Sterilization Offer to Addicts Reopens Ethics Issue

Great Debates
61

erl: Apart from the moral issue on the table it seems they both essentially suffer from the same shortcomings.

Maybe, but the moral issue is what this thread’s about, so that’s why I’m stressing it.

T2B1: By your reasoning harm, in this instance, can never be prevented, only reacted to.

Wrong. By my reasoning, in this instance, harm can be prevented, but the prevention of harm has to be addressed via the rights and responsibilities of actual people, not by ascribing imaginary “rights” to potential people who do not exist.

I may misunderstand you here, but it appears that by your logic we set the definition of ‘personhood’ at birth.

You misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that whether we set the definition of “personhood” at birth, at conception, or somewhere in between, we cannot set it before conception.

Life is a continuum and “people” emerge as human beings - with rights - as they develop in “mother’s” womb.

That’s a matter of opinion; some people think the rights and “personhood” accrue all at once at birth, while others think they accrue all at once at conception. I happen to agree with you that it’s more of a continuum, with rights and personhood increasing along with fetal development (and the courts, as it happens, tend to think so too).

Well, [where] do the “rights” of an unborn child begin?

Again, it’s a matter of opinion. You and I agree that a fetus has at least some “emerging” rights and personhood during prenatal development.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with my point that un-conceived hypothetical “children” do not have rights. They can’t have rights, because they don’t exist, not as babies, not as fetuses, not as any form of life whatsoever.

What behavior we should require or encourage in drug addicts who are pregnant—that is, where there is a fetus in existence whose life and well-being we want to protect—is another issue. What we are discussing here is the moral aspect of bribing non-pregnant women (and men) to accept sterilization or long-term birth control. This practice does not apply to substance-abusing women who are pregnant. No responsible doctor would provide sterilization or long-term contraceptive drugs to a woman who is currently pregnant.

62

Yes.

63

I can’t see how this is a problem. The addicts are given a choice of sterilisation OR using one years worth of temporary birth control. Both choices gets them their $200.

If they don’t want to be sterilised but still want the $200 they can go on long-term birth control. What’s better, I’m assuming they can come back next and have another go if they opt for the long-term BC.

From the organisations website:

I see no reason why an addict, hoping to have children in the future when she expects to be clean, opting for a non-permanent option.

64

Yes, it is.

No one is arguing that this program should be the sole solution to every problem regarding children in the land. But, the drug addicts who don’t have a child they cannot support are very affected by this program.

There are drug addicts who were pumping out a baby every year that no longer are because of this program. You claim that this only marginally impacts the family in question?

And this program interferes with these other things how exactly? Again, no one is arguing that we disconinue all existing programs besides this one. You’re grasping.

I’m afraid that you lost me here. What is the secret agenda of this program if it isn’t concern over babies who may be born in less than ideal circumstances? Seems to me that is exactly what the concern is. If you have evidence of something else please tell.

65

Kimstu -

Either you didn’t understand what I was saying or you ignored it. Here is why your idea called “hypothetical people” does not apply to this situation and here is my quote on the matter to refresh your memory -

I’ll rephrase this in the event it was not understood - using ‘compare and contrast.’

First Kimstu, here is a situation where your “hypothetical child” makes some sense. – John and Sally plan to have a child. Here the child is “hypothetical” because John might die tomorrow, Sally might change her mind, or John might be sterile.

Here is why your “hypothetical child” does not make sense in the situation we are discussing. Unlike the ‘John and Sally’ situation, here we are dealing with a ** population of people, not a single set. ** The power of the sex drive causes people reproduce. This is as certain as the sun rising in the morning. Therefore, we are not dealing with a “hypothetical” set of people but a foreseeable set of people. These people WILL happen.

The analogy in my prior post brings this home. – If you still maintain that future, “hypothetical” people have no “rights,” than it would seem that you see no harm in using and abusing the World’s resources and environment in any way we (the alive ones with the “rights”) see fit. That is, if ‘future people’ have no rights we are free to poison the World if it brings an advanage to us.

And my last statement in the quote suggests where your confusion may lie — it comes from your use of the term “rights.” You seem to be confusing ‘legal rights’ with morality. Just because I have no personal ‘legal obligation’ to feed a starving man or save a drowning child does not make this the correct choice. In that sense we have an moral obligation to the foreseeable people that will suffer if we do nothing. And that, my friend, is what the OP asks from us in this debate.

66

Yeah, I think it is pretty much assured that people will be having sex and getting pregnant as a general proposition. This doesn’t seem to be particularly hypothetical reasoning.

67

T2B1: *If you still maintain that future, “hypothetical” people have no “rights,” than it would seem that you see no harm in using and abusing the World’s resources and environment in any way we (the alive ones with the “rights”) see fit. That is, if ‘future people’ have no rights we are free to poison the World if it brings an advanage to us. *

Wrong. As I have been saying over and over, living, actual, rights-bearing people also have responsibilities. We do not have to postulate imaginary “rights” for non-existent future people in order to conclude that the existing people of today are not morally “free to poison the World” and should not be having babies while addicted to drugs.

In that sense we have [a] moral obligation to the foreseeable people that will suffer if we do nothing.

Indeed we do. The question is whether that obligation is really best served, and legitimately served, by offering cash for irreversible sterilization to drug addicts who need money. The answer, IMHO, is no. What we ought to be doing in the best interests of these “foreseeable people” is not condemning them to perpetual non-existence by trying to sterilize their potential parents, but providing more help and support so that the potential parents can get clean.

As I say, I’m all for making it easier for people to make responsible reproductive choices. But claiming that addicts aren’t capable of making responsible decisions about childbearing while simultaneously claiming that they are capable of making responsible decisions about sterilization, and therefore it’s okay to offer them bribes to get sterilized, is sheer manipulative hypocrisy. Especially since, as we’ve noted before, the same tactics are not being attempted with, say, smokers, who can damage fetuses and infants just as badly as crack abusers, and are doing so in far greater numbers.

68

Well, my interest is piqued.

69

This isn’t the government mandating people get sterilized. This is a tax-exempt organization that uses donations to help distribute birth control to drug addicts. That in & of itself is a good thing in my opinion.

I know, someone is going to jump in & say that the only kind of birth control we should reccomend to addicts is condoms because they also prevent STDs (hypothetical STDs :D). And it’s immoral to offer them $200.00.

Using birth control when you are in no position to raise children is a responsible thing to do. If you’re doing a responsible thing, does it matter what your motivation is? Is it immoral to offer people a reward above & beyond the benefits they will receive from doing the responsible thing? Yes, it is treating them like children. It is manipulative, yes, but not immoral.

And to the whole “pre-natal crack isn’t really bad for babies, it’s all the other stuff”: Drug use can be viewed as an indicator here. Most people who use drugs don’t go to a dentist or doctor unless they’re dying. Most people who use drugs don’t eat very well, drink enough water, get enough exercise or do anything that could be called taking good care of their health.

70

If you take the money out of it and simply offer free voluntary sterilization and birth control, I’m all for it. Plus, as you didn’t waste $200 per person on a questionable bribe, more can be done overall.

Sterilization has to be 110% voluntary or it can drift into eugenics.

I’m surprised this is an issue, anyway, given the piddling birth rate in the West. More pressing population matters lie overseas.

71

Why?

72

erislover
I also said:

73

So basically, you just covered your ass by saying it both is and is not immoral? :smiley:

74

Is it immoral for a doctor to give a child a lollipop after a visit?

75

I guess the question, when you boil it down is this:

Is it immoral to coerce someone into doing something that can ultimately do them no harm and can serve a positive purpose overall?

Put me in the camp that says no. Not only do I believe that in this case, if it is coercive, that’s okay, I also know from personal experience that the money involved is not necessarily going to go to buying someone more drugs.

[ Warning: Anecdotal Evidence Ahead ]

I’ve worked (doing vocational seminars) with an organization that runs a methadone program. The people who were in the program were in no way ready to become parents. Of the 300+ women who were served while I was involved in a hands-on capacity, only one was capable of holding a job. One. (She was an assistant manager at an Old Navy store. The head manager was a 20+ AA person who believed in second chances, bless her.) That woman happened to have been in the methadone program for five years and was on a tiny maintenance dosage, but swore up, down and sideways that without that little taste of pseudo-narcotic every morning, she’d be on the streets searching out a fix by lunch.

That woman sought out Crack’s $200 deal on her own, having seen something about the organization on television. (The program refused 1000% to promote Crack.) She wasn’t having irresponsible sex – she was sober, working her program faithfully with nary a slip in more than three years, and married to a man without a drug problem. But that cash incentive helped her this way – she put it toward repairing some of the damage she did to her teeth during her period of drug use. She felt that the appearance of her teeth branded her as a junkie, and that if she could fix that, it would go a long way toward helping her to move to a lifestyle that would help her to not feel like she needed that tiny bit of methadone every day lest she backslide.

I haven’t seen her in the context of the program in a while (I haven’t done a seminar since having Baby tlw last summer, something I need to rectify soon) but I have seen her a couple of times at her place of work, and she is still on the right track – and now she’s able to smile without shame. If she was coerced by $200, I’m glad. It’s done a world of good for her.

76

Crack whores should be sterilized whether they like it or not.

77

A few random, unconnected and somewhat peripheral observations:

  1. erislover says: “Is it immoral for a doctor to give a child a lollipop after a visit?”

Not relevant, considering that the child didn’t know about the lollipop beforehand, was presumably not desperate for the lollipop, and was not thereby convinced to engage in a potentially very threatening procedure: doctors’ visits are not generally the most dangerous thing in the world.

  1. Wouldn’t the offer of $200 make it more likely that some women’s boyfriends/husbands/whatever would force them into sterilization and pocket the cash themselves? Considering that there’s a correlation between abusive relationships and drug addiction, I think it’s more than somewhat irresponsible of CRACK not to worry about this sort of thing.

Oh, and Virgowitch: Welcome to the SDMB. :rolleyes:

-Ulterior

78

What if the addicts who were sterilized were offered the option of free artificial insemination should they one day clean up and want to have kids? Would that not solve the moral dilemma?