Coercion?

Oct. 23rd, 2010 02:18 pm
cathepsut: (Default)
[personal profile] cathepsut posting in [community profile] child_free
Someone on LJ pointed me to their childfree community and to this entry:
Projection Prevention offers to help UK drug addicts stop having kids

I thought I should point you over there in case you want to participate in the drama. Or we can start our own drama here.

I do not have a problem with long-term birth control. But offering money for sterilisation to a person that is in a difficult situation, probably not thinking clearly and in desperate need of money? Very dicey. What are your thoughts on the matter?

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 01:16 pm (UTC)
geeksdoitbetter: (Default)
From: [personal profile] geeksdoitbetter
drama!

~grin~

eh, offering an irreversible* choice, when a person isn't technically of sound mind, usually is illegal

i'm thinking of the forced sterilization of patients with reduced mental capacity in the US way back when

here the diff is between forced and choice, but the ability of the subject to make a decision is still suspect

*while many methods of sterilization might not be medically irreversible, perhaps the second procedure would be out of reach due to health or finances or accessibility?

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 05:23 pm (UTC)
killing_rose: Abby from NCIS asleep next to a caf-Pow with the text "Goth Genius at Work" (Abby)
From: [personal profile] killing_rose
...Oh dear gods. As someone who's writing a thesis about USian sterilization from '83 to '03, I'd just like to say something. This is a) something that has already been ruled illegal in many areas of the US, b) steps very, very close to the laws protecting people from eugenics, and c) is extremely problematic if not morally wrong.

The US pioneered eugenics, the British snagged exactly the same system, and the Nazis took it a hell of a lot further. In both the US and the UK, our eugenics programs continued in one guise or another, up until the 60s or so. In the US--at the very least, though I'd argue that it's similar in the UK--, there's still this idea that "undesirables" shouldn't spawn.

This project is related to every eugenics program, to every voluntary sterilization program that involved the stick approach ("we'll take away your welfare..."), and it's an obvious offshoot of every voluntary sterilization program that involved the carrot approach ("we'll give you money...").

I know that Project Prevention has had difficulties in the US, especially since there were severe issues with similar programs in the 90s. I'm actually interested in seeing how this works in the UK.

Drug addicts have, in various situations, been ruled non compos mentis; they've also been ruled compos mentis. It really does depend upon how high, how young, how much damage has been done to their brain, which courts, and what the situation is.

However, given that very few realize that long term birth control can be damaging and even fewer seem to comprehend that there's basically no way to reverse female sterilization, it's exceptionally problematic to offer such programs. In settings like this one, it's also typical to use words like "tying your tubes" which makes it sound like female sterilization is reversible.

And, given that my current focus is looking at the overlap of voluntary and involuntary sterilization, I can honestly tell you that the amount of information given in situations like this one are almost identical to the amount given in involuntary sterilization situations. Moreover, when your patient is too goddamn high to consent to anything, you can be liable if they ever sober up to realize what happened. (Assuming they even know what they did. There are cases in which people go to have children after being sober for several years and only then find out that they've been sterilized.)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 10:37 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] hutchy
Ugh. :( I can't really articulate my thoughts on this beyond FFFF EUGENICS FFFFFFFFF. I don't have a problem with long-term BC either - I'm a big fan of it - but trying to bribe addicts to be sterilized? Something about that just does not sit right with me. At all. And it's a slippery slope from "addicts, please don't have kids" to "disabled folks, please don't have kids" and "people with mental illnesses, please don't have kids" and so on. :/

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-24 06:16 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] hutchy
I understand the concern about whether an addict's child could be properly cared for, but they could have gone about it in a number of different ways. They could offer the addicts help or counseling, or focus on helping neglected children who are already here and suffering, but instead they're saying "No, it's okay if you're an addict, keep on doing those drugs! Just don't have any babies or anything." I'm also worried that this program could be misused even further, and end up targeting the poor and people of color in particular.

Profile

child_free: (Default)
Child Free not Child-less

January 2014

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314 15161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags