paying drug addicts to get steralized?

[Lynda/WA]

A private organization has been offering drug addicts that already have a couple of children money to get steralized. People are taking them up on it for 200-500$s. Planned Parenthood has spoken against the program.
Good plan or not?

[Jeff]

I think it sets the organization and the states who allow it up for liability issues. If one can avoid responsibility for their actions while under the influence of legal or illegal drugs, then I would think they could shift the responsibility as well.

[Lynda/WA]

I never thought of it like that. But since the money is offered as a sort of *reward* after having it done do you still think that would apply? It's not like they are taking druggies in when high and having it done right away. Especially since in order to get anesthetic in the first place she would have needed to not be high. I don't think the hospital would consent to it if she wasn't in a *sober* state of mind? If she didn't want it done she should have realized at that point when she was in a right mind. The money may be an incentive (especially to a druggie) but she did still have free will and as clear of a head as a druggie can get when not high. (granted she's probably already missing a few brain cells!)When I had my tubal we needed to fill out the forms on a different day from surgery. The reason was to give you a second chance to think about it.

[Meri D]

This orginization is giving these people money and perorming the operation for free!! Does that really make sense? I mean getting the addicts to consent to the sterlization procedure is a good thing because then you don't have babies who are born with the hunger for the drug that their mother was hooked to..but on the other hand if you are giving a drug addict money as well as the procedure who is to say that they aren't going to use that money for more drugs for themselves and in turn neglecting the children that they do have, or for that matter giving the drug to their children?!

[Mickey]

I agree with Jeff regarding the liability issues as well as the shifting of responsibility.

And while I think drug addicts should DEFINITELY stop having babies and this appears to be a step in the right direction to help with this problem, I'd be concerned that this program would lead to legal problems because people on drugs do things (like prostitute themselves) for money that they wouldn't do if they weren't an addict.

Also drug addicts are considered people with disabilities. Would it be OK to pay mentally retarded people not to have children? The ones I have worked with are considered "legally competent adults" and viewed as capable of making medical and legal decisions for themselves.

I just don't think it's a good idea.

[RCT]

I also think its a bad idea....what do they think that these people are doing with the money they recieve to be sterilized? and what about the children they are already raising? do they pay them to take them away for money too? just doesn't sit well with me...JMHO :tinysmile

[Lynda/WA]

I don't think the private organization is paying for the sterilization. I think the government is doing that. Nobody came right out and said that but I got that impression from things the organization's spokesperson said. One example she cited was a case in WI. The woman already had a couple of children that had been taken away from her (3 or 5). This baby was born with severe medical problems. The cost of keeping this baby alive for a couple of days was either 4 or 40 million. Don't remember which. The baby still died. The comment was made that this was at taxpayer expense. The mother stated in a newpaper interview that she intended to have more children. The organization's spokeswoman said they contacted her and it costed them 500$. That tells me they weren't paying for the actual surgery. Mine costed way more than 500$!

So if they aren't paying for the surgery how can they be liable for it? They are paying a reward for having it done. If an agency pays delinquent kids an incentive to go to school would they be liable if something happened at the school?

And if we are going to say they can't be held reponsible for their own decisions, should they even be allowed to keep these children? I mean if a druggie can't make a decision whether they should be sterilized on their own, then how can they hold a child's life and all those decisions in their hands? They at least had to be *sober* when making this decision. At home they will be allowed to make decisions for a baby while high.

And if we aren't going to consider them responsible for their own actions since they have a disability, then will we even hold them responsible if they kill the baby?

As for mentally handicapped people. This org only pays rewards to drug addicts. They are concerned about babies being born drug addicts.

They do cases where the previous children have already been removed from the parent by the government. I guess this is proof that the druggie won't mend their ways upon becoming a parent. There are no more children to worry about with that parent.

They freely admit the money is probably used on more drugs. But then these are mainly welfare recipients that get money from the government and that's probably used on drugs as well. You could almost say that as taxpayers we already are paying for their drug habit. If you give money to a homeless person that probably will use it one drugs are you reponsible for what they choose?