Bribes for Lives – Sterilising Drug Addicts

She has been described as a ‘Nazi’ and sparked anger from religous and pro-life groups across the UK. Barbara Harris is an American woman on a mission, to offer money to drug addicts in return for “longterm birth control” (a smushy, inaccurate term; she means sterilisation) – so, in effect, bribing them to have their ability to have children taken away.

‘Project Prevention’ was set up after Mrs Harris adopted the children of a crack addict and so far has paid 3,500 addicts across America. Her reasoning behind the idea is that she gets so angry about the damage that drugs do to children of addicts. That anger is no doubt shared by many – it is estimated that 1 million children in the UK live with drug addict parents and it cannot be argued that in such a situation, the child’s health and welfare is at risk. Harris obviously feels incredibly passionate about protecting children, but is offering money to addicts to get the snip a reasonable way to tackle the problem?

Today, “John” became the first British person to take up the offer of cash to have a vasectomy and despite feeling nervous, felt that it was the right thing for him to do as he didn’t feel responsible enough to bring up a child of his own. But would he have taken such extreme action if it had not been in exchange for money? I think not.

The ethical debate here is not whether or not it is a good idea for drug addicts not to have children, or even to act upon that, but whether it is right for someone to bribe an addict to permanently remover their ability to have children. Let’s look at the terms:

bribe

–noun

1.
money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person
2.
anything given or serving to persuade or induce
addict

–noun
1.
a person who is addicted to an activity, habit, or substance: a drug addict. (often also described as ‘dependent’)
The NHS Choices website states: “sterilisation should only be considered by women who do not want any more children, or do not want children at all. Once you are sterilised, it is very difficult to reverse the process, so it is important to consider the other options available.”

Sterilisation is popular in the UK but it is a choice, an informed decision, made by adults who do not want any more children, if at all.
When broken down as above, ‘Project Prevention’ appears as a scheme that approaches addicts (vulnerable, dependent, possibly not of sound state of mind and quite possibly impressionable; easily led). Bribery in itself is not only unethical but morally wrong, especially when taking into account the kind of person who is being bribed. And sterilisation? Usually a form of contraception for older people who have thought long and hard and made the decision that they definitely do not want to have more children – an independent choice without any external input; a private, personal and permanent affair.

Mrs Harris certainly has the interests of children at heart; she, like everyone else, believes that children have the right to a happy, healthy life. But what of the addicts? Does she think they are lesser individuals? It would seem so. What gives her the right to pay them to take away a choice that we all should have though? Not only could it be argued that she is playing God, her project goes so far as to use a bribe that she knows her prey will find hard to turn down. £200 is a lot of money to any Joe Bloggs on the street, nevermind somebody who would rather spend money on drugs than rent or food.

It worked in America – if 3,500 people agreed to her offer, something must be not so out of order from the perspective of the addict. My guess is that when approached, the large majority of these addicts would suffer from extremely low self esteem and see themselves as a person unfit to have children – whether or not that is true, or will always be true is a whole other kettle of fish. By bribing these people to take a permanent action, Mrs Harris is tarring all addicts with the same brush and in addition to suggesting that none of them should have the right to have children, she is presuming that there would be no hope in the future. If she believed that an addict could turn things around, respond to treatment and go on to have children and stay clean (it does happen), then she would perhaps offer a less extreme form of contraception.

A drug addicts has the same human rights as an innocent child – like it or not. They may not be responsible, they may not be percieved to be ‘good’ people and they may not see themselves as fit to have children, but it is not up to some American to come over here and take away that choice. It is wrong and the sooner she returns, the better.

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Ultramarathon man: Fear vs The running power
• Barking blondes: Who's smarter - cats or dogs?
• Diary of an aid worker: The truth about gold mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Remittances could be as sustainable as international development finance
• A sense of justice: The devastating impact of legal aid reforms

• airmarshall

  There is a school of thought that argues that we, as human animals to beings, are predisposed to drug taking because; we evolved seeking out plants rich in alkaloids. An argument clearly based upon a survival strategy.

  Stimulant alkaloids such as nicotine, cocaine could very well have helped them to endure the harsh environmental conditions.

  The Aborigines are particular to the PITURI plant _ a rich in nicotine plant _ that helps them to endure their long desert treks without food.
  The Andeans, to this day, chew the coca leaves that help them to work at very high altitudes.

  Indeed there is a great deal of archaeological evidence that indicates ancient cultures mostly in the Pacific regions, used and indeed still use the Betel nut. Some of these discoveries dated between 5000 and 13000 years hence. There is evidence that shows how people mixed the potent plant materials with lime or wood ash allowing it to be directly absorbed into the blood stream. The surprising element to all of these unearthings is that some of the materials were shown to hold nutritional values. Having 100 grams of cocoa leaf contains more than the daily intake of Phosphorus, Iron and Vitamins A, B2 and vitamin E. Within this argument was shown that in some of their environments the individual’s diets were so poor it caused the struggle to survive and helped the people to produce enough neurotransmitters, for it was the plant substance that mimicked the neurotransmitters making up the shortfall, indeed it is claimed that plants evolved to mimic neurotransmitters of mammals.

  Of course today it is much more problematic, since we have larger doses of purified drugs available. So I am inclined towards agreeing that Mrs Barbara Harris’s method’s are extremely controversial, when in reality a more practical and substantial approach might well rest in improving the environment for many individuals.

• http://theuselesseater.wordpress.com/ Clare

  “The sad fact is that the vast majority don’t and arguing from the particular to the general is wrongheaded in any case.”

  If Barbara Harris was willing to pour her money into rehabilitation programmes instead of Project Prevention, that ‘vast majority’ might have a better chance. The woman I spoke of isn’t unique in terms of her desire to get better or her personality or her talents. She’s unique in that she lives in an area where there is excellent help available for addicts. Unfortunately such help is very patchy. People who have identical problems and an identical desire to recover may never be able to access the help that she had, simply because it isn’t available where they live, or because their health authority is unwilling to fund it. That’s just in this country. Don’t even get me started on the USA’s insurance-based healthcare system, which excludes so many addicts from the coverage that they need to fund treatment.

  We need to work to put better healthcare provision in place, instead of ruining people’s lives further by saying, “There is no hope for you. One or two of you might get better, but the vast lumpen majority are stuck with addiction.” There was a time when mumps was a widespread disease that claimed a lot of lives; thanks to better and more accessible public healthcare, that’s no longer the case. The same is true of numerous other illnesses. The same should be true of drug addictions. Make the help accessible, and one day it may well be true.

• gilbert2207

  I absolutely agree that the problem of addiction must be dealt with, and that treatment simply is not there for those who need it. But treating drug addiction is expensive, and, unfortunately, it is a long term proposition which may simply never materialize for many drug addicts. Ms. Harris’s programme at least deals with one of the disastrous by-products of drug addiction – unwanted children. Does it make sense to let thousands of unwanted children pay the price for society’s delay in dealing with the problem of drug addiction? Project Prevention is a cost-effective and efficient means of reducing the number of child victims of drug addiction.Please don’t liken Project Prevention to ‘forced sterilisation’. This is not what is being proposed. Project Prevention is largely offering women implants, IUDs, and injections. All of these are reversible, so if the time arises when a woman is able to make a responsible decision to have a child she is able to care for, she may then begin the process of intentionally trying to conceive a child. More permanent sterilisation is also available, however its application is limited. It is unfortunate that the only option for men is vasectomy (which may be reversible in some cases), however this is because long-term birth control options such as implants for men are simply not available.The fact is that drug addicts’ lives are often chaotic; even with the best of intentions, they are unlikely to practice birth control in an effective manner. Project Prevention offers a financial inducement to achieve this. Would it be preferable for drug addicts to opt for long-term birth control without a financial inducement? Absolutely. Is it likely to happen? Consider whether they look after their diet, their teeth, their overall health, etc. If there was ever an instance where the end justifies the means, this is it.I have no doubt that some drug addicts will turn their lives around and go on to be good parents, and that some children born to drug addicts may escape the long-term effects of being born addicted to drugs, but these cases are the exceptions, not the rule. Project Prevention is not about denying a drug addict the ‘right’ to have children (if having a child can be considered a ‘right’; I see it as an assumption of huge responsibility). Project Prevention is about preventing innocent children from enduring the agony of drug withdrawal, from entering the care system and being shunted from foster home to foster home, from feeling that their parents chose drugs over loving their children, etc. Project Prevention enables drug addicts to make a responsible decision to delay having children until such time as they are able to care for them. Please don’t argue to deny drug addicts the opportunity to make this positive choice.