Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

[Marian]

Latest post of the previous page:

Not sure how far away Greenwich is. If Nick is willing to drive it, I'd be happy to come out that way. What do you think Nick? I love marine museums, btw. My grandfather was the captain of a ship that sailed along the St Lawrence River and the Atlantic coastline to the West Indies so it's in my blood

[Nick]

I spent my 50th birthday in Greenwich It is easily do-able, and we should certainly jiggle our schedule to fit in a visit to Paolo & Melissa

[Fia]

Just popping in to say that I'm very jealous of you off-topic-ers
When I lived in Deptford/New Cross and worked in the ad industry I [*]shamefully admits[*][/i] used to say I lived in West Greenwich...

[Marian]

I spent my 50th birthday in Greenwich It is easily do-able, and we should certainly jiggle our schedule to fit in a visit to Paolo & Melissa

Loverly!!!

Big hugs for Fia. You could come with

[jaywhat]

off-topicers says Fia, unless you are all substance abusers meeting up in the backstreets of London to be sterilised.

[Marian]

off-topicers says Fia, unless you are all substance abusers meeting up in the backstreets of London to be sterilised.

Hey! Who told you that secret? I wasn't telling anyone that is the real reason for my trip to London...

[Alan H]

Article in Time magazine on Project prevention: Why Drug Addicts Are Getting Sterilized for Cash

[Alan H]

A blog post by a GP: Project Prevention – just so wrong

[Alan H]

Now in Glasgow: BBC News - Woman offered '£200 to be sterilised'

[Gurdur]

There is a difference between use and abuse of substances. Few people make an active choice to abuse alcohol or drugs, usually abuse is a result of other underlying problems that are socioeconomic.

No. Socioeconomics does not determine who abuses opiate/alcohol drugs, it only determines which particular drugs of that class they usually abuse. Harder and less socially acceptable drugs like heroin or cocaine are most definitely a matter of choice no matter what class someone comes from. Other more socially acceptable opiate/alcohol drugs like alcohol tend to be things people fall into but can still exercise a choice whether or not to recover from them.

There is nothing about drug abuse that is overhelmingly compulsive from the word go for anyone who is not suffering from something like untreated schizophrenia or bipolar syndrome. Or in other words, anyone who is normally in possession of their mental faculties is not compelled to become a drug abuser. This has been detailed again and again by professionals working in the field of drug abuse.

The one and only time socioeconomics could be said to play any large role in the actual abuse is in the case of socially isolated communities where a large-scale culture of learnt helplessness exists; and even there it is not determinative, only an underlying factor, and choice still plays the determinative factor.

And here it is also very important for various reasons to distinguish between substances like the opiates/alcohol/cocaine on the one hand, and things like Ecstasy, sugar, nicotine and so on on the other hand.

From a eugenicist's perspective, drug abusers can be reasonably conflated with an "underclass",

No, not "reasonably". Very often, the role of drug abuse (including alcohol) among working class and lumpenproletariat is magnified out of proportion by those with an interest in scandal or likewise. Sometimes drug abuse is actually very much a factor in the creation of a real "underclass", but various internal and external cultural attitudes also build such an underclass.

The conflation of drug abuse per se with any underclass is always wrong, and of course ignores the whole world of rich man's drugs. Cocaine, for example, in any near-pure form is very much a rich man's drug, and the immense sums of money pumped out -- by choice -- from so many Americans in the USA outwards to criminal gangs in Mexico, Central and South America is the thing that has twisted South American economies and created whole new problems.

so sterilising them (rather than addressing the underlying reasons) becomes a means to reduce the genetic contribution of people who a eugenicist might consider to be inferior (or genetically predisposed to substance abuse). This is selective outbreeding.

It would be if:

a) drug abuse of that type was genetically determined to any significant degree;
b) and class membership was genetically determined to any significant degree.

Neither premise is true. But nor would socioeconomics change much all by itself, since that again makes just as wrong presumptions as eugenicists of that type do.

Dispersing assisted housing among housing for higher-income brackets, so as to avoid for example the creation of large housing estates in bleak conditions, is one socio-economic deed that would help, and it would help mainly by giving those in assisted housing more access to services, and less chances for boredom and the creation of large groups of twattishness.

But disregarding the role of choice in drug abuse is a fatal mistake when dealing with actual abusers. As is disregarding thrill-seeking and boredom.

Whether or not this campaign is of any worth is difficult to say. However, we can all agree it is the potential mother's choice at all times.

[Dave B]

Just popping in to say that I'm very jealous of you off-topic-ers
When I lived in Deptford/New Cross and worked in the ad industry I [*]shamefully admits[*][/i] used to say I lived in West Greenwich...

I used to live in Catford and work in Lewisham. Went to Greenwich many times, but not for about 30 years now. Guess it has changed a bit?

[Paolo]

It would be if:

a) drug abuse of that type was genetically determined to any significant degree;
b) and class membership was genetically determined to any significant degree.

Neither premise is true. But nor would socioeconomics change much all by itself, since that again makes just as wrong presumptions as eugenicists of that type do.

Well, I would say that class membership and drug abuse may not be genetically determined (although there could conceivably be a genetic component to addiction) but that doesn't mean that there are no filters which skew the genetic profile of a class. Clearly the upper classes have been implementing a selective breeding programme for many generations and the poorest people tend to have restricted geographical movement (not counting immigration as a founder effect). If a eugenicist decides that anyone who isn't of 'noble' blood shouldn't reproduce then this programme fits their agenda.

Whether or not this campaign is of any worth is difficult to say. However, we can all agree it is the potential mother's choice at all times.

RAmen to that.

[Alan C.]

Time for a resurrection.

Monsignor Canon Bob Reardon, a senior member of the Catholic Church in Wales, said not only did the Church oppose the plan because it went against its moral teachings but he believed it also infringed on the human rights of addicts.

Catholic Church and morals shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
Cash 'bribes' to stop junkies having babies causes ethics storm

[thundril]

Reardon's specifies that the church's 'moral' objection is confined to the use of contraception per se. In other words, he's not saying that the RC church has anything to say about the ethics of the matter in hand specifically. Typical.