Controversial... Project Prevention

Wookster

The White horse will no doubt be singing and dancing at the prospect of this. I'm sure he'd pass out with excitement if he could wield the knife.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519

Controversial idea for sure but is having kids a human right no matter the circumstances they are born in?

Graham_Devon

Bloke on the radio simply said it's not up to these people, or charities to try and prevent these people, either through long acting contraception, or permanent means.

It's up to Social Services to provide after these people have created a life.

Didn't agree with him. BUT. That's the way it currently is. And that charity is now looking into a discrimination case against drug users.

I'd say it's a human right, to an extent. If you are carrying out illegal activities, then you forfeit your human rights, in my book.

vivatifosi

It isn't discussed, but there is another possible route forward. It would be possible to use a long term intravenous contraceptive instead. I actually don't like the concept at all, but I would have thought that a long term contraceptive would be a much kinder and less cynical option on behalf of the charity. AIUI female sterilisation is much harder to reverse.

Bangerchick

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd say it's a human right, to an extent. If you are carrying out illegal activities, then you forfeit your human rights, in my book.

I like your style Graham - parking on double yellow lines? No longer do you need to worry about payig that fixed penalty notice within 14 days - the Stasi will simply arrange someone to come round and amputate both your hands. Littering? Anal electrocution is the punishment here.

Back to the original topic - presumably drug users would only need smaller houses if this was widely implemented. What sort of impact would that have on house prices is anyone's guess.

michaels

A really tricky one - my liberal side says 'you must be kidding' but when I try to justify what is wrong with it that is more tricky. The doctors can not operate unless they feel the decision is being made rationally - I don't think wanting 200 quid for a fix would count as a rational reason. One thing that does seem certain is that a foreign charity should not be interfering in our domestic affairs.

Kohoutek

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bloke on the radio simply said it's not up to these people, or charities to try and prevent these people, either through long acting contraception, or permanent means.

It's up to Social Services to provide after these people have created a life.

The former is a helluva lot cheaper...

Graham_Devon

Bangerchick wrote: »

I like your style Graham - parking on double yellow lines? No longer do you need to worry about payig that fixed penalty notice within 14 days - the Stasi will simply arrange someone to come round and amputate both your hands. Littering? Anal electrocution is the punishment here.

Back to the original topic - presumably drug users would only need smaller houses if this was widely implemented. What sort of impact would that have on house prices is anyone's guess.

I'm not saying that people should be sentenced to the death penalty for smoking a spliff.

I'm saying Human Rights should not, and cannot be used to simply say everything is ok, regardless of what you do.

The scheme, as the women on the radio stated earlier, relies on the person (man or woman) making themselves known to the charity. The person is then assessed, and it's made sure, by a doctor that the person is able to make such a judgement, i.e. there is no mental illness which may impair their judgement (drugs impairing their judgement is a difficult one).

The person then goes and has the operation, or long term contraception applied on their own free will. A payment will be made after the event, and after medical evidence.

I'm not sure really why there is a payment over here. This is a US charity, and the payment there, is provided to pay for the medical fee's of such methods.

But it's a bit like moving tennants from houses we need to demolish or something. We provide a payment to do so. Not sure really why we have to, as we are providing them with both the house we need to demolish and a new house to live in, but we do. The payment pays not only for the moving fee's, but also as some sort of compensation for the upheavel.

There are many incentives to get people to do things in the benefits system, so I don't really see this incentive as that different. Afterall, it's the newborn baby addicted to crack that the charity is trying to avoid here.

The human rights person, also on the radio was suggesting its the drug addicts human right to be adicted, human right to procreate and human right ot have the social services mop up. It's this I have trouble agreeing with.

oz0707

To spend on shopping and rent, did he think we were born yesterday?! Sure I saw him up the highfields earlier!

Loughton_Monkey

There can be no such single thing as "Human Rights" any more than there is "Free Speech".

The latter sounds good, but in fact doesn't really exist. It only exists in the context of other laws like libel, slander, harrassment, creating a disturbance, inciting racial hatred.........

Same as "Human Rights". Yes, they exist, but again only in context. What we are finding is that political commentators seem reluctant to talk about, or discuss what that context should be. If discussed, surely there would be common sense proviso's that include terms such as 'Human Responsibilities', or 'Except when another life or 'human right' is infringed', or 'Along with the right goes the consequences....'

So OK, if you have a "Human Right" to take drugs to the point of addiction, then fine. But that in no way means that (a) I should pay for that irresponsible 'right', (b) anybody else (including taxpayers) should pay for that right, or (c) anybody must employ you.

mostlycheerful

Wookster : “Controversial idea for sure but is having kids a human right no matter the circumstances they are born in?”

It is currently a right and is unrestricted in most countries except China, India and Iran which practise population control :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control

The much discredited 19th and 20th centuries eugenics movement called for population control based on improving genetics by selective breeding :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Currently children are removed from unfit parents after they’re born but not before. The threshold for removal is low so many unfit parents continue to have custody but nevertheless give their kids a bad start in life and damage many of them permanently irreparably.

Should or could this be improved or changed? And if so how? More and better and more targeted education? More welfare publicity? Wealth creation? Improved housing and amenities? More benefits? A fitness course and test for parenthood, like driving lessons and test?

And there’s no suggestion on their website of widening the project to include other potentially unfit people such as criminals, poor people, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, people of low intellect, people with genetic diseases etc.

And no suggestion of still trying to make it obligatory rather than voluntary although the originator of the project initially lobbied American lawmakers to make it obligatory and failed in this objective.

So no Nazi eugenics genocide as such, yet, but this could perhaps be the thin end of the wedge if it gained a hold and then got more ambitious in its objectives. Scary. But perhaps inevitable.

tomterm8

Firstly, I don't really think this thread belongs on this board.

Secondly, project prevention doesn't just target people who have done crime, it also targets alcoholics. It's quite a short step from this to targeting people with mental health issues... or physical disabilities... or who belong to some segment of society we deem undesirable.

Personally, I believe contraception should be made available to everyone, but I don't think it is the job of a charity to decide who is desirable and who isn't. The idea that someone who is currently a drug addict or alcoholic can't turn their life around and that they should be prevented forever from having children is, frankly, reprehensible to me.