Here is the scenario (I understand this is happening in the US but I have not confirmed anything):

A private organization gets together and obtains private donations to fund their program. They advertise that they will pay men and women over the age of 18 $300 to voluntarily have themselves sterilized if they are active drug abusers.

They do not recruit, they advertise. They do not approach anyone, the drug abusers read the advertisements and go to the program on their own. They must prove they are active drug abusers, they will be paid $300 for submitting to the procedure of being sterilized. They will never be able to have children again.

The medical procedure is done by licensed medical providers in a local hospital with all the advantages of modern medicine. The procedure is paid for via private dollars, not tax dollars.

Is this morally objectionable or the correct moral decision?

I know of quite a few people who were drug addicts at one time, who have become productive citizens and do not use drugs anymore. I have written in another thread about the person that Tina and I consider one of our closest friends, who once was a crack addict and has become a wonderful mother and a decent provider. She is married to another reformed addict and neither one of them has used drugs for over 15 years and they are raising 4 children.

I can also recount many others who screwed up when they were young but are doing well now.

This program is wrong (IMHO) because, it will be utilized mostly by the poor and minorities, because others will pay for their habits. The average American pictures coke addicts (that includes crack which is a form of coke) as poor Blacks. Almost 90% of coke addicts are white and many are Wall Street and Hollywood types. Is Britney going to take the $300?

It is also anti-female. While they might offer the money to both genders, I will venture a guess that females would be the primary victim, I mean patient.

Punishing people for life for a mistake early in life is wrong. This is a shortcut around civil liberties and a slippery slope towards eugenics.

I'm happy for your friend that kicked drugs and is raising four happy, healthy children. But I disagree that she was somehow not responsible for any of her actions while actively abusing illegal drugs. If she would have consented to this program it would have been of her own free will.

This program is wrong (IMHO) because, it will be utilized mostly by the poor and minorities, because others will pay for their habits. The average American pictures coke addicts (that includes crack which is a form of coke) as poor Blacks. Almost 90% of coke addicts are white and many are Wall Street and Hollywood types. Is Britney going to take the $300?

BTW, I'm not going to turn this into a race issue. I don't give a crap if someone is black, white, purple, or green. The issue here are drug abusers, regardless of color.

...Decades ago as a social worker, I was involved in the intricacies of a case...

Isn't it interesting to see the perspectives of those that have worked with the children that have to live with the choices of their parents?

I've taken care of 2lb drug addicted children, children prostituted out for drug money, children so severely sexually abused that they will never have children of their own... and all in the name of making sure we don't force personal responsibility on people.

Obviously, I am not referring to the MR gal you are speaking of. I'm talking about people who make a personal choice to put themselves in a position where they might make decisions for themselves that they would otherwise perhaps not to do.

Link Please...:welldoneclap:

Please read the opening post again.

I think if the organization really cared about the addicts and the chance they may conceive children while addicted, they would pay for temporary sterilization and offer them assistance to find treatment.

One of the problems of drug addictions or chemical addictions is that people don't want help. You can take them to a treatment facility, you can force them to participate, you can keep drugs from them, you can force the entire program on them. As soon as they walk out of the treatment facility they are back to using drugs.

It's like smoking, someone has to be ready to quit before they can. All addictions are that way. It's easy to sit back and say just give them treatment, but the MAJORITY of time, treatment does not work. So offering treatment really isn't an effective measure here.

Lots of people get "down on their luck" so to speak. Someday, they may beat it, and want to have a family and leave their past behind them.

Lots of people have children while addicted to drugs and it is these children that are subjected to the "rights" of their parents to do illegal drugs.

I think it is ironic that we have no problem with them getting preggers and raising a child while supposedly incompetent but it's not okay to use sterilization because they don't know what they are doing.

And again, I never said that. I personally think that people addicted to drugs should be put in prison or a treatment facility while they are pregnant, and be forced to give up all responsibility for the child. I do not think that it's okay for them to get pregnant or raise a child while addicted. I also don't think it's alright to take advantage of someone's addiction and have them sign something that will affect their entire lives while they can't think clearly.

What's wrong with paying them to be temporarily sterilized? I would think that would solve both our problems. They wouldn't be able to have children while addicted and they would still be able to have children after they kick the habit.

And again, I never said that. I personally think that people addicted to drugs should be put in prison or a treatment facility while they are pregnant, and be forced to give up all responsibility for the child. I do not think that it's okay for them to get pregnant or raise a child while addicted. I also don't think it's alright to take advantage of someone's addiction and have them sign something that will affect their entire lives while they can't think clearly.

What's wrong with paying them to be temporarily sterilized? I would think that would solve both our problems. They wouldn't be able to have children while addicted and they would still be able to have children after they kick the habit.

And again, I never claimed you said that. I was speaking sacastically for society. I never said you claimed anything. I used the word, 'we'. As in society.

I don't think they should be put in prison, that would be against their civil rights. I'm not advocating that at all. I am adovating not protecting people from themselves while we protect future children.

How do we temporarily sterilize someone?

I think offering free sterilization would be great - for anyone who might want it. Paying people to be sterilized is problematic for me. I think it reeks of exploitation.

It's a hypothetical situation.

No it isn't. I read about a group doing this a few years ago and saw the person running the program on either 20/20 or one of the other similar shows.

It is bad netiquette to not provide a link. Two links to discussion matter provided below:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/bioethics/9906/ethics.matters/

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/04/08/crack/index.html

One of the problems of drug addictions or chemical addictions is that people don't want help. You can take them to a treatment facility, you can force them to participate, you can keep drugs from them, you can force the entire program on them. As soon as they walk out of the treatment facility they are back to using drugs.

And another problem is that people who do want help can not get it when they want it.

My niece was a crack addict. I tried to get her into a rehab. She had no phone in the place she shacked up in. I made arrangements with a rehab to take her in as soon as she was detoxed. I would call every day from my home to the detox center to see if there were any female beds available. Finally after three weeks, they said they had a bed and I could bring her down after they spoke to her. I jumped in my car, drove the 20 minutes to where she should be, dragged her, half-asleep out of the burned out building she was living in and put her on a pay phone in the middle of a drug infested neighborhood (pre-cell phone). They asked to speak to her. I heard her answer about 4 or 5 questions and finally she said to me, "They said that I do not qualify". I asked to speak to them. I asked why my niece didn't qualify. The person on the other end told me that they asked my niece how often she used crack and my niece answered "3 or 4 times a week".

"The minimum is 4 times a week" the voice on the phone told me. “Good by!”

They had a bed not being used. There was a person who wanted to be saved. But the system had no compassion and did not care.

My niece died of AIDS almost two years ago at the age of 39 leaving behind 6 children. She prostituted herself to support her addiction. It was her fault that she was an addict, but the "War on Drugs" has a hollow sound to my ears.

It is bad netiquette to not provide a link. Two links to discussion matter provided below:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/bioethics/9906/ethics.matters/

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/04/08/crack/index.html

No it isn't. I didn't make claims I could not back up. I explained that I understood this to be happening but I had not confirmed it. No bad netiquette there in the least.

What really gets me is that your opening posts is a faux to make people beleive that you are interested in their opinions. The fact is that you had your mind made up on what you believed to be right and what you believed to be wrong. Honestly, you haven't been interested in one thing anyone has had to say. You were just looking for an argument.

What really gets me is that your opening posts is a faux to make people beleive that you are interested in their opinions. The fact is that you had your mind made up on what you believed to be right and what you believed to be wrong. Honestly, you haven't been interested in one thing anyone has had to say. You were just looking for an argument.

Feel better now?

This isn't the "Ask Abby" section, this is the debate section. Since I posted the topic obviously I had thought it through. Just because I have thought it through does not mean I shouldn't post the topic for discussion with others.

I have changed a great many of my opinions over the years by posting on message boards. That's how it works. You post your thoughts, I post mine, if your posts outweigh my own thoughts on a topic I change my mind.

If you are looking for feel good threads that don't challenge you, this might not be the best section. But I don't see you that way at all. Just because 99% of my posts are not "I agree, yes I agree" does not mean I don't think about what others have to say.

There is no discussion going on here. It is everyone gives their opinion and you stomp it to the ground. You seem confrontational and respond as if noone elses points are valid.

Debating a topic is different than looking for an argument.