She has her daddy's eyes and her mother's heroin addiction
“She has her daddy’s eyes … and her mummy’s heroin addiction.”
That’s an actual tagline from an advertising campaign created by Project Prevention, the organisation targeting drug addicts in the United Kingdom and United States and bribing them to get ‘sterilised’. That usually involves permanent birth control methods like vasectomies, tubal ligation (tying tubes) and some long-form devices like IUDs.
Addicts get $300 for submitting themselves to operation and, according to Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris, the knowledge they’ve prevented further unwanted pregnancies and the birth of children who might themselves have drug-related defects.
She started the Project after adopting babies born to drug-addicted mothers. She has
adopted six babies under similar circumstances.
Critics say Barbara’s mission is a form of human rights violation, stripping people of their right to reproduce without their informed consent.
At last count (this month) the organisation has paid 4,097 to be sterilised. Most of them were women.
According to their website:
The main objective of Project Prevention is public awareness to the problem of addicts/alcoholics exposing their unborn child to drugs during pregnancy.
Barbara Harris founded Project Prevention
Project Prevention seeks to reduce the burden of this social problem on taxpayers, trim down social worker caseloads, and alleviate from our clients the burden of having children that will potentially be taken away.
Unlike incarceration, Project Prevention is extremely cost effective and does not punish the participants.
We seek and welcome alliances with all sectors of our communities including drug treatment programs, hospitals, social service departments, among others, and have established such contacts throughout the United States.
Project Prevention does not have the resources to combat the national problems of poverty, housing, nutrition, education and rehabilitation services. Those resources we do have are spent to PREVENT a problem for $300 rather than paying millions after it happens in cost to care for a potentially damaged child.
Barbara Harris has hit the headlines again, this time in New York, where she put her case:
“I think it’s really important for people to understand that the majority of women we sterilize are women who have had multiple children and don’t want anymore,” she told the Daily News. “It’s their decision.”
“And to say, ‘Let’s go ahead and let them keep having babies because one day they might decide to clean up and keep one?’ It’s just not fair,” she said. “And it’s preventable.”
Harris said that the last 20 women she paid to get sterilized had been pregnant a total of 121 times.
“Thirty were either aborted, stillborn or died after being born,” she said. “Seventy-eight are in foster care.”
The article continues, however:
Betsy Hartmann, director of the Population and Development Program and professor of Development Studies at Massachusetts’ Hampshire College, has accused Project Prevention of “thinly disguised” racism.
“Project Prevention mainly targets women of color,” Hartmann wrote on philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Foundation’s blog.
“Essentially, while it targets specific vulnerable populations, it is trying to build support for eugenic and population control measures.”
Barbara wants to expand the ‘service’ to Kenya and possibly Ireland and Haiti.
Does this seem like a good idea to you? Is this a caring solution or a violation of human rights?
Comments
130 Comments so far
The baby bonus is vastly more money, and I personally know people who had babies just because of the amount of drugs the baby bonus can buy. This is sooo much better.
loading...
They are giving their consent for this operation to take place so it’s not being forced upon them. This isn’t a violation of human rights. No one is forcing them to go to the clinic and take the money for the sterilization.
loading...
yes they are giving their consent, however it could be argued that the addicts are not in a sound frame of mind to give that consent and that particular time.
loading...
how does barbara think the 300 will be spent? that is what bothers me
loading...
As long as the parents are harming themselves and not their children, who cares?
loading...
Eugenics really scares me, because it really is a violation of rights, BUT.. I am so tired of having to muster compassion day after day for people who have unwanted children and put their own addictions and wants before the needs of their blameless, precious children. I know that addicts are actually ‘wounded children’ on the inside and need help too.. but.. at the end of the day.. adults are capable of making changes if they want to but little children rely on adults for absolutely everything. They don’t deserve to be born to a mother who refuses to care for them. I agree with comment below – i have two kids under four and cannot imagine how on earth I could possibly look after them if I was an addict.
loading...
I’m with you Tracy.
loading...
Remember Tracy, she’s not offering people $300 to kill the addicts. She’s offering money for a person to have a permenant contraception method IF they want it. It’s not saying that they’re worth less or shouldn’t exist, or that their children shouldn’t exist. It’s trying to solve a problem/cycle.
Given the cost of contraception/doctors/terminations/etc in the USA, and the mind state of drug addicts (not known for their responsibility), unplanned or unwanted pregnancies must frequently occur and turn into unplanned or unwanted children that they’re not equiped to look after. It’s therefore a great option – and only an option. Not eugenics.
loading...
This and the other article a few weeks ago about “does everyone deserve to have children’ really bother me.
It seems to me that there is a very middle class attitude pervading this site, but pehaps that is its demographic.
So maybe some people dont deserve children, but those children deserve to be born. Who are we cutting out here? Do we really believe that successful people only come from white middle class background? Children from very diverse backgrounds make the world what it is.
Please spend five minutes to think about what comes after this. People in war torn countries not having kids to save the children from hurt? Parents in famine affected areas being sterilised.
I think this topic really feeds into the fear and guilt that Parents now feel if their children are not involved in all the right extra curricular activities, with all the right equipment etc, that only certain kind of kids grow to be successful, NOT SO!! Adversity can be positive!
Kids who dont have it all can still become amazing, resilient, worthwhile members of our society. please dont kill them off before they have a chance to shine.
loading...
They are not talking about ‘killing them off’ – they are talking about preventing their conception. Big difference. And I think it’s a great idea – no child deserves to go through drug withdrawal at hours old. Listening to a drug addicted newborn scream for drugs is no picnic.
loading...
BRAVO to Barbara Harris. I’m pretty left-of-center in most political matters, but I completely agree with this program. I hate the idea of children being dragged into abjectly miserable circumstances by their moronic/f-ed up parents. It’s the parents’ choice to be addicts. But drug addiction and children are an either/or proposition in my mind. No one should be allowed to have both.
loading...
I think this is a idea. No one is being forced into it – it’s their right to have children if they want, and their option to have permenant contraception if they want (as this scheme provides).
Health care in America is unbelievably expensive, and drug addicts aren’t known for their overwhelming finances or steller organisational skills. So for a drug addict to afford/arrange contraception (and be in the state of mind to use it effectively) or to afford/arrange a termination seems like a difficult ask. This is a great way to manage that situation IF the person wants it.Great idea.
loading...
Rick, thanks for not pre-judging this topic with your article tone.
I know a woman who has 8 children, all conceived in the pursuit of drugs. She is unable to care for any of her kids, and they have been handed off to other family members or the state.
Surely someone like this would be better off with permanent birth control.
loading...
I think this is a good idea. Yes, I believe everyone initially has the right to have a child, but when you make life choices that are so clearly awful, you lose that right. The statistics Barbara gives simply concreted her case, in my mind. No child deserves to be born into a situation where they are unloved or not given the best possible start that their parents can give them. Being born into the home of an full-blown drug addict, or being born with an addiction yourself – neither of these are normally indicative of a happy and healthy life following.
loading...
I think we have to remember that health care is not free in the US like it is in Australia. It probably saves them he money sterilization and long term contraception would cost. I don’t think being a drug abuser comes with health insurance.
I can see its not a bad thing if someone has had a lot of kids already. After all most people drug users or not, want to end child bearing at some stage. However if a client has had only 1 or no kids, then I’m uncomfortable with it. I would hope these people are offered long term contraceptives instead. I would also hope age is a consideration. Eg younger clients being offered contraception etc.
loading...
I believe project prevention offer both sterilisation and birth control methods.
loading...
I have often wondered what a human life was worth. Three-hundred bucks? When I was deep in my drink’n, I’m not sure I would have taken Ms. Harris up on her idea but I might of taken her purse and her car. Today, I’m over eight-years sober. I needed help and got it. No one feed my addiction with pocket money. Someday I will be a real old man and maybe a burden to society. I wonder what the elite like Ms. Harris will have as a solution for people like me.? Death camps perhaps.
loading...
I have a girl friend M who has three foster children in her care – three siblings aged 3, 4 and 6 born to drug addicted parents. She’s had them for 2 1/2 years, and the mother now has decided she wants two of the three back (apparantly she just doesnt like the 4 year old). The mother has not undertaken any of the prescribed drug addiction therapies or psych analysis as required by DOCs, and is still being physically abused by her partner. At first DOCs said no to her claim, but she has pulled the race card and now has aboriginal activists involved and fighting her case. The mother has 3 other kids, which live in other foster homes, and one living with another family member.
These kids are so damaged, not just by being born as heroin addicts, but by seeing their parents live like this, by being exposed to drugs and sexual abuse and violence on a regular basis. If this program was available in Australia I can only think that it might prevent a woman in this situation from having 7 unwanted children.
loading...
For many years I worked down the street from a methadone clinic. My employer was located between the train station & the clinic. Every morning we would see the stream of clinic patients filing past our office, and shortly afterwards filing back to the local pub for the beer chaser that intensified ‘the buzz’ I was told. Words can not describe my feelings at seeing so many women with 3, 4 or 5 children (with another on the way) obviously not more than 12 months apart in age. Poor scrawny little mites being dragged along by chain smoking, drug addicted parents who had little or no patience for the slow pace of toddlers. Then the thing that nearly broke me… a five year old being left in charge of his 4 siblings (including a babe) outside in a busy street whilst the parents are in the pub! That day I came within a hairs breadth of being a child stealer, instead I went back to the office and sobbed. I was informed by someone more worldly in these matters that heroine & methadone make them ‘horny’ hence all the unwanted children. I became a regular at the police station across the road whenever the children were left unattended but it did little good, they were always back again the next day… different children – same problem. I wondered then why a birth control implant was not a provision of methadone treatment. Whilst I don’t agree with permanent sterilisation in every circumstance, I believe whole heartedly that some solution must be found. If you had seen what I have you would not be arguing about the rights of the parents, they have to make their own decisions. The poor little children do not need to be dragged into their mess.
loading...
Heroin and methadone do not make someone horny. They just make you tired, relaxed and/or nauseous. That “more wordly person” was full of it. I’ve had both of them. If you’re an addict, the absence of withdrawal symptoms may do the trick, but otherwise not. Speed users may feel “Hornier” but may not be able to finish the job. I’ve also come across heroin users (junkies) that have erection problems.
The unwanted pregnancies is usually the result of concentrating more on the drugs than contraception.
loading...
I’m sure we’ve discussed this on mamamia before.
I don’t mind covering it again because it would have been a while ago..am I right or just going crazy?
loading...
See below, it was two years ago! But that was my first thought too.
loading...
Ha, no, we did two years ago
I mentioned it a little further down in the comments.
loading...
Bring it on! I stood outside the clinic in Perth with a friend who was having a naltrexone implant and there were a few kids there. One father made the comment (while smiling at his daughter), “you better get used to these places honey because this is where you’ll probably end up” and then smiled at her! After seeing (through this friend) the absolute squalor some of these kids live in, I can’t think of anything better for addicts – kids who sit in their own shit for days, crying because they’re hungry and not being responded to, being dressed in nothing in the middle of winter, knowing the only 3 words at 3 years of age, “chips”, “coke” and “taxi”.
My kids are so much work that I can’t imagine having to manage an addiction on top of them, let alone being wasted and trying to care for them.
loading...
The use of the term informed consent cuts both ways most of the pregnancies do not happen with informed consent (that is they haven’t made a conscious decision to have a baby) so don’t push the bulls..t line that this type of program is taking away these unfortunate souls rights the last thing they need on top of an addiction is a child and the child doesn’t need it either.
loading...
And to think you need a licence to drive!!
loading...
If it’s voluntary, what’s the fuss?
loading...
I totally agree with this scheme. It’s about time someone did something productive and didn’t use the ‘human rights’ excuse to pussyfoot around it.
loading...
As a student nurse/midwife I just finished a clinical placement in a Special Care Nursery at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne.
Let me tell you, if you’ve ever heard the cry of a baby who is withdrawing from heroin, you’ll agree that this initiative is a good idea.
loading...
A baby who is having acute heroin withdrawel is being poorly managed from a nursing and medical perspective, approprite use of medication ideally would minimize the symptoms.
loading...
A newborn baby shouldnt have to be managed with “appropriate use of medication”……
loading...
Its a common hospital policy that babies need at least 3 consecutive high NAS scores to be considered for morphine or paracetamol. I’ve seen babies with the highest possible dose of morphine for their weight and still rigid as a board and in agony.
loading...
AS (abstinence syndrome) is not always immediately apparent and sometimes there’s a bit of fiddling to get a dose right with a known case of it. The cry of baby with AS is pretty bad regardless of if they’re being well medicated.
loading...
When my then 10 month old was in the children’s ward we had 2 babies going through withdrawal in the next room. It was heart breaking to hear their cries. I thought the cry of my sick baby was distressing but that was nothing compared to the pain in a withdrawing babies cry.
loading...
When I was a nursing student I cared for a 18 month old baby who was born prem with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The baby needed to be hooked up to oxygen through a trachiostomy (tube in the throat) because he couldnt breath and therefore had never left the inside of the hospital before. he had never had the wind in his hair or felt the sun on his face, nor he probably never did (he more than likely would have died by now). The mother did not visit and the staff provided his clothing and cuddles. It broke my heart seeing this dear little boy struggle to breatheveryday and suffer trachy changes and trachy suctioning regularly just so he could breath. That was the one boy, there was another boy in the same room who had the same condition but not as severe but severe enough to have never been outside of the hospital. It was so sad at how this boy’s whole life was will and had been. There is no way he was better off being born. I have and always will agree with sterilization of people, ie permanent or temporary, with addictions.
loading...
I personally feel its time we thought of children’s rights and not parents. Why should these poor children have to have these problems because their parents have “rights” which i presume most of the parents wouldn’t even know about this deep and meanful politically correct discussion. Nor would most of them even care!!!!
loading...
I have so many issues with this and truly don’t understand those who say it is okay. Or worse, those who say it is a good thing. How can this be a good thing?
I agree that there is a problem with drug addicts (and those in similar cases) having lots of children. And I agree these children may not be healthy. But here’s the thing; there ARE women (and men, because from what I understand this ‘service’ is offered to men as well) who DO want to remedy their past. They DO want to have a better future. But getting that future is a battle all of its own. We hear every month (at least!) about the struggles of rehabilitation of any kind (not just drug). So why make it more difficult by offering on one hand the next hit they can buy with $300, and on the other a better future where you could choose to have children if you so desired?
And what of the pimp and prostitute situation? If I were a pimp, I could see that it would be better for business if I could force my prostitutes to get sterilised, get $300 for altering their lives forever (in yet another way), and then pimp them out more without having to worry about the consequences of them getting pregnant. Although I would like to think that no pimp is smart enough to think this, I can guarantee it will happen.
Also, hasn’t this already happened in other countries not that long ago? It is one teeny tiny step to compulsory sterilization. Does this ring your alarm bells? If it doesn’t, it really should.
As for bringing it to Australia? Just NO!!! Don’t let it be anywhere! Don’t let it spread any further!
loading...
Anonymouse, what the article doesn’t mention is that the “sterilisation” techniques are actually ALL reversible with surgery. The only non-reversible sterilisation is removal of the sex organs altogether.
As you say, many of these people will turn their lives around, they’ve already shown some responsibility by registering for this program, and once they’ve conquered their demons and are ready to have children, they can have the procedure reversed. It will be an informed decision, done with the intention of conceiving a child, rather than simply conceiving one due to lack of birth control.
If you spent any time with children conceived by drug addicted parents, who live a life of poverty, fear and have been set up for a life of addiction themselves, you might have a different opinion.
This is not a tiny step towards compulsory sterilisation, however it is a big step towards vulnerable people taking responsibility for their own actions. It is also a big step towards ensuring that all children are loved, wanted and cared for appropriately.
loading...
They offer IUD as one of the methods, and that isn’t permanent, but long term, so its reversible.. Seems perfectly reasonable to me
loading...
My friend’s mum is a foster mother and has looked after heroin addicted babies. I’ve held one- he was so so tiny, and had to be given morphine through a dropper every few hours, as he was getting weaned off.
I support this- it’s good because people aren’t forced into it, they’re consenting to it. And it will be better for them in the long run, because most drug addicts probably can’t even look after themselves, let alone raise a baby, and this will stop so many unwanted children being born and addicted to drugs. And these forms can be reversed in the future can’t they?
loading...
Sterilization = making an organism (or in this case, HUMAN BEINGS) unable to reproduce.
So no, there is absolutely no guarantee this can be reversed in the future. IUD’s can be. Which option would you prefer?
loading...
Morphine or methodone?
loading...
The bub was on morphine, not methadone. Maybe cos methadone is too similar to heroin and not good for a newborn? I’m not sure why, I didn’t ask lol.
loading...
Just curious. Morphine is more of a sedative I believe?? so maybe thats why it was used.
loading...
Morphine is always used for babies with methadone or heroin addictions those drugs metabolise as morphine in the body. As a person who deals with these babies daily and see the effects of this selfish behaviour of a parent I am all for this and hope it extends world wide.
loading...
“She pays a woman $300 for a tubal ligation. For an intrauterine device, a client receives $75 at insertion, $100 at her six-month checkup and $125 at the end of each year, for as long as she keeps the device in.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/17/local/me-banks17
It’s not all about permanent methods – it is all every method of prevention.
loading...
Haven’t gone to the link, but why aren’t they using (at least for women) one of the below – much less room for error as they can’t be removed without a doctor and are all “not for life”…if these were part of the program, I’d support it…as it is, I agree with the reasoning behind it but it makes me very uncomfortable at the same time.
Subcutaneous Birth Control Methods
Depo-Provera is the brand name of a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. It is given by injection into a woman’s buttock or shoulder every 3 months.
Norplant is a method of birth control that uses a synthetic form of progesterone, called levonorgestrel. Implants containing the drug are inserted under the skin of a woman’s arm. The implants release levonorgestrel for 5 years. Norplant causes the cervix mucus to become thick and sticky, preventing sperm from entering the uterus. It also prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs.
loading...
If you’re talking about implanon (a progesterone implant) it only lasts for 3 years. Maybe Norplant is a newer one. I think Depo shots are probably too frequent to be of much use. I would imagine long term contraceptives would be better. Gives an addict more “breathing time” to get their life in order without having to worry about contraceptives.
loading...
Needs to be done. She is a very brave woman for thinking of others while being judged herself for doing so.
loading...
I’d like it more if it was a service offered, with no money involved.
When you’re paying them to do it (with money they’re possibly keen to get for the next lot of drugs), it seems like a bribe, which makes their consent less valid.
Like sharons below, I also think semi-permanent methods of contraception would be better, like IUDs. Looks after it for years, but if they do clean up eventually, then they can have kids then.
loading...
You’ve had the topic on here before.
I think that long term, reversible, reliable contraception (IUD, implanon, depot) are good options for these mothers. They have had children, they are unable to care for them, having more children is not a good option for them.
I don’t think its about race or nationality but drug use and inability to care for children. Without all the sensationalist talk and hype I think it is a promising project.
loading...
I have read about this program before. I thought it was great then, and I still think it’s great. It is not forced on anybody, so it is not a violation of rights.
loading...
If these women were really keen for sterilisation, they wouldn’t need to be offered $300 in order to do it – simply offering free treatment would be incentive enough. Instead, they are offering people desperate for their next hit $300 – hard to resist I imagine.
And why make it a permanent form of contraception, why not something like implanon? It’s pretty foolproof and last for a whole year.
This program is paternalistic (and potentially racist according to some claims). I’m disgusted!
loading...
Implanon is 3 years. The copper IUD and Mirena is 5.
loading...
Paternalistic until you see these kids who live in these situations and then you’d almost be happy to do the sterilisation yourself – these situations are disgusting, horrifying and scary when you experience them first hand. I couldn’t care less if you offered them $300 and a clean needle with it – drug addicts should not have children in their care at any time.
loading...
Unfortunately, Implanon’s short term effectiveness is the reason that it is not a great idea in this situation. How many addicts do you think will return every twelve months to have the bar removed and a new one inserted?
Research into the methods of “sterilisation” (a misnomer) offered will reveal that all of the procedures are reversible.
Also, the claims of racism are ridiculous – anyone willing to do three minutes of reading will see that.
Whilst I agree with you that the $300 provided might be used for the wrong purposes, how many people would be interested in the program if it offered no incentive? The fact that it will mean they will have effective birth control will mean nothing, because they don’t feel the same need to take care of their children like you and I do.
loading...
On an intellectual level I think it’s wrong and sets a very dangerous precedent – but……. my god there are some people out there who shouldn’t have children!
loading...
Not usually anonymous, but can’t really comment here otherwise today!
As a midwife of many years I have seen first hand the terrible tragedy of babies born to drug affected mothers. Many of the mothers don’t seem to have the insight to see that their actions are what caused the problems! Many of the women have an appalling obstetric history, littered with miscarriages, terminations, premature births and still births and neonatal deaths but still present year after year (sometimes more than once)! Many of them do not have access to the children that actually made it to birth and survived.
What about the rights of the children not to have to go through all this?
Additionally, and this is the main reason I am anon today, I personally have had years of infertility issues: in a stable relationship, financially secure, maintain a healthy weight, eat right, exercise, take prenatal vitamins but can’t get pregnant yet I see mothers as previously described return time after time! Not fair!
I have often said (in the privacy of the tea room) that the drug of choice for infertility should be heroin! These women seem to have no problem or issue getting pregnant. Staying pregnant and delivering a healthy child is another matter however, as is raising it.
loading...
I feel the same anon. My partner and I are both in our late 20′s and in a point in our lives where we could support a baby in a financially viable and loving/supportive environment.
Unfortunantly, we too have had fertility issues. Being someone who also works in health care it angers me to see the ease in which it appears addicts and also young teenagers continue to fall pregnant. A friend of mine treated a girl a month ago who was under the age of 18 and presenting with her 6th pregnancy!
loading...
To me it doesn’t seem to be a human rights violation IF the people that they are sterilising are consenting to the procedure – it’s not any different from approaching a doc yourself wanting the procedure.
If this service merely assisted these people to have these procedures, i.e. offered to pay for them and assist with recovery then i wouldn’t see the issue, but i’m not overly comfortable with them being paid to do it, people who suffer addiction are often not in the right cognitive state to be making major life decisions and providing an addict with financial incentive is unethical, regardless of the intentions.
loading...
Not a fan of eugenics and agree with you. For me the thing is that these people seem to be in enough of a cognitive state to get pregnant, so making the permanent decision to cease pregnancies would also be within their reach, surely? So long as there’s no “We did it and compensated you, thanks for visiting” stuff happening
loading...
Love this program! Bring it to Australia already. My best friends brother got his heroin addicted girlfriend pregnant. She had the baby – while she was in jail for drug related offences. Long story short, my bf had to care for the child while it’s parents were busy in and out of jail and on drugs. The child was 3 months premature and had severe reflux, colic plus a host of other drug related health issues. The child is now in foster care with docs looking at giving the child back to it’s parents – even though they are drug addicts. This child has NO hope of a decent life unless the parents get off the drugs and live a responsible life for the sake of their child.
And with the age old saying of ‘monkey see, monkey do’… This child will most likely be a drug addict in the future too. What a sad sad life this little one has ahead of her.
loading...
This article outlays the barest of facts, offers no insight or analysis into what is a very complex issue and then at the end asks if we think this is a good idea. Seriously? I find it offensive that such an issue (and your readers) would be treated this way. Very poor effort MM.
loading...
My apologies. We’re not publishing theses on MM. These are conversation topics. An issue like this would require 5000 words minimum to cover even partially … but we write them because they get people thinking and talking.
loading...
I don’t know how I feel about sterilization but the IUD is a great idea. Use an IUD that can work for up to 5 years. If the woman feels as though she does want to have children later. It can be removed.
loading...
Isn’t it interesting that this program proceeds while, in other parts of the US, politicians are interfering with women’s right to make choices about their reproductive lives? (see article on this site by Amelia Arnold published May 2nd)
loading...
It’s very sad that as a community that we have to stoop to these measures but the ugly ugly side of drug addiction has brought us to this.
I support it. Good on someone for getting off their bums and trying to make a difference in the world.
loading...
“The group hangs stark ads in clinics and homeless shelters to reel in users, posters with hard-hitting taglines like, “Don’t let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit,” and “She has her daddy’s eyes … and her mommy’s heroin addiction.”
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-09/news/31644775_1_addicts-daily-news-hiv-positive-women
I find it deeply to disturbing for an organisation to advertise paid sterilisation as an option for continuing your drug addiction without interruption. This is simply a messy, horrible facet of our communities but I feel like this is a very slippery slope. Women (and men) who are drug addicted are very unlikely to have the clarity of mind to fully comprehend the implications of this decision. I just don’t know that I can accept that this is ok.
loading...
“I find it deeply disturbing for an organisation to advertise paid sterilisation as an option for continuing your drug addiction without interruption’
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. The whole point is that the pregnancies and babies don’t interrupt their drug use – hence the drug addicted sick babies, and neglected, damaged children.
They are not facilitating the drug use by offering contraception. They are just preventing the pregnancies that occur while drug addicts are drug addicts. There are many other programs that are offered to these people at the same time like methadone programs to try and support them to get clean, and needle exchange programs to prevent them from getting blood-borne diseases when they’re injecting.
There is no program out there that encourages drug addicts to continue using. It’s all aimed at trying to support them to stop, and keep them as safe as possible while they are using.
loading...
Hi MJ,
I was referring to the example of advertising in the article I linked to (supplied through an earlier comment from another reader). The line ‘Don’t let pregnancy ruin your drug habit’. I interpreted this as, remove your body’s ability to reproduce so that you can continue your drug addiction without the hassle of a pregnancy.
Did you interpret that differently? I guess something like this is very subjective.
loading...
Oh sorry I forgot they were using that tag line as well. I agree that is a really poor choice of phrase to put on the poster. I guess they are trying to appeal to people who think that way. In my experience some drug addicts do think of pregnancies as an inconvenience, if they are severely addicted all they care about is the drugs. I guess that’s who they are trying to target.
I think the whole program is a good idea, but in my opinion it needs to employ reversible methods of contraception, and have less sensationalist advertising.
But perhaps that is intention – to raise awareness in the wider community as well by being purposefully controversial and inflammatory in their advertising to gain attention in order to reach more people?
loading...
“Women (and men) who are drug addicted are very unlikely to have the clarity of mind to fully comprehend the implications of this decision.”
We can use that as an argument for both sides can’t we? The drug addicts are unlikely to have the clarity to comprehend the implications of having falling pregnant/having an addicted baby.
It’s a tough one.
loading...
Exactly, it is such a complex issue. Just not sure that a simplistic solution such as this fully addresses those complexities.
loading...
You can only help someone that wants to be helped. Most drug addicts are escaping something. Until they want to face up to what that something is, then drugs will be a part of their lives. Once they decide to face reality, then they can ask for help and then they can be helped. This is an issue about rights. Babies are people too and should have rights. If you, as an adult, had someone inject you with drugs for 9 months and then stop, all hell would break loose, but we allow people to do it to babies because they don’t have rights, except to not be killed. This, IMO, is wrong. Either they are human or they are not. If we accept that they are human, they should have the same rights as anyone else, then it should be illegal to give them drugs for 9 months and possibly more via breast milk and then stop. This appears to be too much for society to cope with and so the lesser evil of stopping them being created in the first place has been allowed. I for one think this is a great idea. I don’t think it’s a good option to bring into the world a drug affected, often brain damaged child which in most cases is discarded by their parent(s). IF a drug addict cared about their kids, they would stop taking drugs while pregnant. The only two options I see is charging them with Grevious Bodily Harm or preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Children SHOULD have rights, this is a clunky way, but the best option atm, to give them some.
loading...
And then watch as abortion is made illegal at any stage and women die in droves in backyards and back alleys.
I disagree that “human rights” can be equally applied at all stages of life.
loading...
The life that some children experience as a result of the life lotto of what family they’re born into sickens me. This is a really tough issue of huge importance. It highlights one area where the world doesn’t make sense. It highlights that we are in our basic form – animals – and our reproductive systems dont know if we are drug addicts or child abusers etc. The issues are tangled around human rights (parent and child), informed consent, ethics… But to be born so sick with crack addiction before you even take your first breath, to be at risk of harm, unwanted and unloved from the second you begin to exist….no words. Beyond tragic. Of all the things that drug addiction can do to the body, what a shame one of the side effects is not infertility. The rights of the kids outweigh those of the adults.
loading...
Beautifully said.
loading...
making unborn babies drug addicts seems like a larger violation of human rights- these women have a choice, not easy ones by any stretch, but those babies don’t. I support it. I don’t like it, but I support it.
loading...
I’m all for this, who cares if it new news or not.
Of course money to a drug addict isn’t ideal, but I know an ex druggie, and well more productive way for them to get money than stealing it, which many do.
Some people have no conscience about getting pregnant and having abortions. If it isn’t informed consent like some people claim, then what business have they got bringing babies into the world to be damaged? I certainly know which I think is the lesser evil.
loading...
From the sounds of the women she’s sterilising they really are desperate cases, although obviously we don’t have all the information.
Of course, with better access to abortion and contraceptives in America these kind of programs might not be needed.
A possible reason that IUDs and implants aren’t used is because drug addicts pick and scratch at skin imperfections, so it might not be appropriate.
I have an issue with giving them cash, but the overall program is meeting a need.
loading...
For a site that publishes so much content and has such a large audience, why do I continue to read articles that have obviously not been proofed or edited!? Mamamia, despite the regular comments regarding this, every day I read an article that has errors. Please address this, otherwise it simply promotes a culture where language and grammar are undervalued.
Sentence in question in this article
‘Barbara Harris has hit the headlines again, this time in New York, where put her case:’
loading...
If that is seriously the biggest gripe you have each day, you are doing well.
To err is human. Sometimes these things slip past several pairs of eyes. If anything it promotes fast content, not undervaluing language and grammar.
loading...
Hi Cait,
No, this is far from my biggest gripe each day, and I generally do not comment on Mamamia articles, I simply choose to enjoy reading them and the perspectives of those who comment. However, I feel that errors in articles published on the scale that Mamamia articles are published, detracts from the enjoyment of reading informative articles and the quality of the site. I am entitled to make constructive criticism in a polite manner in a site that provides a forum for reader’s contributions.
loading...
I do understand that your criticism was with a reason, but I dont think anyone promises flawless articles. Honestly I have read several news articles with much worse langauge errors than an average Mamamia article.
I notice the grammar issues, but I also notice the several people who correct these issues on a daily basis. Rick and the other staff are usually quick to jump on things as they are raised.
I genuinely just feel that people need to ease up on the constant criticism of the language errors, and concentrate on the issue/story to hand, rather than relatively minor issues. If it were literally unreadable, I would be in a funk, but not based on todays (or any day’s) articles.
loading...
There are often more questionable issues with Mamamia articles such as an absence of references regarding issues where they are required to substantiate the author’s claims. However, I mostly do not bother to make comments about these as I just not invested enough in this site. My criticism is not of the author, it is of the editing process which these articles undergo. With the child literacy rates in Australia being alarmingly low, I feel it is important that we advocate for professionalism of the highest standard so that everyone understands that sometimes, the subject itself is simply not more important than how it is presented to the reader.
loading...
Hi Mez,
Im not going to argue whether one of us does or doesnt have a point, but I will admit to being a grammar fiend in several situations.
I dont see the link between Mamamia and child literacy though. If Mamamia was writing *for* children I would agree, but this writing is for adults. I respect that people see the mistakes, I just dont think it needs to be taken out of proportion.
loading...
I have to say I agree with Mez. I’m not bothered when there are spelling or grammatical errors in FB posts, or in these article comments (God knows I’m not perfect), but it’s not really good enough to have errors when articles are written by professionals. Fortunately the content for the most part is really interesting – especially Rick’s. Unfortunately in the situation of drug addicts having babies, I think this is the best thing for their potential babies. It’s not forcing these people to have operations, just encouraging them, and it’s not fair on babies to be born with a drug dependency.
loading...
I left a word out. I’ll take myself off to the gallows now … after I fix it.
loading...
Rick, are you ok? You seem a bit grumpy with the comments lately.
*said with love, I promise,
loading...
Ha! I’m fine. Just lots to do
loading...
Good
x
loading...
Aw Rick
no gallows -not even rotten tomatoes or an old fashioned stoning! Its ok. You are human, no need to worry 
loading...
Hi Rick,
Not my intention to send you off to the gallows, you may have noticed in my last comment that I said my issue was with the editing process, not with the author (your lovely self). Every writer makes errors, that is why publications (of which Mamamia is one) have editing processes.
loading...
Well I edited the post too, so I guess I’m off to the gallows after all. Would that we had 80 sub-editors like the big newspapers!
loading...
Hi Rick,
I can see from your response and the next few below that people have really interpreted my post(s) as an attack on you personally. They were not, I just feel that Mamamia as a publisher (not Rick as one writer) has the capacity to publish content (establish editing processes – where a second pair of eyes reads the article before being published to such a large audience) that is not regularly littered with errors. I’d like to think I don’t go through life focusing on the negatives, and would like to point out none of my comments have insinuated anything about the personalities of anyone yet nearly all others have done so towards me. Nice.
loading...
Fair enough. But given the volume of what we produce and the amount that happens behind the scenes, I’m quite happy with the processes we have in place that catch 99% of errors before being published. We are a publisher but we are also a small editorial team. You can count us on 1.5 hands. We don’t let errors out into the wild for the sport of it, you know. And we fix them straight away when they do. So thanks
loading...
Oh Rick. You are the best.
loading...
I don’t think he sounds grumpy.
But I’d be grumpy if I had to read constant nit picking about the work I do. This website is constantly updated, they write as the stories crop up a lot of the time. It’s not like they’re publishing a novel here guys.. tiny grammar or spelling mistake don’t actually matter and don’t need to be picked apart on every. single. occasion.
I guess some people just focus on the negative all the time and enjoy pointing out the flaws in everything.
loading...
I don’t think it’s about focussing on the negatives, it’s about doing a job well. As a professional publishing team, the bar is set higher than with Jane Doe’s blog. It’s an actual paying job in which spelling and grammar are particularly important.
Yes, it is a casualty in the race for heaps of content all the time, but we shouldn’t lower our expectations or standards. It is hard to balance quality and quantity but it is important that quantity doesn’t always win.
loading...
Ok.. how many mistakes are they making? Like one or two an article?
I find it ridiculous people get so self righteous and hung up on it. They’re making typos not slaughtering puppies. If you want perfection go and read the dictionary.
loading...
Not asking for perfection, MJ and, in fact, my comment was just meant to show where Mez is coming from which I viewed as not negative but a critical comment about the quality of content. To be honest, I find your comments more negative than what Mez and I have put forward.
Let’s not forget that editing is an actual job where you get money to edit (read: fix spelling mistakes and grammatical errors). So if there are (as you said) one or two per article, that’s quite high. We’re not hung up about it or self righteous as you claim, (we’re still here reading, aren’t we?) it’s just we don’t want to see the quality of articles dropping for the sake of more content. This is a professional publishing platform and there are standards for a reason. Spelling and grammar mistakes make your site appear less professional than it is. And I have spotted too many recently that suggest the editing process needs to be changed.
loading...
I love this – Hurry up Australia
loading...
good on her, it’s about time! They should do this in Australia!
loading...
What’s new? Yes, it may be in the news again but nothing has changed apart from the numbers as far as I can see?
http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/project-protection-paying-drug-addicts-to-be-sterilised/
loading...
Already linked to that in the piece above. It’s been two years anon, we have tens of thousands of new readers and we think it’s (still) an interesting discussion.
loading...
I haven’t seen it before and yes it is an interesting discussion point.
loading...
I don’t understand the critics who claim this is occurring without informed consent.
Personally I would prefer non financial incentives that can’t be converted to drugs like food vochers or bill relief.
121 tragic pregnancies from 20 women is simply too much to ignore.
I have great admiration for Barbara taking on six drug dependent babies and advocating for this cause. It takes a big hearted person to do this.
Like others I am concerned about the racial comments but perhaps that is simply where the problem lies.
We need more Barbara’s in this world.
loading...
I’m not quite sure how I feel about this – I can see both sides for sure.
loading...
I get how its controversial and until the part about targeting women of colour i was open minded. After multiple pregnancies ending in tragedy I would want permanent birth control. There is also a ‘best interest of the child’ argument in terms of children being born into addiction and illness, foster care ect how hard must it be for these women and children to deal with all of the consequences of being born into addiction.And the nature of a drug addiction is not conducive to failsafe family planning. I guess it comes down to informed consent and how they ensure it. However the targeting women of colour is a whole other issue that is much more terrifying.
loading...
I think it’s an idea with merit. I know a family with a daughter with an intellectual disability who would be grateful for this to be extended. She has four children with four different druggie no-hopers. Each poor child has their own physical, emotional and intellectual challenges. Her right to be used, abused and procreate comes before any rights of the children.
loading...