Sounds like a great idea to me.
What if the program was for sterilizing the mentally ill? In my mind, it’s pretty much the same concept. And yet we’d never dream (I hope) of offering a “deal” like this to people who are not in a position to make thoughful rational decisions, and who very well may live to see a normal life in which they might want to have children. Heck, I may well end up in a loony bin one day, and I’d be pretty pissed if I came out sterile.
Plenty of ex-drug addicts go on to live productive and meaningful- and overwhelmingly normal- lives. Heck, a drug addict could even end up as president. But imagine how damaged and terrible that ex-drug addict would feel if she made a stupid decision in her youth that robbed her forever of her ability to have children. Surgical sterilization isn’t even generally offered to young people because it is such a momentous decision that so many come to regret. If it’s not good enough for our daughters, why is okay for an addict?
I’m not opposed to offering free long-term birth control (why arn’t IUDs being offered? In a world with IUDs there are very very few occasions for surgical sterilization) but paying people for it still seems a little creepy.
Coercive eugenics.
One of the other things that leads me to the coercive side -
Most healthy, sober 20-something women can’t get tubal ligations for love or money, because they might change their minds. Doctors won’t perform them as the idea* is that those women haven’t really thought through the consequences of their actions.
But a woman of the same age, if she’s an addict, (which to me probably says she’s demonstrated she doesn’t always think through the consequences of her actions) can not only have one - she gets paid to do so?
Smells fishy.
[sub]*IMHO it’s a flawed idea. But that’s the idea behind it[/sub]
Ever seen the households of children born to drug addicts? I have. It’s not a pretty sight.
Do we really want more hungry mouths to feed living in ghettos? I sure as hell don’t.
Some say it’s coerced eugenics. Maybe so. But I think in this case the end justifies the means.
My main worry is with the informed consent issue. I’ve never been an addict, or talked about this issue with someonewho is (and most of those I know in that boat are men, anyway). Even if you’re offering the long-term contraception issue, is someone who is willing to make a decision while in such a desperate situation mentally stable enough to do so and thereby give proper informed consent? To what extent is she really in control of her own actions, apart from the decision whether to continue doing drugs?
So, if the “coercive” argument is that these women aren’t mentally capable of making informed decisions about this sort of subject, doesn’t that make it all the more imperative that these women not be mothers? Yeah, they might sober up and regret getting sterilized. They also might sober up and regret starving their infant to death because they were too high to remember to feed it.
Also, if we accept that women have a right to determine their own reproductive futures, under what other circumstances (besides drug addiction) is is acceptable to deprive them of this right?
So you advocate sterilizing ghetto dwellers? They’re not the only, or even the majority of addicts or alcoholics. In fact most “ghetto” dwellers aren’t even addicts. Yes, they do have a higher percentage of addicts in their population than the 'burbs, but it’s still far lower than 40% of the population.
So who do you want to sterilize? Addicts (many of which will have high-priced attorneys at their disposal) or poor people? Or just the poor addicts?
I’ve delivered babies and taken care of them and their parents in inner-city populations. Drugs exact a terrible price. But so does mental illness and poverty. Yet people recover from all three things.
QtM, MD
First of all, I’m talking about giving cash incentives, not strapping anyone down to a table kicking and screaming.
I think it would be more ethical just to give sterilizations out for free to people who would make bad parents. This would remove the worries about taking advantage of addicts who can only think about getting their next fix.
Well, the mentally ill are born that way.
Myself, I used to do all that stuff years ago. Hell, most everyone I know who used to do that stuff is fine and normal now. (twitch twitch).
Far more people quit on their own than ever enter rehab. If you live/work in Cal with people in their 30s, early 40s I can guarentee you you work with at least a few people who used to do that crap at one point in their life.
It is necessary though to draw a distinction betwen opiates and what this girl is said to be using. Opiates, just like alcohol, are physically addictive; biologically assimilated. Coke, crank, meth; these are obsessive and compulsive addictions. You dont develop a physical tolerance over time. Not that it really matters; even heroin users chose to put that needle in their arm the first time, and the second, and the third…
It was her choice to start taking the stuff in the first place. She didnt just spin out of space and land in the body of a crack freak.
I have no problem with it as long as its a private transaction between the users and a private company. I would have a problem with it if it were some sort of parole condition/plea bargain or something.
As for those who say its exploitation, well of course it is. Shes exploiting their concern for children in order to get their money. Theyre exploiting her desire for drugs in order to get her to stop having kids. I call that a win-win situation. Both sides go away happy. Hell, all human interaction is a process of mutual exploitation. You buy food, the farmer exploits your need for food; you exploit his need for money.
People that addicted, in my opinion, really just want to commit suicide but dont have the nerve to do it all at once. Far be it from me to be so pompous as to claim I know best how others should live. Just give them some room so they dont bump into anyone when they fall is all that matters to me.
I think there is a certain element of coersion here. Not that money is slavery, but you’re taking someone who is in need and offering them something in return for the money. If you’re desperate enough, you’ll do most anything for money…
Imperative? For whom? I think it’s preferable to work on sobering people up and reducing drug addiction - sure beats letting someone else decide who should and shouldn’t have children. Or decide who to just ‘encourage’ not to have children.
I think that’s an excellent question, though I think I’m on the opposite side of this issue from Miller. I have to say nobody should put a woman in a position that compromises this right.
Probably wasn’t your intent, but that’s quite racist.
Similar question: If you’re against this program (and I’m pretty undecided, myself), would you be against one of these women having access to an abortion? I ask because that’s another decision that they could come to regret if/when they get clean.
Julie
But, I think what you’re saying is that the women should lose their right to decide to be sterilized for money because someone else (people against the program) decides they aren’t capable of making such a decision. Am I misreading?
Julie
I think that’s what Miller said. But he seems to support the program. I was looking into it from sort of a slippery-slope angle: when does society have the right to take away a woman’s right to choose? Seems to me you can argue anyone who is an unfit mother should be sterilized, or encouraged to, should you so choose.
My answer to the question is “never.” There’s no circumstance in which ‘society’ or whoever is allowed to deprive a woman of her right to choose. I pity anyone whose parents are crack addicts, but I can’t stomach the idea of assigning these kinds of major decisions in people’s lives to other people or government agencies (and I’ve said this on other threads).
Well, I’d say it’s imperative for the putative children they might have, which are placed at risk of serious birth defects, neglect, and outright abuse because of their mother’s drug dependency.
Side issue: what about a similar program for sterilizing male drug addicts? Somehow, I doubt the dating pool for crack addicts isn’t much larger than “other crack addicts.” Vasectomies are cheaper and easier than tying a woman’s tubes, and it doesn’t matter which partner is sterile.
But, and here’s where I get confused with your argument, her “right to choose” includes “choosing” to get sterilized, doesn’t it? For whatever reason? Even if it’s for cash? Even if she might regret it later?
So, if you think the woman is being coerced, do you think that her decision isn’t really one that she should be able to make?
Julie
A woman has the right to choose to go get sterilized any time she likes. What bothers me about this idea is that some women are being targeted and encouraged to be sterilized.
True, but then people get targeted and encouraged to do things all of the time.
Overweight people are targeted to lose weight, to use an example.
Does it make sense to “target” the population where you observe the problem to be? I am not making a claim about the validity of the observation in this case; but in general does that make sense?
Julie
I didn’t read the whole article, but is there a pay differential between having a tubal and getting Depo? (I’m assuming if there was, more women would have gone with the snip.) If so, I could see it being coercion to make a permanent decision under duress. But calling free Dep or Norplant for those who choose it Hitleresque is just way off base.
Roughly two-thirds of the women in this program have opted for non-permanent options. This way, if they ever get clean and stay clean, they can then pop out all the kiddies they want undeterred. Or not, as they choose. Either way, their freedom of choice hasn’t been impaired, but the babies they choose to have won’t be born addicted.
Oh, and Miller, I’d guess the program is targeted at women because you don’t see a lot of male “crack ho’s” who presumably sleep with non-addicts. (I mean, why would a male addict spend his drug money on a ho?)
I can’t read the whole article. I can’t seem to access Salon. But Depo (at least the kind I’m familiar with) only works for 3 months. Then what?
Julie