Charity offers addicts £200 to be sterilised

SnakeTongue · 18th October 2010, 03:23 PM

Charity offers addicts £200 to be sterilised
– Mon Oct 18, 8:38 am ET

LONDON (AFP) – A US charity is offering drug and alcohol addicts in the UK cash to be sterilised as part of a controversial scheme to prevent their addiction being passed on to future generations.

Project Prevention is giving 200 pounds to addicts in London, Glasgow, Bristol, Leicester and parts of Wales who agree to a vasectomy.

The first person to receive the payment is a 38-year-old opiates addict who has been involved in drugs since the age of 12, it emerged Monday, sparking criticism from some drugs charities.

The man, who wants to be known only as John, said: "I won't be able to support a kid. I can just about manage to support myself."

Speaking on BBC London's "Inside Out", to be aired tonight at 7.30pm, he said the cash incentive persuaded him to go ahead with the procedure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101018...20101018123842

ripsaw_22 · 18th October 2010, 03:40 PM

Saw this on the bbc site...

I don't think giving cash incentives to desperate people for something they may very well regret hugely later on is a good idea at all...

Many addicts manage to turn their lives around. For example, I have a friend up north who used to be a heroin addict for many years, was not unfamiliar with robbery and burglary, but has now completely turned his life around - he now works for a homeless charity offering drug counselling, and is truly an amazing guy to know - a real inspiration. Had this charity offered him £200 when he was at a particularly low point, who knows he may well have taken it if he was already desperate enough for money to be robbing houses. I think that would have been a terrible shame judging by his character now - he'd make a great father figure.

Emet · 18th October 2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

The organization has provoked controversy, partly from the way in which it promotes its activities, including allegedly targeting poor and minority neighborhoods for the placement of billboard advertising, and distributing flyers with slogans such as "DON'T Let a Pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit". In interviews Barbara Harris compared pregnant women to dogs that need to be neutered. This stance has invoked comparisons by Concerned Women for America to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...on#Controversy

MatildaGage · 18th October 2010, 05:06 PM

Well, overpopulation is a very serious problem. There is no reason to avoid having unfit parents or people with bad genes reproduce.

If they really did that billboard, obviously it's in bad taste. I know why shock tactics are used in advertising--because they're very effective in achieving the objective of the ad. However, if a billboard in a drug-ridden neighborhood just said, "Get $300 for taking birth control", I assume that would be enough to achieve the objective.

I don't see anything on their website about sterilization. It only mentions birth control.

EeneyMinnieMoe · 18th October 2010, 05:31 PM

If this is actually real, wow. There are no words.

Someone with an addiction they desperately need to feed would do anything for money, even undergo a medical procedure that they don't want. This is forcing their hand by making them an offer that they can't refuse. And even they, however screwed up they may be, have reproductive rights that no government or organization is allowed to infringe upon.

And, of course, there is no real reason their children would be like them. There is no gene for addiction, though addiction (according to some evidence) has a genetic component to it.

Emet · 18th October 2010, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by imagineaa

<snip>
I don't see anything on their website about sterilization. It only mentions birth control.

From their website:

Quote:

WCNC Charlotte - addicts get $300 to be sterilized
Addicts in Honolulu get paid to be sterilized

This article was linked from their website:

Quote:

If you call Project Prevention's helpline it's likely that Barbara Harris, the founder of this US based organisation, will answer the phone. A warm and vivacious grandmother, her aim is to give $300 to as many drug and alcohol addicted women as possible.
The deal? That they receive long term contraception or sterilisation to prevent them having children she believes they are unable or unwilling to care for. Funded through private donations, her organisation is non-profit making.
Project Prevention, started in 1997, says it has paid money out to 3,242 addicts, or clients as it prefers to call them. Most of them were women and 1,226 were permanently sterilised. Thirty-five men have had vasectomies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8500285.stm

FattyCatty · 18th October 2010, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by imagineaa

Well, overpopulation is a very serious problem. There is no reason to avoid having unfit parents or people with bad genes reproduce.

If they really did that billboard, obviously it's in bad taste. I know why shock tactics are used in advertising--because they're very effective in achieving the objective of the ad. However, if a billboard in a drug-ridden neighborhood just said, "Get $300 for taking birth control", I assume that would be enough to achieve the objective.

I don't see anything on their website about sterilization. It only mentions birth control.

Eugenics, anyone?

You didn't look under the "What's New" heading. http://projectprevention.org/whats-new/

Quote:

The UK chapter of Project Prevention will be up and running very soon. The response has been phenomenal from those working in the fields of Social Services, law enforcement, and healthcare. UK addicts will be paid to obtain long term birth control i.e. IUD or Implanon(which last 8 to 10 years), or to be sterilized. Those choosing to be sterilized must meet the requirements set forth by the BMA and their DR., as well as have had a certain number of children and be a certain age. We do not pay for birth control pills. Our story will be told Oct. 18th at 7:00pm on BBC1 Inside Out.

And, from a link on "What's New" is a U.S. newspaper article. http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Drug-...-94203844.html

Quote:

With money from donors who share her passion for this cause, Harris visits seedy neighborhoods to offer drug addicts and alcoholics cash if they'll agree to go on a long-term birth control or be sterilized.

The payment is $300 for women who get their tubes tied. About one-third of her clients have chosen that option.
The others have agreed to a less permanent IUD or an implanted birth control like Implanon. Those women get the $300 payments yearly if they stay on the birth control.

The program requires proof of addiction established by court records or a statement from a government official. A doctor must sign a contract that states that the client had a tubal ligitation or a long-term birth control implanted before a check is mailed.

Men are eligible, and Harris says 47 have been paid to have vasectomies. She's paid more than 3,300 women.

marplots · 18th October 2010, 06:11 PM

Forget the money, do they dope you up for the procedure? That's your real selling point here.

eGadfly · 18th October 2010, 06:24 PM

Why is a US charity doing it in the UK?

FattyCatty · 18th October 2010, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by eGadfly

Why is a US charity doing it in the UK?

Apparently someone wanted them to be there. There's a "United Kingdom" tab on the website. http://projectprevention.org/whats-new/

Quote:

We have been contacted by many other Countries wanting us to bring Project Prevention there. The only way that will happen is if there is a financial backer in that Country to fund paying addicts there.

NO United States donations will be spent on other Countries.

OlegTheBatty · 18th October 2010, 07:49 PM

Most addicts can be pretty rational when they are not suffering withdrawal symptoms. Most want to get back to a normal life but don't know how to do it. The drug use is only one of many problems. Very very few would want to bring a baby into the world while they are addicted. They all know it can happen, because it sometimes does. A reversible long term prophylactic would be highly welcome to a lot of them.

autumn1971 · 18th October 2010, 07:55 PM

This is about as ethical as offering horny teenagers money to be sterilized, or directly targeting those with various learning disabilities. It is, however, legal, and is no slimier than most other marketing ploys.

OlegTheBatty · 18th October 2010, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by autumn1971

This is about as ethical as offering horny teenagers money to be sterilized, or directly targeting those with various learning disabilities. It is, however, legal, and is no slimier than most other marketing ploys.

Most addicts have sex. Most addicts do not want to bring a baby into the world while they are addicts. Why is it slimy or unethical to offer a longer term solution to those who want it?

Eddie Dane · 19th October 2010, 12:51 AM

I also have a friend who used to be an addict and did some pretty stupid things to get money. Most notably: he accepted money to marry some chick so she could move to the Netherlands. After he cleaned up and wanted to marry, he had heaps of trouble nullifying that previous marriage.

He's a father of two now and very responsible guy.

OTOH society might be spared many problems by this program and if those people didn't want children anyway, I'm not sure if it's unethical.

Non-addicts also change their opinion about having children in the course of their life. I didn't want children when I was in my twenties and I've got three of those little monsters now.

Philip · 19th October 2010, 12:53 AM

I think it's unfair that I'd have to be an addict to get the $300 and a free vasectomy.

Agatha · 19th October 2010, 01:24 AM

If you are in the UK, you don't have to pay for any contraceptive services, including non-reversible methods. It's all free to the end-user on the NHS.

I work for a charity which helps to house, and provide support for, a lot of drug addicts, I think it is appallingly irresponsible of Project Prevention to pay addicts money for doing something which they can choose for themselves at no cost. By adding in the financial incentive (to people who would sell their own grandma for the price of a fix), the charity are exploiting vulnerable people. £200 will buy 20 wraps of heroin, and Barbara Harris admits that the charity is aware that the money they give will be spent on drugs in most cases.

We have something like a million children living with drug-addicted parents in the UK, and more than that living with alcoholics and mentally ill parents. Not all of those kids are living in abusive homes, but every one is a tragedy and this needs addressing. We have a chronically underfunded and overworked social work service. If there's money to spare, this is where it should be going. People who are on the front line supporting families are the ones who need funding. We don't have the same problems as the USA and a solution that may well work there will not necessarily work here

This is akin to rounding up feral cats, neutering them, and then chucking them back out on the street. It doesn't solve the drug problem, it doesn't address the roots of addiction, it doesn't help people get their lives back together. It doesn't do anything to prevent the exploitation and abuse of the kids of addict parents who are already living in terrible conditions.

What it does is give someone one night off from prostitution, or one night off from mugging people. But the next night, when the £200 is gone, they are back on the street, back committing crimes to feed their habit, back to shuttling in and out of custody.

If this charity has so much money to spare, then let them spend it on rehab and support programmes, on getting people out of the cycle of abuse and addiction.

One of the major UK drug charities has said

Originally Posted by Addaction

Addaction firmly believes that there is no place for Project Prevention in the UK because their practices are morally reprehensible and irrelevant.

If an addict, or any one else in the UK, truly wants to be sterilised, or wants effective contraception, they can get that here at no cost. There are easy routes to access it without charities having to bribe people with what is, for many, enough money to overdose.

Puppycow · 19th October 2010, 02:17 AM

Some people want the procedure anyway.

This is just a nudge to get those people to stop procrastinating. $300 is not enough money to make somebody get a procedure they don't want to get.

Sledge · 19th October 2010, 02:18 AM

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Agatha · 19th October 2010, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Some people want the procedure anyway.

This is just a nudge. $300 is not enough money to make somebody get a procedure they don't want to get.

And if they do, here in the UK they can have it for free. They do, of course, have to be drug free for the surgical options, which is the case whether PP are paying them or not. But £200 is certainly enough to make someone who can't see past their next fix to sign up to pretty much anything.

Puppycow · 19th October 2010, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

What it does is give someone one night off from prostitution, or one night off from mugging people. But the next night, when the £200 is gone, they are back on the street, back committing crimes to feed their habit, back to shuttling in and out of custody.

If this charity has so much money to spare, then let them spend it on rehab and support programmes, on getting people out of the cycle of abuse and addiction.

Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happened to the baby?

Eddie Dane · 19th October 2010, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happened to the baby?

Yeah it died and then crawled over the friggin' ceiling!

BTW: your avatar made me spay coffee all over my monitor.

Agatha · 19th October 2010, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happened to the baby?

Yes. That's why I feel so strongly that any spare funds should be spent on getting children who are currently in that kind of environment out of it (by properly funding social services) and on getting the adults who are already on drugs off them and out of that cycle before they destroy more children's lives.

I think Project Prevention's stated goal of stopping kids being born into abusive homes is laudable. But I believe that they are going the wrong way about achieving this by giving current addicts the price of an overdose in exchange for sterilisation.

Eddie Dane · 19th October 2010, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

Yes. That's why I feel so strongly that any spare funds should be spent on getting children who are currently in that kind of environment out of it (by properly funding social services) and on getting the adults who are already on drugs off them and out of that cycle before they destroy more children's lives.

I think Project Prevention's stated goal of stopping kids being born into abusive homes is laudable. But I believe that they are going the wrong way about achieving this by giving current addicts the price of an overdose in exchange for sterilisation.

Helping an abusive family over the course of many years must be very expensive. The incentive given for sterilization is not a lot of money on that scale.

If such an initiative would sharply decrease the number of children in abusive homes, there would be a lot more money for helping the kids that do get born.

SnakeTongue · 19th October 2010, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by OlegTheBatty

Most addicts have sex. Most addicts do not want to bring a baby into the world while they are addicts. Why is it slimy or unethical to offer a longer term solution to those who want it?

Interesting question.

I would answer that is not unethical to offer a solution for who wish.

But I would also ask: If is not unethical to offer solution for who wish, why money is also being offered to incentive?

If someone really wish be sterilized, it is not need money to reinforce such wish.

The money offered pose as an interesting enigma in this social issue.

SnakeTongue · 19th October 2010, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Non-addicts also change their opinion about having children in the course of their life. I didn't want children when I was in my twenties and I've got three of those little monsters now.

I just have one...

In my twenties I also did not appreciate the idea of being a father.

But I had my little daughter by accident and this changed my life forever.

The experience which I had one day with her was amazing, thrilling like a miracle.

My daughter was one year old and her mum brought her close to me. The moment I face her, eyes to eyes, in a fraction of seconds I saw myself when I was one year old.

My mind was in a place outside space and time, and her was the reflection of my existence. She was flesh of my flesh and soul of my soul.

In that fraction of seconds, I understood the whole meaning of the union between the male and the female, and she was the eternal evidence of such sacred design.

Anyone which refuse or is refused to have a children from his own flesh and soul, will never experience that...

It is sad.

SnakeTongue · 19th October 2010, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

If this charity has so much money to spare, then let them spend it on rehab and support programmes, on getting people out of the cycle of abuse and addiction.
.

Excellent point.

commandlinegamer · 19th October 2010, 04:19 AM

This is old news; this organisation hit the headlines back in May when they were approaching people outside Possil* health centre offering the same deal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10143746

* - One of the less affluent areas of Glasgow.

jiggeryqua · 19th October 2010, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

Yes. That's why I feel so strongly that any spare funds should be spent on getting children who are currently in that kind of environment out of it (by properly funding social services) and on getting the adults who are already on drugs off them and out of that cycle before they destroy more children's lives.

I think Project Prevention's stated goal of stopping kids being born into abusive homes is laudable. But I believe that they are going the wrong way about achieving this by giving current addicts the price of an overdose in exchange for sterilisation.

That's why you've set up Project Agatha, yes? To achieve those aims with your own 'spare' money?

Project Prevention has a stated aim, which it sets out to address. It does not address any of the other issues you raised, any more than the RSPCA tackles child poverty or the RSPCC saves abandoned dogs.

The founder 'feels strongly' about a particular issue. She also acts on it...

Agatha · 19th October 2010, 04:26 AM

Did you miss where I work for a charity? It's what I do every day, and yes I also donate my own money as well as my own free time to it. But hey, why let those pesky facts get in the way of a good bit of snide insinuation that I'm not doing anything?

As I said, I think their goal is laudable. I think their methods are reprehensible.

It's also not Barbara Harris's own money, it's funded from donations.

jiggeryqua · 19th October 2010, 04:26 AM

At the risk of derailing...

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

But I had my little daughter by accident and this changed my life forever.

The experience which I had one day with her was amazing, thrilling like a miracle.

My daughter was one year old and her mum brought her close to me. The moment I face her, eyes to eyes, in a fraction of seconds I saw myself when I was one year old.

My mind was in a place outside space and time, and her was the reflection of my existence. She was flesh of my flesh and soul of my soul.

In that fraction of seconds, I understood the whole meaning of the union between the male and the female, and she was the eternal evidence of such sacred design.

This. I was 30 and she was only a few hours old, and I probably wouldn't use the word 'sacred'. But 'awesome', that's appropriate.

jiggeryqua · 19th October 2010, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

Did you miss where I work for a charity? It's what I do every day, and yes I also donate my own money as well as my own free time to it. But hey, why let those pesky facts get in the way of a good bit of snide insinuation that I'm not doing anything?

As I said, I think their goal is laudable. I think their methods are reprehensible.

It's also not Barbara Harris's own money, it's funded from donations.

You donate your own spare money to social services? I've worked in a few social services offices, I've never seen that happen, but good for you. There probably ought to be an option on tax returns where you could tick which particular area of public funding you'd like an additional percentage of taxation of your income to be directed to. It might encourage others to follow your example.

I don't believe I claimed it was Barbara Harris's own money - though given that she clearly also 'feels strongly' about this particular issue, I'd be surprised if some of her own money (and time) wasn't directed to it...just as yours is, to the issues that you feel strongly about.

More to the point, yes, she is funded by donations - people choose to give her their 'spare' money, in the full knowledge of how it will be spent. I expect the donors feel strongly too, that while it is evident that most efforts to help addicts are far from successful, it is possible to do something to address the problem of 'innocent' babies being born with addictions. If this was announced as a government-funded programme, I'd have an issue with it too.

The Fool · 19th October 2010, 05:29 AM

I'll Take it. Where do I get the 200?

Agatha · 19th October 2010, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

Did you miss where I work for a charity? It's what I do every day, and yes I also donate my own money as well as my own free time to it [the charity].

I am not sure why you thought I donate my time and money to social services, I can only ask that you read my post more carefully as I think I made my meaning clear. However, I have clarified for you above.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 19th October 2010, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I just have one...

In my twenties I also did not appreciate the idea of being a father.

But I had my little daughter by accident and this changed my life forever.

The experience which I had one day with her was amazing, thrilling like a miracle.

My daughter was one year old and her mum brought her close to me. The moment I face her, eyes to eyes, in a fraction of seconds I saw myself when I was one year old.

My mind was in a place outside space and time, and her was the reflection of my existence. She was flesh of my flesh and soul of my soul.

In that fraction of seconds, I understood the whole meaning of the union between the male and the female, and she was the eternal evidence of such sacred design.

Anyone which refuse or is refused to have a children from his own flesh and soul, will never experience that...

It is sad.

It's rather insulting that everyone assumes that all people will react this way to the idea of parenthood. Not everyone feels the need to reproduce. There's nothing sad about it in my mind, other than the fact it's so damn hard to find a doctor to sterilise you when you are childless.

SnakeTongue · 19th October 2010, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

It's rather insulting that everyone assumes that all people will react this way to the idea of parenthood. Not everyone feels the need to reproduce. There's nothing sad about it in my mind, other than the fact it's so damn hard to find a doctor to sterilise you when you are childless.

I am really sorry for you.

It is clear that you did not understand that such experience is reserved just for who is a biological parent.

You never will have such reaction because you do not have the biological child to trigger the reaction.

I hope you find a doctor to sterilize your reproductive organism. The human specie really need heroes like you: a person willing to commit reproductive suicide to eliminate future adults with childless mind set.

Darwin would be proud of you.

Safe-Keeper · 19th October 2010, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by imagineaa

Well, overpopulation is a very serious problem. There is no reason to avoid having unfit parents or people with bad genes reproduce.

Then have them target people with "bad genes". Go public offering those with Down's Syndrome or other genetic disorders sterilization for a token sum. See how far you get.

Emet · 19th October 2010, 11:00 AM

Here's the latest filing I could find online of Form 990, from 2008:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...05638eea-Z.pdf

Quote:

Total revenue: $292,626
Grants paid: $72,196
Salaries: $118,982
(you can read the document for the rest)

Quote:

C.R.A.C.K.'s Project Prevention
5399 Ophela CT SW
Concord, NC 28027

http://www.projectprevention.org/donate/

Rat · 19th October 2010, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Then have them target people with "bad genes". Go public offering those with Down's Syndrome or other genetic disorders sterilization for a token sum. See how far you get.

Or target those with IQs below 100. That way, eventually everyone will have above-average intelligence.

Modified · 19th October 2010, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

This is akin to rounding up feral cats, neutering them, and then chucking them back out on the street.

Which is something that is done quite often. The university I work for does it on a regular basis. I assume it keeps the feral cat population in check, so you have fewer but healthier cats.

funk de fino · 19th October 2010, 01:07 PM

Imagine if it was Europeans doing it in the USA.

If they ever approached me they would get a smack in their yankee gobs.

18th October 2010, 03:23 PM	#1
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Charity offers addicts £200 to be sterilised Charity offers addicts £200 to be sterilised – Mon Oct 18, 8:38 am ET LONDON (AFP) – A US charity is offering drug and alcohol addicts in the UK cash to be sterilised as part of a controversial scheme to prevent their addiction being passed on to future generations. Project Prevention is giving 200 pounds to addicts in London, Glasgow, Bristol, Leicester and parts of Wales who agree to a vasectomy. The first person to receive the payment is a 38-year-old opiates addict who has been involved in drugs since the age of 12, it emerged Monday, sparking criticism from some drugs charities. The man, who wants to be known only as John, said: "I won't be able to support a kid. I can just about manage to support myself." Speaking on BBC London's "Inside Out", to be aired tonight at 7.30pm, he said the cash incentive persuaded him to go ahead with the procedure. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101018...20101018123842
	__________________ "It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)

18th October 2010, 03:40 PM	#2
ripsaw_22 Student Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 42	Saw this on the bbc site... I don't think giving cash incentives to desperate people for something they may very well regret hugely later on is a good idea at all... Many addicts manage to turn their lives around. For example, I have a friend up north who used to be a heroin addict for many years, was not unfamiliar with robbery and burglary, but has now completely turned his life around - he now works for a homeless charity offering drug counselling, and is truly an amazing guy to know - a real inspiration. Had this charity offered him £200 when he was at a particularly low point, who knows he may well have taken it if he was already desperate enough for money to be robbing houses. I think that would have been a terrible shame judging by his character now - he'd make a great father figure.
ripsaw_22 Student Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 42

18th October 2010, 04:25 PM	#3
Emet Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,395	Quote: The organization has provoked controversy, partly from the way in which it promotes its activities, including allegedly targeting poor and minority neighborhoods for the placement of billboard advertising, and distributing flyers with slogans such as "DON'T Let a Pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit". In interviews Barbara Harris compared pregnant women to dogs that need to be neutered. This stance has invoked comparisons by Concerned Women for America to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...on#Controversy
Emet Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,395

18th October 2010, 05:06 PM	#4
MatildaGage Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Risa Posts: 799	Well, overpopulation is a very serious problem. There is no reason to avoid having unfit parents or people with bad genes reproduce. If they really did that billboard, obviously it's in bad taste. I know why shock tactics are used in advertising--because they're very effective in achieving the objective of the ad. However, if a billboard in a drug-ridden neighborhood just said, "Get $300 for taking birth control", I assume that would be enough to achieve the objective. I don't see anything on their website about sterilization. It only mentions birth control.
	__________________ End the grisly, barbaric practice of metzitzah b'peh.

18th October 2010, 05:31 PM	#5
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,660	If this is actually real, wow. There are no words. Someone with an addiction they desperately need to feed would do anything for money, even undergo a medical procedure that they don't want. This is forcing their hand by making them an offer that they can't refuse. And even they, however screwed up they may be, have reproductive rights that no government or organization is allowed to infringe upon. And, of course, there is no real reason their children would be like them. There is no gene for addiction, though addiction (according to some evidence) has a genetic component to it.
	__________________ Help Robert out- please visit (Stop) Sylvia Browne ! StopJohnofGod.blogspot.com Last edited by EeneyMinnieMoe; 18th October 2010 at 05:34 PM.

18th October 2010, 05:44 PM	#6
Emet Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,395	Originally Posted by imagineaa <snip> I don't see anything on their website about sterilization. It only mentions birth control. From their website: Quote: WCNC Charlotte - addicts get $300 to be sterilized Addicts in Honolulu get paid to be sterilized This article was linked from their website: Quote: If you call Project Prevention's helpline it's likely that Barbara Harris, the founder of this US based organisation, will answer the phone. A warm and vivacious grandmother, her aim is to give $300 to as many drug and alcohol addicted women as possible. The deal? That they receive long term contraception or sterilisation to prevent them having children she believes they are unable or unwilling to care for. Funded through private donations, her organisation is non-profit making. Project Prevention, started in 1997, says it has paid money out to 3,242 addicts, or clients as it prefers to call them. Most of them were women and 1,226 were permanently sterilised. Thirty-five men have had vasectomies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8500285.stm
Emet Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,395

18th October 2010, 06:01 PM	#7
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by imagineaa Well, overpopulation is a very serious problem. There is no reason to avoid having unfit parents or people with bad genes reproduce. If they really did that billboard, obviously it's in bad taste. I know why shock tactics are used in advertising--because they're very effective in achieving the objective of the ad. However, if a billboard in a drug-ridden neighborhood just said, "Get $300 for taking birth control", I assume that would be enough to achieve the objective. I don't see anything on their website about sterilization. It only mentions birth control. Eugenics, anyone? You didn't look under the "What's New" heading. http://projectprevention.org/whats-new/ Quote: The UK chapter of Project Prevention will be up and running very soon. The response has been phenomenal from those working in the fields of Social Services, law enforcement, and healthcare. UK addicts will be paid to obtain long term birth control i.e. IUD or Implanon(which last 8 to 10 years), or to be sterilized. Those choosing to be sterilized must meet the requirements set forth by the BMA and their DR., as well as have had a certain number of children and be a certain age. We do not pay for birth control pills. Our story will be told Oct. 18th at 7:00pm on BBC1 Inside Out. And, from a link on "What's New" is a U.S. newspaper article. http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Drug-...-94203844.html Quote: With money from donors who share her passion for this cause, Harris visits seedy neighborhoods to offer drug addicts and alcoholics cash if they'll agree to go on a long-term birth control or be sterilized. The payment is $300 for women who get their tubes tied. About one-third of her clients have chosen that option. The others have agreed to a less permanent IUD or an implanted birth control like Implanon. Those women get the $300 payments yearly if they stay on the birth control. The program requires proof of addiction established by court records or a statement from a government official. A doctor must sign a contract that states that the client had a tubal ligitation or a long-term birth control implanted before a check is mailed. Men are eligible, and Harris says 47 have been paid to have vasectomies. She's paid more than 3,300 women.
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

18th October 2010, 06:11 PM	#8
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,399	Forget the money, do they dope you up for the procedure? That's your real selling point here.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,399

18th October 2010, 06:24 PM	#9
eGadfly Student Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Cincinnati Posts: 39	Why is a US charity doing it in the UK?

18th October 2010, 06:34 PM	#10
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by eGadfly Why is a US charity doing it in the UK? Apparently someone wanted them to be there. There's a "United Kingdom" tab on the website. http://projectprevention.org/whats-new/ Quote: We have been contacted by many other Countries wanting us to bring Project Prevention there. The only way that will happen is if there is a financial backer in that Country to fund paying addicts there. NO United States donations will be spent on other Countries.
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

18th October 2010, 07:49 PM	#11
OlegTheBatty Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 68	Most addicts can be pretty rational when they are not suffering withdrawal symptoms. Most want to get back to a normal life but don't know how to do it. The drug use is only one of many problems. Very very few would want to bring a baby into the world while they are addicted. They all know it can happen, because it sometimes does. A reversible long term prophylactic would be highly welcome to a lot of them.

18th October 2010, 07:55 PM	#12
autumn1971 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,456	This is about as ethical as offering horny teenagers money to be sterilized, or directly targeting those with various learning disabilities. It is, however, legal, and is no slimier than most other marketing ploys.
	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

18th October 2010, 08:29 PM	#13
OlegTheBatty Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 68	Originally Posted by autumn1971 This is about as ethical as offering horny teenagers money to be sterilized, or directly targeting those with various learning disabilities. It is, however, legal, and is no slimier than most other marketing ploys. Most addicts have sex. Most addicts do not want to bring a baby into the world while they are addicts. Why is it slimy or unethical to offer a longer term solution to those who want it?

19th October 2010, 12:51 AM	#14
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,422	I also have a friend who used to be an addict and did some pretty stupid things to get money. Most notably: he accepted money to marry some chick so she could move to the Netherlands. After he cleaned up and wanted to marry, he had heaps of trouble nullifying that previous marriage. He's a father of two now and very responsible guy. OTOH society might be spared many problems by this program and if those people didn't want children anyway, I'm not sure if it's unethical. Non-addicts also change their opinion about having children in the course of their life. I didn't want children when I was in my twenties and I've got three of those little monsters now.

19th October 2010, 12:53 AM	#15
Philip JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 473	I think it's unfair that I'd have to be an addict to get the $300 and a free vasectomy.
Philip JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 473

19th October 2010, 01:24 AM	#16
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,222	If you are in the UK, you don't have to pay for any contraceptive services, including non-reversible methods. It's all free to the end-user on the NHS. I work for a charity which helps to house, and provide support for, a lot of drug addicts, I think it is appallingly irresponsible of Project Prevention to pay addicts money for doing something which they can choose for themselves at no cost. By adding in the financial incentive (to people who would sell their own grandma for the price of a fix), the charity are exploiting vulnerable people. £200 will buy 20 wraps of heroin, and Barbara Harris admits that the charity is aware that the money they give will be spent on drugs in most cases. We have something like a million children living with drug-addicted parents in the UK, and more than that living with alcoholics and mentally ill parents. Not all of those kids are living in abusive homes, but every one is a tragedy and this needs addressing. We have a chronically underfunded and overworked social work service. If there's money to spare, this is where it should be going. People who are on the front line supporting families are the ones who need funding. We don't have the same problems as the USA and a solution that may well work there will not necessarily work here This is akin to rounding up feral cats, neutering them, and then chucking them back out on the street. It doesn't solve the drug problem, it doesn't address the roots of addiction, it doesn't help people get their lives back together. It doesn't do anything to prevent the exploitation and abuse of the kids of addict parents who are already living in terrible conditions. What it does is give someone one night off from prostitution, or one night off from mugging people. But the next night, when the £200 is gone, they are back on the street, back committing crimes to feed their habit, back to shuttling in and out of custody. If this charity has so much money to spare, then let them spend it on rehab and support programmes, on getting people out of the cycle of abuse and addiction. One of the major UK drug charities has said Originally Posted by Addaction Addaction firmly believes that there is no place for Project Prevention in the UK because their practices are morally reprehensible and irrelevant. If an addict, or any one else in the UK, truly wants to be sterilised, or wants effective contraception, they can get that here at no cost. There are easy routes to access it without charities having to bribe people with what is, for many, enough money to overdose.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff. Last edited by Agatha; 19th October 2010 at 01:47 AM. Reason: Edited for clarity.

19th October 2010, 02:17 AM	#17
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,767	Some people want the procedure anyway. This is just a nudge to get those people to stop procrastinating. $300 is not enough money to make somebody get a procedure they don't want to get.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Last edited by Puppycow; 19th October 2010 at 02:19 AM.

19th October 2010, 02:18 AM	#18
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Sounds like a good idea to me.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

19th October 2010, 02:20 AM	#19
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,222	Originally Posted by Puppycow Some people want the procedure anyway. This is just a nudge. $300 is not enough money to make somebody get a procedure they don't want to get. And if they do, here in the UK they can have it for free. They do, of course, have to be drug free for the surgical options, which is the case whether PP are paying them or not. But £200 is certainly enough to make someone who can't see past their next fix to sign up to pretty much anything.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

19th October 2010, 02:24 AM	#20
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,767	Originally Posted by Agatha What it does is give someone one night off from prostitution, or one night off from mugging people. But the next night, when the £200 is gone, they are back on the street, back committing crimes to feed their habit, back to shuttling in and out of custody. If this charity has so much money to spare, then let them spend it on rehab and support programmes, on getting people out of the cycle of abuse and addiction. Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happened to the baby?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th October 2010, 02:28 AM	#21
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,422	Originally Posted by Puppycow Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happened to the baby? Yeah it died and then crawled over the friggin' ceiling! BTW: your avatar made me spay coffee all over my monitor.

19th October 2010, 02:41 AM	#22
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,222	Originally Posted by Puppycow Did you see the movie Trainspotting? Remember what happened to the baby? Yes. That's why I feel so strongly that any spare funds should be spent on getting children who are currently in that kind of environment out of it (by properly funding social services) and on getting the adults who are already on drugs off them and out of that cycle before they destroy more children's lives. I think Project Prevention's stated goal of stopping kids being born into abusive homes is laudable. But I believe that they are going the wrong way about achieving this by giving current addicts the price of an overdose in exchange for sterilisation.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

19th October 2010, 02:48 AM	#23
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,422	Originally Posted by Agatha Yes. That's why I feel so strongly that any spare funds should be spent on getting children who are currently in that kind of environment out of it (by properly funding social services) and on getting the adults who are already on drugs off them and out of that cycle before they destroy more children's lives. I think Project Prevention's stated goal of stopping kids being born into abusive homes is laudable. But I believe that they are going the wrong way about achieving this by giving current addicts the price of an overdose in exchange for sterilisation. Helping an abusive family over the course of many years must be very expensive. The incentive given for sterilization is not a lot of money on that scale. If such an initiative would sharply decrease the number of children in abusive homes, there would be a lot more money for helping the kids that do get born.

19th October 2010, 03:29 AM	#24
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by OlegTheBatty Most addicts have sex. Most addicts do not want to bring a baby into the world while they are addicts. Why is it slimy or unethical to offer a longer term solution to those who want it? Interesting question. I would answer that is not unethical to offer a solution for who wish. But I would also ask: If is not unethical to offer solution for who wish, why money is also being offered to incentive? If someone really wish be sterilized, it is not need money to reinforce such wish. The money offered pose as an interesting enigma in this social issue.
	__________________ "It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.) Last edited by SnakeTongue; 19th October 2010 at 03:30 AM.

19th October 2010, 03:51 AM	#25
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane Non-addicts also change their opinion about having children in the course of their life. I didn't want children when I was in my twenties and I've got three of those little monsters now. I just have one... In my twenties I also did not appreciate the idea of being a father. But I had my little daughter by accident and this changed my life forever. The experience which I had one day with her was amazing, thrilling like a miracle. My daughter was one year old and her mum brought her close to me. The moment I face her, eyes to eyes, in a fraction of seconds I saw myself when I was one year old. My mind was in a place outside space and time, and her was the reflection of my existence. She was flesh of my flesh and soul of my soul. In that fraction of seconds, I understood the whole meaning of the union between the male and the female, and she was the eternal evidence of such sacred design. Anyone which refuse or is refused to have a children from his own flesh and soul, will never experience that... It is sad.
	__________________ "It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)

19th October 2010, 04:00 AM	#26
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by Agatha If this charity has so much money to spare, then let them spend it on rehab and support programmes, on getting people out of the cycle of abuse and addiction. . Excellent point.
	__________________ "It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)

19th October 2010, 04:19 AM	#27
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,903	This is old news; this organisation hit the headlines back in May when they were approaching people outside Possil* health centre offering the same deal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10143746 * - One of the less affluent areas of Glasgow.
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

19th October 2010, 04:20 AM	#28
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,925	Originally Posted by Agatha Yes. That's why I feel so strongly that any spare funds should be spent on getting children who are currently in that kind of environment out of it (by properly funding social services) and on getting the adults who are already on drugs off them and out of that cycle before they destroy more children's lives. I think Project Prevention's stated goal of stopping kids being born into abusive homes is laudable. But I believe that they are going the wrong way about achieving this by giving current addicts the price of an overdose in exchange for sterilisation. That's why you've set up Project Agatha, yes? To achieve those aims with your own 'spare' money? Project Prevention has a stated aim, which it sets out to address. It does not address any of the other issues you raised, any more than the RSPCA tackles child poverty or the RSPCC saves abandoned dogs. The founder 'feels strongly' about a particular issue. She also acts on it...

19th October 2010, 04:26 AM	#29
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,222	Did you miss where I work for a charity? It's what I do every day, and yes I also donate my own money as well as my own free time to it. But hey, why let those pesky facts get in the way of a good bit of snide insinuation that I'm not doing anything? As I said, I think their goal is laudable. I think their methods are reprehensible. It's also not Barbara Harris's own money, it's funded from donations.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

19th October 2010, 04:26 AM	#30
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,925	At the risk of derailing... Originally Posted by SnakeTongue But I had my little daughter by accident and this changed my life forever. The experience which I had one day with her was amazing, thrilling like a miracle. My daughter was one year old and her mum brought her close to me. The moment I face her, eyes to eyes, in a fraction of seconds I saw myself when I was one year old. My mind was in a place outside space and time, and her was the reflection of my existence. She was flesh of my flesh and soul of my soul. In that fraction of seconds, I understood the whole meaning of the union between the male and the female, and she was the eternal evidence of such sacred design. This. I was 30 and she was only a few hours old, and I probably wouldn't use the word 'sacred'. But 'awesome', that's appropriate.

19th October 2010, 04:37 AM	#31
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,925	Originally Posted by Agatha Did you miss where I work for a charity? It's what I do every day, and yes I also donate my own money as well as my own free time to it. But hey, why let those pesky facts get in the way of a good bit of snide insinuation that I'm not doing anything? As I said, I think their goal is laudable. I think their methods are reprehensible. It's also not Barbara Harris's own money, it's funded from donations. You donate your own spare money to social services? I've worked in a few social services offices, I've never seen that happen, but good for you. There probably ought to be an option on tax returns where you could tick which particular area of public funding you'd like an additional percentage of taxation of your income to be directed to. It might encourage others to follow your example. I don't believe I claimed it was Barbara Harris's own money - though given that she clearly also 'feels strongly' about this particular issue, I'd be surprised if some of her own money (and time) wasn't directed to it...just as yours is, to the issues that you feel strongly about. More to the point, yes, she is funded by donations - people choose to give her their 'spare' money, in the full knowledge of how it will be spent. I expect the donors feel strongly too, that while it is evident that most efforts to help addicts are far from successful, it is possible to do something to address the problem of 'innocent' babies being born with addictions. If this was announced as a government-funded programme, I'd have an issue with it too.

19th October 2010, 05:29 AM	#32
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	I'll Take it. Where do I get the 200?
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

19th October 2010, 06:07 AM	#33
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,222	Originally Posted by Agatha Did you miss where I work for a charity? It's what I do every day, and yes I also donate my own money as well as my own free time to it [the charity]. I am not sure why you thought I donate my time and money to social services, I can only ask that you read my post more carefully as I think I made my meaning clear. However, I have clarified for you above.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

19th October 2010, 06:14 AM	#34
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue I just have one... In my twenties I also did not appreciate the idea of being a father. But I had my little daughter by accident and this changed my life forever. The experience which I had one day with her was amazing, thrilling like a miracle. My daughter was one year old and her mum brought her close to me. The moment I face her, eyes to eyes, in a fraction of seconds I saw myself when I was one year old. My mind was in a place outside space and time, and her was the reflection of my existence. She was flesh of my flesh and soul of my soul. In that fraction of seconds, I understood the whole meaning of the union between the male and the female, and she was the eternal evidence of such sacred design. Anyone which refuse or is refused to have a children from his own flesh and soul, will never experience that... It is sad. It's rather insulting that everyone assumes that all people will react this way to the idea of parenthood. Not everyone feels the need to reproduce. There's nothing sad about it in my mind, other than the fact it's so damn hard to find a doctor to sterilise you when you are childless.

19th October 2010, 10:14 AM	#35
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow It's rather insulting that everyone assumes that all people will react this way to the idea of parenthood. Not everyone feels the need to reproduce. There's nothing sad about it in my mind, other than the fact it's so damn hard to find a doctor to sterilise you when you are childless. I am really sorry for you. It is clear that you did not understand that such experience is reserved just for who is a biological parent. You never will have such reaction because you do not have the biological child to trigger the reaction. I hope you find a doctor to sterilize your reproductive organism. The human specie really need heroes like you: a person willing to commit reproductive suicide to eliminate future adults with childless mind set. Darwin would be proud of you.
	__________________ "It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)