOREVER).

Yes, we all have weaknesses but unfortunately theirs is VERY detrimental to child raising so they should not have kids (that will come and live in pain and sadness).

Surely you don't put someone whose weakness is kleptocracy into a role of a Treasurer or bank cashier?

Furthermore, I bet stats will show (I stand to be corrected) that their addiction is usually for most long term. So high likelihood of long term unreliability and poor decision making (remember this is voluntary) justifies denial of parenthood.

MRbrownJAY:

some people become weak from LOVE and subsequently end up being unreliable parents because of that, others get weak due to stress/work etc, should we consider them for sterilization too?

Not even a valid point.

This is what is called trying it.

What proportion of people are this true of? 0.01% that will fall to the level of neglect seen from drug addicts? That is what you are using to justify an argument for a case of possibly over 80%?

Please stop trying it. Poor argument.

MRbrownJAY:

shouldnt we give each and everyone of these sick people a chance to get better before wiping them out of the reproductive human population?

That is a good point.

Give them 2 attempts at rehab, if they backslide on both, offer them money to castrate them.

ifyalways:

@Topic,Not a good idea.
What happens when the addict turns a new leaf?
Uju and MBJ . . match made in heaven.

Show me a figure that says majority turns a new leaf and I will change my mind.

The possibility that some very few irresponsible people might turn a new leaf does not justify bringing kids to the world to suffer and at great expense to others (family and taxpayers) that are responsible and care to make their lives even bearable, all in the name of protecting the irresponsible's so-called "rights".

@topic I dont think people should be incentivised for agreeing to sterilization if an addict, however, this may not be the most sophisticated methods of dealing with the problem but hey I am sure the brits have tried much possible to curb the problem.

Lets agree that its a lot harder for a clean responsible citizen to raise a child, what more for an addict. I mean a clean citizen works hard, pay his/her taxes, only to be used up by an addict in rehab and child fostering facilities meant for and addict that chose an easy way out of life. Not fair.

Hmmm, am just passing *no comments*

Sagamite:

Show me a figure that says majority turns a new leaf and I will change my mind.

The possibility that some very few irresponsible people might turn a new leaf does not justify bringing kids to the world to suffer and at great expense to others (family and taxpayers) that are responsible and care, all in the name of protecting the irresponsibles so-called "rights".

Please allow me to add on people who turn a new leaf. It is a known fact that addicts only recover but dont always do a 360 change. By so saying we can agree that there are no guarantees of a full change. Most of them actually have to be placed on relapse programme, this makes you wonder where would the poor children be by then living with an everyday false promises and hope that one day one day mom/dad will change. This can be too much for any child.

^^^ Not to talk about the fact that even after turning a new leaf most's mental capability is impaired due to the drug use. Which still limits their parenting abilities.

If an adult choice is to make a mess of their lives, then I think they should leave the issue of children out of that equation and prospect.

Being a drug addict happens by choice, not an accident. I'll forgive you if you were raised by an addict.

Sagamite:

If they have such poor decision making process because they are strung up, why should be give them the liberty, when they are strung up, to raise kids which requires even more delicate decision-making and HUGE minute-by-minute responsibilities?

do you judge people's ability to have kid at their lowest?! should we also sterilize pros-titutes because they accept to be defecated on etc? should we sterilize everyone who has done things that may have impaired them to be great parents FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME? then drug addicts will be the tip of the iceberg.

the US has a crack epidemic that we European dont have, bringing the "solution" (if it ever was a solution) to THEIR problem in countries in Europe is, in my view, wrong.

This is probably the only point that can make me change my mind.

That is if a majority are actually able to clean up and live normal lives. I don't have any figures but my gut feeling tells me very few addicts (less than 20%) are actually able to get over their addiction, and that is after loads of other people's money (e.g. tax-payers or family) is spent sending them to rehab for a vice that is most times usually their selfish, irresponsible choice.

i think the numbers are much higher also what you have to understand is that only a small % of addicts are the ones who are strung up on cash, selling their soul for a fix. many have jobs, juggling from their family/work life to their drug life. also many use crime to get their daily fix and therefore will probably never need this £200.

It cost £200 a week for the UK govt to care for a EACH child in foster care. Imagine how this cost will reduce drastically if we give a one-off £200 payment to prevent these kids being born in the first place.

i understand what you mean but, as i said earlier, using this tactic to have people sign on for this scheme is wrong. thats just my humble opinion. i know MANY who would also sign on out of desperation, if you asked them: asylum seekers, beggars (people in financial difficulties) etc

No one says it will solve all problems. We can deal with the prevention of suffering of innocent kids through this process. We can then allow police to deal with crime and health professionals to deal with diseases especially with the excess funds saved from not having to foster the kids they abandon.

these kids only suffer because of the drug addiction, if they'd invest all this money into eradicating drug addiction instead then the problem of these children will be solved.
many children of immigrant/asylum seekers are in foster care also,should we sterilize all immigrant/asylum seekers etc too to solve THAT problem?

we are talking of LIFE here and no matter how down someone may be at a particular time of their lives, we shouldnt automatically strike them out OR use that to blackmail them into doing something they dont really want to do.
go to any immigration center and ask all the people in there if they would accept being sterilized before being granted permission to enter and see how many desperate people would accept.

lets look at it the other way around and take this money to put these addicts on a substitute drug to wean them off their drug dependency.

Great parents?
Till their next bout of drinks in a few hours?

nevertheless great parents, what they do at the dead of night is irrelevant. yes, some people are hardened alcoholics but we damn well know that they will use that 200 to go and get smashed, would you live with yourself knowing that someone died/OD thanks to the 200 "booze/drug" money you gave them?

Obviously, alcoholics will be to a lesser extent worthy of this approach (and I bet that is why you used them instead of a coke head), but there are alcoholic extremes that should definitely be put in the same category.

i use them because they are also addicts who may be impaired "at a certain time" to be great parent. believe mei can show you many people who, due to their actions wont be viewed as great parent, should we take them all to the sterilization route?!

Yes, we all have weaknesses but unfortunately theirs is VERY detrimental to child raising so they should not have kids (that will come and live in pain and sadness).

come on bro, i understand what you mean, i am just trying to make you understand that: even if the little few can rehabilitate, shouldnt we give THEM a chance rather than eradicate them all from the reproductive population?!

Surely you don't put someone whose weakness is kleptocracy into a role of a Treasurer or bank cashier

surely you dont judge/stigmatize/categorize someone that may have made a mistake ONCE, for the rest of their natural lives!

Not even a valid point.
This is what is called trying it.
What proportion of people are this true of? 0.01% that will fall to the level of neglect seen from drug addicts? That is what you are using to justify an argument for a case of possibly over 80%?Please stop trying it. Poor argument.

yes that was "somewhat" a bad example but nonetheless valid.
not ALL people using drugs are bad parents?! we already concluded that only a small percentage of drug users fall into this "bad parenting" zone JUST LIKE a small percentage would lose their parenting skills due to other reasons such as love/stress or what not.

That is a good point.
Give them 2 attempts at rehab, if they backslide on both, offer them money to castrate them.

thats a start. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sagamite:

Any decision based on such emotions instead of objectivity, in my opinion, is not something I think should be taken seriously.

So we should not even jail people because their loved ones care about them?

They might even be a good person but, apart from if they got addicted to drugs/alcohol at a young age due to irresponsible parenting then, they are irresponsible people.

the IMPORTANT word was GOOD as in: if you knew that person was a good person addicted to drug. would you automatically send them to the "electric chair"(sterilization) simply because they fell with the wrong crowd?

here is a clue: many women out there start using drugs because of their bf.

also we HAVE to use our emotion in dealing with this problem because we are not talking about someone who killed another human being, we are talking of someone who has a disease, someone who NEEDS help, someone who wouldnt do what they are doing knowingly!

Ujujoan:

^^^ True!
Good or not, an irresponsible person is an irresponsible person. Why bring children into this world to suffer?

And if you do something wrong, you get punished for it. Irrespective of how 'good' you are.

Children don't choose their parents and they shouldn't be made to endure such abuse, just because their father or mother is a good/irresponsible person!

you have to look at the REASON for their "irresponsabilities" before judging them. YES, they shouldnt have children while strung up on drugs, NO, they shouldnt be void from the reproductive population.

SA Lady:

@topic I dont think people should be incentivised for agreeing to sterilization if an addict, however, this may not be the most sophisticated methods of dealing with the problem[b] but hey I am sure the brits have tried much possible to curb the problem.[/b]

Britain doesnt have the kind of drug problem that the US has so this methode may be good in the States but definitely not in Europe.

when was the last time anyone in Europe saw crackheads like you see in ALL US cities?! yes they are there but not as widespread as in the US!

MRbrownJAY:

the IMPORTANT word was GOOD as in: if you knew that person was a good person addicted to drug. would you automatically send them to the "electric chair"(sterilization) simply because they fell with the wrong crowd?

here is a clue: many women out there start using drugs because of their bf.

also we HAVE to use our emotion in dealing with this problem because we are not talking about someone who killed another human being, we are talking of someone who has a disease, someone who NEEDS help, someone who wouldnt do what they are doing knowingly!

you have to look at the REASON for their "irresponsabilities" before judging them. YES, they shouldnt have children while strung up on drugs, NO, they shouldnt be void from the reproductive population.

Huh @emboldment

^^^^imagine person A is a great parent, suddenly falls on hard drugs and start neglecting herself, children, friends and family. do you think she is doing it knowingly?!

if you understand what a disease is(and the strength of drug addiction), you would understand the above bolded part.

MBJ being good does not translate to being responsible! Infact in my opinion, no responsible person, no matter how 'good' falls a victim of drug addiction!

I'll rather have a responsible parent than a 'good' one.

What drugs do is cloud you mind, damage your brain and mar ability to function effectively. Having a child live through that is just plain wicked!

As for the thinking that the 'could' change, that's just grabbing at straws! What if they don't? Are you willing to take the risk?

I still think it should be a law. They shd be made to choose. Offsprings or estacy (or wotever it is they get from it). That's fair if you ask me! Then we can judge how 'good' they really are!

MRbrownJAY:

the IMPORTANT word was GOOD as in: if you knew that person was a good person addicted to drug. would you automatically send them to the "electric chair"(sterilization) simply because they fell with the wrong crowd?

Amsorry, where did anyone say drug addicts should be put in the electric chair?

MRbrownJAY:

here is a clue: many women out there start using drugs because of their bf.

And so?

They have no free choice? Or is it that they lack a brain?

If they are retarded enough to ruin their lives because of a bf, why should we allow them to bring a child into the world to ruin the child's life or make it suffer?

Sorry, but taking drugs to please a bf does not improve their image in my eyes.

MRbrownJAY:

also we HAVE to use our emotion in dealing with this problem because we are not talking about someone who killed another human being, we are talking of someone who has a disease, someone who NEEDS help, someone who wouldnt do what they are doing knowingly!

Yeah, we are using emotions.

Our emotions says no one that has done nothing wrong should suffer because of some other irresponsible person's choices.

If someone knowingly takes drugs to feel excitement/solve a problem/please a bf whilst they are adults, I am sorry, I have limited emotions for them. Make wise choices in life. And if you don't, fine, don't let others suffer because of it.

MRbrownJAY:

you have to look at the REASON for their "irresponsabilities" before judging them. YES, they shouldnt have children while strung up on drugs, NO, they shouldnt be void from the reproductive population.

I would look at the reason.

Then I would look at the reversal options. If the reversal options are not promising, then I will look at the future.

The future where hardly no child has to suffer for their parents irresponsibility or even (at generous best) parent's misfortune.

SA Lady:

Huh @emboldment

I multiply this by 10.

The statement shocked me too.

MRbrownJAY:

^^^^imagine person A is a great parent, suddenly falls on hard drugs and start neglecting herself, children, friends and family. do you think she is doing it knowingly?!

if you understand what a disease is(and the strength of drug addiction), you would understand the above bolded part.

"Suddenly falls on hard drugs?"

Amsorry, she fell of a tree and landed on drugs?

She did not knowingly take it?

Ujujoan:

@ Topic

I always say some people should not be allowed to have children and addicts are one of such people!

However, 'bribing' them is not the right approach. If you ask me, a known addict should be sterilized without giving a dime. With or wothout his consent. It shd be a law! Let's see if they won't get cured of their addiction by force.

LOL Uju you are a meanie. you didnt even show them any mercy

@ topic

tough call. BRB

Sagamite:

I multiply this by 10.
The statement shocked me too.

"Suddenly falls on hard drugs?"

Amsorry, she fell of a tree and landed on drugs?

She did not knowingly take it?

people, you actually think that people who take drugs KNOW that they will get addicted? they most think that they can control it. none believe that they will be addicted in such a way that they will neglect their loved one and themselves.

also many start with the simple marijuana puff (which many will say is inoffensive) only to search for a bigger "buzz" and thus try harder stuff NOT KNOWING the power of addiction that such hard drugs have.

if you'd ask100 addicts, 99.9% will tell you that they thought they could control it!

Sagamite:

Amsorry, where did anyone say drug addicts should be put in the electric chair?

sterilization is no better than the electric chair WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING CHILDREN.
unless we can prove without a doubt that these addicts will be bad parents for life, then IMHO this procedure is wrong.

And so?

They have no free choice? Or is it that they lack a brain?

If they are retarded enough to ruin their lives because of a bf, why should we allow them to bring a child into the world to ruin the child's life or make it suffer?

meaning that some people would use drug for many different reason. should THAT mistake be taken as a death sentence or a sign of an irresponsible parent? if that person can function perfectly under the influence of drugs (which most do) then why should we automatically ostracize them?

Sorry, but taking drugs to please a bf does not improve their image in my eyes.

its to show you that many start taking drugs for different reasons thus should be judge in different ways rather than saying "he who take drugs is guilty and punishable by death". yes they are guilty but let us give everyone a second chance to redeem themselves!

Yeah, we are using emotions.
Our emotions says no one that has done nothing wrong should suffer because of some other irresponsible person's choices.

you make it sound like all children of drug addicts suffer?! lol

If someone knowingly takes drugs to feel excitement/solve a problem/please a bf whilst they are adults, I am sorry, I have limited emotions for them. Make wise choices in life. And if you don't, fine, don't let others suffer because of it.

i am sure there are many people who USE to take drugs, stopped, clean their act and became great parents.
none of us are perfect human beings and we ALL make mistakes along the way of life and hopefully learn from our mistakes. castigating all addicts because of a mistake of judgment they made is IMHO wrong.

MRbrownJAY:

people, you actually think that people who take drugs KNOW that they will get addicted? they most think that they can control it. none believe that they will be addicted in such a way that they will neglect their loved one and themselves.

also many start with the simple marijuana puff (which many will say is inoffensive) only to search for a bigger "buzz" and thus try harder stuff NOT KNOWING the power of addiction that such hard drugs have.

if you'd ask100 addicts, 99.9% will tell you that they thought they could control it!

Amsorry!!!

They did not know it was addictive?

So they were aware it could be addictive but still took it?

And I am suppose to feel sorry for their moronic choice? I am suppose to see reason in it?

Choices, mate!!!

^^^^^bro, they may have been aware of the damage it could cause but thought they were psychologically stronger (like they most do) and thus started using.

just like with anything in life, there are dangers but we think we can handle them. driving a car is DANGEROUS if you put it in the hand of the wrong person. just as drinking alcohol etc

would you therefore blame the alcoholic for having that first drink KNOWING that they could have been addicted to the pleasure alcohol brings to some?!