Kimstu, did I say that? I don’t think anything I said even suggested that.
I’m responding to your “where do we draw the line” statement. And I asked you if you draw any line at all. It doesn’t sseem as if you do. Look Kimstu, all of life is a continuum. We all “draw lines” during our decision making every day and all day long. We may not be fully conscious of it all day but we can’t avoid it. To make responses like “where do we draw the line” or “who makes the decisions” is freally not to provide a meaningful response at all. Unless, of course, the response is that we do nothing.
What I am saying is that the position you seem to take is not addressing the issue at all.
No, I’m arguing in favor of the policy. I’m raising this in an effort to see where stand on the other side of this issue. Note, it’s not only the “rights” of the mother we are discussing here. So the question to you is - where do the rights of a child born as I have described overcome the objects you have to the policy described in the OP? Is there anyplace along that continuum where you would say that the policy is a good one? That’s the points I made and it’s not the ones you responded to Kimstu.
This is a very good set of questions, and there is a lot of good thought on both sides of this issue. Here’s my 2 cents. I agree that the money being offered to have the sterilization procedure/surgery done is not a good idea. It may have been patterned off some other countries that offered money or “luxury goods” years ago to men who chose to have government-provided free vasectomies to keep those countries’ populations down (India comes to mind). However, I do agree that providing free sterilization to those folks who really want it done but have no money to do so is a good idea, regardless of whether or not they are addicts.
In my work as a substance abuse therapist, I see a wide diversity in people’s insight. Many of my clients believe that they are great parents even when they are loaded, wasted, tweaked, high, etc.; these people would probably not take advantage of a sterilization program because they see no reason to stop having children. OTOH, some clients get to a point that they know they are hurting themselves and everyone close to them with their active drinking or using; some of these people may opt for a sterilization procedure if it was offered. Of course, it means they technically won’t be able to produce a biological child in the future, and perhaps the desperation in the moment of the pain of addiction may sway their decision. Many non-addicted people who opt for sterilization may also be swayed by emotional events happening in their lives, then later change their minds. It is made clear before vasectomies and tubal ligations that these are considerd irreversible procedures, and consents have to be signed to that effect before it is done.
Legally, I think there will be problems with CRACK’s sterilization program if (a) the person signs consents when still under the influence or while withdrawing from an addictive drug, or (b) if money is offered as an “incentive” for the procedure, given the typically short-range thinking of an active addict ($200 is a nice party for the evening or even the weekend); this could legally be considered coersion of someone who is unable to think rationally at that time.
And I really don’t think the program is racist or mean-spirited. I see people of all races and ethnic backgrounds seeking treatment for substance abuse. I do see it as an option one group wants to provide for the poor, however. Obviously, they are going to meet with a lot of opposition from certain individuals and groups. But at least they are trying to come up with some ways to solve a problem that is really out of control in some areas of the country. I’m not sure I would have any better solution, other than pushing for more TEMPORARY forms of sterilization, such as perfecting methods such as the transcervical silicone plug and similar methods. How would any of you feel about this group providing free hormone implants or contraceptive shots for the females (addicts or partners of addicts)? And where are the temporary contraceptive methods (other than condoms) for men? Anyone know of any?
but not when they result in paralysis.
Coke/opiate/meth/alcohol addicted babies start life with mental/physical handicaps and, given that their parents are addicts, the kid probably isn’t going to get much better. The money that should have been used to raise the child is going to go for dope.
The thinking of the parents is oriented toward short-term pleasure and does not consider the long-term consequences of their actions.
Given these problems, most people would agree that addicts shouldn’t have kids.
Given this situation, what are the alternatives? Counseling is great but isn’t going to get an addict to submit to a somewhat painful procedure. It also won’t get them to use condoms or practice abstinance enough to matter.
It appears that the only way to get an addict to stop having children is to sterilize them, and the only way to do THAT is to offer them an incentive that means something to them. Which leads us back to offering them money.
The $200 could be called a bribe, or it could be considered a reward for helping society. Either way, it achieves the desired result and there aren’t many other choices that I can see. Maybe someone who dislikes the “bribe” aspect could trot out a workable plan that reduces the number of children born to addicted parents.
So, addicts are not responsible for their actions when money is at stake? Using this logic, could you not say that taunting an addict with a bulging wallet was coercing him into mugging you?
Well, I’m not really impressed with the reasoning of why this is not ethical. Anyone has the right to choose to sterilize themselves, even gamblers and cancer patients. Paying $200 and advertising in poor neighborhoods is just good marketing. As long as people aren’t being forced to do it, I don’t see any problem with it.
But, do you care to explain the effective part for us? It is extremely effective. Instead of building a new wing on the hospital to care for all the crack babies, we can just prevent crack babies from being born. How is this not effective?
First of all, it isn’t just sterilization–“long-term birth control”, according to their Statistics page, also includes IUDs, Depo-Provera, and Norplant.
Second, IMO, anyone who can get it together enough to: write down a toll-free number, call it, leave a phone number or mailing address, collect their mail every day, realize what the forms that just came in the mail are and not toss them in the circular file, fill out the forms, locate a doctor or clinic that performs sterilizations or hands out IUDs or Depo-Provera on request, make the appointment, keep the appointment, remember to bring the forms to the appointment and have them filled out, get some kind of “proof” of drug or alcohol addiction (this is not specified, so it’s an additional brain challenge to figure out what this could mean), and then mail back all the forms to Project Prevention–anyone who is functioning well enough to accomplish all that cannot fairly be described as a “drug-wasted junkie giving his consent to sterilization but not really understanding what it means.”
It’s doubtful whether the average crack addict could even get past Step 1, “Write down the toll-free number”.
Not surprisingly, their statistics show that as of December 13, 2002, a grand total of only 824 women and 21 men have gone in for this.
So, given all that, it seems clear to me that the ball is entirely in the addict’s court. In order for this to succeed, the junkie must display an extraordinary amount of initiative. He has to do 100% of the running. Nobody is accosting junkies on the street and asking them, “Hey, wanna make two hundred bucks? All you gotta do is have your tubes tied, sign here…” They’re being referred through various substance abuse treatment programs, at which point in their careers their minds are presumably reasonably drug-free, and at which point presumably they’re capable of making reasonably rational decisions.
It seems to me that some people are assuming that every sane, normal adult wants to have children at some point, and that therefore people who opt for sterilization must be under the influence of drugs or otherwise not in their right minds. However, many sane, normal adults choose, for various reasons, never to have children–they just don’t have themselves sterilized. And according to their statistics, only 344 of the women chose Tubal Ligations, while 343 went for DepoProvera, 100 had IUDs, and 37 had Norplants.
And, it’s hardly racist, as so far it’s about equally divided between “white” and “black/Hispanic”.
I don’t see 824 women who were talked into having themselves permanently sterilized while they were on drugs. I see 824 women who knew they had a substance abuse problem, knew they would probably always have a substance abuse problem, knew that there would always be a risk that they would catch pregnant, biology being what it is, and took the two hundred bucks to do something that had probably been in the back of their minds anyway–get some serious birth control.
And over half of them chose reversible serious birth control. The low particiption by men can be easily explained by the lack of long-term birth control for men–only 21 guys, total, consented to be shooting blanks the rest of their lives.
It’s not an ‘effective way to impact the issue of children at risk’.
There’s thousands of children at risk in this country, for wide variety of reasons. THis program would only (marginally) impact some families where the mother is a crack abuser and has custody of her children and takes part in the program. As an ‘effective’ way to minimize the general classification of ‘children at risk’, I’d say it’s abysmally poor.
Other, more effective ways of assisting children at risk of being abused would include :
More CPS workers/supervisors.
More availability of short term emergency child care
More, and better educated foster parents.
and I’m sure there are additional ways.
Moreover, the last data listed here re: crack babies isn’t necessarily true it seems that many of the problems can also be attributed to low birth weight, being poor, etc. Moreover, unless you can demonstrate to me that there’s more pregnant women using crack than there are smoking during pregancy, I’ll continue to believe that the stated purposes of organizations and movements like that in the OP isn’t really care and concern over babies who may be born in less than ideal circumstances.
T2B1:No, I’m arguing in favor of the policy. I’m raising this in an effort to see where stand on the other side of this issue. Note, it’s not only the “rights” of the mother we are discussing here. So the question to you is - where do the rights of a child born as I have described overcome the objects you have to the policy described in the OP?
Yes, it is only the rights (and responsibilities) of adults that we’re talking about in this instance. Hypothetical people who have no actual existence, who have not even been conceived, do not have any rights in any meaningful sense of the term. There is no such thing as weighing the rights of a hypothetical child against the rights of the actual, existing adult.
I am saddened and distressed about the prospect of children being disabled in utero and after birth by the effects of their parents’ drug use, and I want us to do all we morally can to solve the problem. But we won’t do any good by employing silly, logic-defying arguments like ascribing rights to hypothetical children who don’t exist. “The rights of the potential children” is just a warm’n’fuzzy euphemism for “What we non-addicts think would be best.”
Drug addicts certainly have responsibilities as well as rights, like any of the rest of us. And once an actual child is born (or perhaps, according to some opinions and definitions, even once it’s conceived), then that child has a right to be protected from abuse and neglect. But when there is no child or even fetus in existence, then the discussion is only about the rights and responsibilities of the addict.
Is there anyplace along that continuum where you would say that the policy is a good one?
As I said, using the money to provide free counseling and referrals, free birth control (short or long term), free abortions and free sterilizations is all fine. I’m in favor of that for all poor people, not just drug addicts: more people will use birth control if they aren’t deterred by its cost.
Bribing people to use long-term birth control like Norplant, though I still don’t think it’s ethical, is significantly less unethical than bribing them to undergo irreversible sterilization. Again, however, the question comes down to this: do you consider these people capable of making responsible choices or don’t you? If you don’t, then don’t pretend that there’s nothing wrong with offering them money to get them to do what you want: you’re taking advantage of their diminished capacity. If you do, then why waste money on bribes, instead of using it to pay for more free birth control and free sterilizations so that more people can responsibly choose them?
Because in fact, drug addicts—especially the pregnant ones—do seek help and try to improve their lives. Look at the huge waiting lists for substance abuse treatment programs, particularly the perinatal programs (see documentation in the references to this article). I’d rather see money used to help the thousands of people who are actively looking for help than spent on cash bribes for sterilization.
I also find it curious that the CRACK program offers sterilization to abusers of illegal drugs and alcohol, but not tobacco. Tobacco addiction is certainly far more widespread than most other forms of drug abuse, and its effects on fetuses and infants can be just as bad, including higher risk of miscarriage, premature birth, physical and mental retardation, conduct disorder, reduced lung function, and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). Perinatal tobacco use injures or kills at least tens of thousands of infants and fetuses per year in this country; how come CRACK isn’t offering cash to smokers to get themselves sterilized?
except, eris the comparison between smoking/pregnancy and crack/pregnancy is quite a bit more on target than the comparison of car accidents/acid use.
In the smoking/crack comparison, we’re talking about drugs that have potentiall negative effects on unborn children. IN the case of smoking, we have vast amounts of evidence and vast amounts of pregnant women doing it, creating huge amount of risk for the actual pregnancies. and yet, CRACK is focusing all of this attention/resources on a much less documented problem that affects far less people.
as I suggested above, if the claim is that ‘we’re only doing this out of concern for these poor babies’, then the more efficient package would be to offer these services to women who smoke during pregnancy. Since they’re not, it leads me to believe that the intent is other than the totally altrusistic “let’s think about the poor crack babies”.
erl:Yes, CRACK is focusing on mothers who are simultaneously breaking the law and endangering their would-be children.
Then why don’t they put their cash-for-sterilization bribe money into desperately needed substance abuse treatment instead? That would help solve both the lawbreaking and the danger to potential children. (A woman who does not have any actual children and is not pregnant is not a “mother”.)
And it seems to me that if we really care about the poor potential babies, we should do all we can to get the addicts healthy and drug-free, so that their potential babies can be born healthy and raised with care and love. Surely that’s better than condemning the poor potential babies to never being born at all because their potential parents got sterilized.
I have two problems with your idea of “hypothetical children.” First the minor problem.
By your reasoning harm, in this instance, can never be prevented, only reacted to. Kimstu, you confuse the issue. The CRACK organization is not about “hypothetical children,” it’s about foreseeable children. Children yet to be born but children that will be born, maybe not to any designated person but born to someone nonetheless. Kimstu - by your reasoning aren’t we free to use up as much of the World’s resources as we desire today since tomorrow’s people are - well ‘hypothetical?’ We have all of the “rights” - No? Kimstu, don’t confuse the concept of ‘legal rights’ with the concept of ‘morality’ and the reasoned rights under that.
Now on to the major problem -
I may misunderstand you here, but it appears that by your logic we set the definition of ‘personhood’ at birth. At every point prior to that magic moment we have what you have termed a “hypothetical person.” By your logic it is not murder to reach in and kill a “hypothetical person” 2 minutes prior to birth. How can this be Kimtsu? Why does 2 minutes make all the difference? Your “hypotheical person” doesn’t make sense in this context. Life is a continuum and “people” emerge as human beings - with rights - as they develop in “mother’s” womb. To deny that is to support the proposition I just suggested above - and I hope you do not support that Kimstu.
Well, were do the “rights” of an unborn child begin? As we see (if we’re rational) they being well before 2 minutes prior to birth. I doubt we will find that clear dividing line in this instance so we will have to choose one. A boundary that best trades off the rights of one party against the rights of another party. In this instance, Kimstu, we have an innocent child (your “hypothetical person”) weighed against a “mother” who has decided to take drugs during pregnancy. Granted, the rights of the unborn child are ‘emerging rights’ - but rights none the less. So how do we weigh the rights of a person who made the decision to abuse drugs against those of a guiltless child (born or unborn)? Seems to be, Kimstu, that the burden falls on the person who caused the harm - No?
So, I’ll ask again. Do you really mean to say that an unborn has absolutely no rights until it is born? If not, when do these rights accrue. This issue is one that is integral to fully responding to the OP. At present, you argument appears to be made up of lopsided thinking.
I don’t know; I think that’s a good question. I’d support that, too.
Perhaps. In both cases it requires the person actually do something about it. Apart from the moral issue on the table it seems they both essentially suffer from the same shortcomings.
wring, I cannot answer those questions. I don’t know what possesses them specifically in this instance. Maybe the same thing that motivates certain highly specific charities (for things like breast cancer research, as an example) to target what they target instead of combatting all things that can be said to be similar, analagous, or in fact more important (which demands other questions, the least of which being the standard of judgment): because that’s how they’re doing it.
)