This morning’s DT carried a report on a heroin addict in the UK who accepted an offer from Project Prevention, an American Charity, to undergo sterilisation, for a reward of £200. They have apparently already paid 3,500 addicts in the States to undergo similar procedures, on a voluntary basis.
The usual suspects leapt up and down – morally reprehensible – social engineering – exploiting vulnerable people, etc., etc. “Women who use drugs can access all types of contraception free on the NHS, including a number of ‘long-term’ options” (i.e. sterilisation)
Given the near certainty of passing on their addictions to their children whilst in the womb, it seems to me to be an extraordinarily cheap way of bringing the vicious cycle to an end, or at least reducing it substantially.
The fact that drug addicts can access contraception for free on the NHS, clearly is not working, whereas a small cash incentive may well ignite their initiative and save the rest of us a fortune in the treatment cost of future generations of involuntary addicts, created thus, in the womb, without any choice in the matter. I am convinced that a cost/benefit analysis would come out clearly in favour of voluntary sterilisation for drug addicts being available with a reward of a suitable sum…
Boadicea's Chariot 
I’m sure some will argue that many drug addicts are ‘unfit to decide’ by dint of their habits. A few quid might represent the promise of a quick fix – at any price. How to decide which addicts are ‘genuine’?
The alternative is to legalise all drugs and let natural selection take its course. This is Bravo’s ‘Darwin Award’ theory and it has much merit.
OZ
It’s plain wrong. End of story.
They don’t deserve a reward, castrate them compulsarily and see how quickly the problem goes away!
David – What’s ‘plain wrong’, drugs or the sterilisation of druggies?
OZ
Sounds a good idea, and whilst they are at it why not start on the Indian sub continent for no reason at all!
Christina – Are you in a particularly (even for you) bad mood this morning? 🙂
OZ
Not at all OZ. Just fed up with the lemming like rush of the Western Hemisphere to doom their own civilizations with their touchy feely PC crap!
I’m all for eradicating any and all aggravations and threats to our future, not that I have any personal stake in it!
The world being overpopulated the more the merrier that are sterilised!
I’m very rarely in a bad mood that is why I garden!
Strange idea, would it work, not sure. best to give them lots of and let them OD. Perhaps.
Fair enough, Ma’am. As you wish. Is it safe to come out now?
OZ
From some of the reactions, both at the time, and above, one would have imagined the charity involved was promoting compulsory sterilisation…
Pity they weren’t!
While they are about it why not offer sterilisation to nicotine and alcohol addicts as well?
OK, so it stops women addicts from having children they cannot care for – but there are plenty of other women who have children they can’t care for. Should we extend the offer to those as well?
Where is the evidence that children of addicts become addicts? If that is the case, I hope that this offer will be extended to male addicts as well…
Boa, one my younger family members, a psychologist, worked on her weekends for two years on a voluntary basis, with recovering drug addicts at a centre for their rehabilitation in the Midlands. So I have more than a passing interst in their treatment, and possible routes to lessening the effects of their self-harming.
The heroin variants transfer to the child within the womb, and cause the child to become addicted before birth. Female alcoholics certainly cause damage to the child in the womb – I have no idea on the impact of smoking but suspect it is not positive in its effects on a foetus.
Rather than go through it all here, have a look at this link, which will fill in the picture:
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html
CW
I understand that any ‘drug’ taken during pregnancy can cause harm to the unborn child. And I have no problem with paying ‘unbaby-bonuses’ to men and women who seek to limit the numbers of their off-spring – indeed I’m with Christina here that the world needs to tackle over-population PDQ.
What I have a problem with is the idea that addiction is hereditary. It may be, but I’d like to see a great deal more evidence before those unfortunate to have drug addicts in their family being burdened with the notion that they, too, may go down that path.
Drug addiction genes have most certainly been identified, so to the extent that one inherits one’s genes from one’s parents, addiction can be considered hereditary where the genes involved are passed on. It is commonly seen in alcoholism.
There is plenty out there on the Web covering genetic involvement in drug addiction – here’s one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSHKG24467620080108
There is a world of difference between a drug addict responsible enough to know that he is incapable of looking after children competently, and so volunteering for one form or another of contraception, and Hitler’s plans, but I suspect you are well aware of that…
I do consider it almost a criminal offence for a couple who know in advance that their genes dictate that any child they have will be born severely mentally defective, and require to be looked after for whatever short life the infant may have, by the State’s Health system, going ahead, regardless, with creating children, “because they have the same right to a child as anyone else”.
So do I. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege.