Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised

Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised.

Link: BBC News

Drug addicts across the UK are being offered money to be sterilised by an American charity.

Project Prevention is offering to pay £200 to any drug user in London, Glasgow, Bristol, Leicester and parts of Wales who agrees to be operated on.

The first person in the UK to accept the cash is drug addict "John" from Leicester who says he "should never be a father".

If anyone has any doubt that we are evolving into a world of heartless misanthropes. This is frankly, diabolical.

So instead of helping drug addicts, treating them with respect and providing help, we are to sterilise them (sorry provide 'reversible contraception' as the charity calls it) and throw them in the rubbish bin. Terrible, just terrible.

The charity involved, Project Prevention is in my view morally corrupt. What next? Offering money to low income families to be sterilised, so they don't have any more children? Or differently abled people? Or short people? Or people with red hair.

Welcome to the eugenics of today.

This is disgusting and nothing short of eugenics. This is taking advantage of people who need help not 200 quid for their next fix. How does an American charity get to operate in the UK in such a fashion? How does such a charity raise funds? Lets just hope its not anything to do with the good ole American philanthropists

Some additional sources:

Yorkshire Post

The Guardian

The Scotsman

reply to post by woodwardjnr


The charity appears to be supported from donations. I'm not sure how to find out if they are supported by any other groups, if anyone knows that would be interesting.

Pretty much any group can apply for charitable status in the UK, so long as they can meet Charity Commission regulations. I guess some of my fellow British subjects thought it was a good idea to throw in with the American charity.

I'm not going to link to the Project Prevention website here - I won't have them benefit from the link.

I see nothing wrong with this. Those people are not forced, they VOLUNTARILY agreed to undergo REVERSIBLE sterilisation. This is just private charity donating common medical procedure.
I dont think anyone addicted to drugs or anyone who values £200 over their children should have them in the first place. Children must be our top priority, and rights of the parents should be respected only if they dont infringe upon rights of their children (irreversibly damaging their health is the most harsh right infringement I can think of, short of killing them right after birth) or other people.

Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris admitted her methods amounted to "bribery", but said it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy.

Pregnant addicts can pass on the dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.

Speaking to the BBC's Inside Out programme, she said: "The birth mother of my children obviously dabbled in all drugs and alcohol - she literally had a baby every year for eight years.

"I get very angry about the damage that drugs do to these children."

Better to have voluntary sterilised drug addicts than brain-damaged children wchich certainly did not volunteered for such a life.

To all you bashing eugenics here, just what exactly is wrong with eugenics, if its not practiced through force or violence, but voluntary agreement, motivation and peaceful means? You are so brainwashed by anti-eugenics propaganda that you cannot separate its abuse in the past (what nazis have done was not even eugenics, many basic tenets of eugenics, like demonstrable improvement of the genome, voluntary cooperation and never breaching human rights, were broken) from instances where it actually helps everyone (who is harmed by this??). Do you also condemn nuclear energy and nuclear powerplants because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Deny ignorance people!

Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations.

I see nothing wrong with this and fully support the charity. Can it be donated to?

reply to post by Maslo


By evoking the 'it's all about the unborn children' argument, one can justify virtually anything.

Lets see ... the parents are obese and their children might then be overweight and prone to heart disease. I would estimate that at £500 per food addict.

What? You're a smoker? If you are a smoker, your children have a greater chance of smoking. That should be about £423 per addict.

Oh lord, you are poor! If you are poor, you have less money to buy stuff for your kids. That should be about £900.

Do I need to stop here? This infernal woman is trying to stop drug addicts from having children. Isn't that the definition of eugenics? To prevent certain groups from reproducing? Who gave Barbara Harris the right to interfere with peoples lives, under the assumption that all addicts will have damaged children? To prey on the weakest and least supported in our society. Yes, drug addition is a problem, but this isn't the solution. This really isn't the solution.

reply to post by mithrawept

By evoking the 'it's all about the unborn children' argument, one can justify virtually anything.

Yes, if a mother is going to, for example chop hands of his children off, you can do everything you are able to to stop her, because she is going to infringe upon their basic human right. I dont see why the situation is suddenly different when she is going to brain damage them.

Lets see ... the parents are obese and their children might then be overweight and prone to heart disease. I would estimate that at £500 per food addict.

Acquired obesity is not heritable. Genetic obesity is not the parents decision, its nature. This is therefore totally unrelated.

What? You're a smoker? If you are a smoker, your children have a greater chance of smoking. That should be about £423 per addict.

As far as I know, allowing or your children to smoke is not breaching their basic human rights, and does not qualify as felony of damaging their health, even if it is stupid. Again, unrelated. But if mother voluntarily forces them to smoke, she could and should be prosecuted.

Do I need to stop here?

Yes, you clearly have problem with constructing related analogies, yours differ in many important points.

This infernal woman is trying to stop drug addicts from having children. Isn't that the definition of eugenics?

Bububu eugenics, bububu nazis and Hitler! Ever heard of Godwins law or Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy?
I will just copypaste paragraph from my previous post here, because you have clearly missed it, even if it was the largest one:

Just what exactly is wrong with eugenics, if its not practiced through force or violence, but voluntary agreement, motivation and peaceful means? You are so brainwashed by anti-eugenics propaganda that you cannot separate its abuse in the past (what nazis have done was not even eugenics, many basic tenets of eugenics, like demonstrable improvement of the genome, voluntary cooperation and never breaching human rights, were broken) from instances where it actually helps everyone (who is harmed by this??). Do you also condemn nuclear energy and nuclear powerplants because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Deny ignorance people!

Infernal woman.. Tell that to child braindamaged by his mother! She is an angel!

To prevent certain groups from reproducing? Who gave Barbara Harris the right to interfere with peoples lives, under the assumption that all addicts will have damaged children?

I would understand your concern if she was forcing them to be sterilised, altrough I will still agree with her, because just as you can use violent means to stop mother from chopping hands of their children off, you can use them to stop her from braindamaging them, infringement upon rights justifies infringement upon rights. Thats the basic tenet of our society, otherwise you will be jailed for defense of your or others life or property.
But she is even doing it only if they VOLUNTARILY agree! So she is not breaching any of their rights, even if they are going to cripple their children! Its equivalent for example to you persuading a murderer to stop his intent to breach other peoples health. Now THAT is NOBLE!

Really people, where is your LOGIC and EMPATHY??

Good move, as long as the cash is monitored.

These people should not have kids - they can't even look after themselves.

I dont see this as being a bad thing either,they are not forced,these people volunteered,I`d also think it wise for drug addicts and alcoholics to give up their drivers licenses as well.

If they can`t look after themselves how can they care about anyone else,be it their own children or other road users.

Here is the founder of the org explaining what its about and what its not.....

www.youtube.com...

There would be such an outcry and quickly stopped if ever it was forced onto the obese,smokers redheads etc etc etc.

Like it or not, eugenics could become a reality in any of our societies pretty soon, and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Overpopulation is a real problem that we are going to have to start addressing.

reply to post by Brood


Who many people are exactly addicted to the drug alcohol and have children? Smoking pregnant? And if some one is smoking a joint he should be sterilized? LOL!

Half of you people are talking like drug addicts are animals, They are human beings who have made bad choice's not animal's. yes its great that this is a volunteer effort but you have to ask why are they paying them when in england the nhs is free they could get that done when ever they want. What this company is doing is taking advantage of a drug addict by offering him money when they are at an extremely vulnerable point in there lives and may even persuade them in thinking they are animals that need to have it done . However what about when that person recovers and is of a compos mentis mind-state do you think he will regret his actions and choices like many recovering addicts? In my opinion this is very wrong and anyone who debates this obviously has never suffered the addiction of drugs or known anyone who has. How long till we start offering to buy kids off the parents because the parents are not fit. Bottom line its is bribery and taking advantage of people with vulnerability's and are not in there right mind-state.

Originally posted by Brood
Like it or not, eugenics could become a reality in any of our societies pretty soon, and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Overpopulation is a real problem that we are going to have to start addressing.

The operative word here is 'selection'. Who gets to decide? You? Me? Who has that right?

We can discuss overpopulation but this isn't about overpopulation, it's about restricting the reproductive rights of a particular group of people. God forbid you fall into any group designated for non-reproduction.

Had to post this because the context fits:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Is this the world you want? Where unelected, unrepresentative individuals are coercing people to give up their rights for a few quick Bucks/Pounds/Yen/Euros/Dollars?

If you want fascism that's just fine but at some point you might not agree...

150 would make it also. a good idea.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
How does an American charity get to operate in the UK in such a fashion?

How does ANY charity anywhere get to operate in such a fashion? How about... Offer them 200 pounds if they go through and complete treatment?

Damn... This is just wrong.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

Damn... This is just wrong.

Nope. Drug addicts having babies is wrong. This charity is doing the right thing, and will do lots of good.