Carlene

There is a big difference between a drug user and a drug addict. If we were to sterilize everyone who has ever used drugs, there would be a HUGE and immediate decrease in our country's birthrate. And as you pointed out yourself, after a few months of serious drug use, men begin to suffer from erectile dysfunction, which pretty much means they aren't going to be impregnating anyone. Because our crystal balls are all out of order and we have no way of predicting the future. Maybe they could remove an IUD or Norplant themselves, but certainly not "easily". And it would be pretty evident, in the case of the implant. The wouldn't get any money after the sterilization anyway, under the program we've been discussing here. But why not provide rehab without requiring that they give up any future chance at having children? Doesn't that seem the least bit cruel to you? Clean them up and then, oh yeah.....it's great that you kicked that heroin habit, but it sucks that you'll never be able to have kids, doesn't it?

For that, I should yank your chain AND twist it. NO!!! I absolutely think it would be exploitive to offer drug addicts money in return for being voluntarily sterilized.

From permanently impairing their ability to reproduce, I agree. But I still like the idea of paying the women to get themselves fitted with an IUD.

I assumed you did. Just yanking your chain, TOM. However, blood is tested after the fact. Commercial blood banks buy blood and hope for the best. It's no coincidence that those places are located in the poorest sections of town. US blood supplies are NOT 100% safe. I met a woman at Baylor Hospital's organ transplant center in Dallas who was being evaluated for a liver transplant - at the hospital's expense. She contracted Hep C from a transfusion she received at Baylor. This was confirmed - not just speculation - thus the hospital was absorbing the entire cost of the procedure.

That's true....but most drug-addicted females turn to prostitution, sooner or later. So having a SO who's sterilized probably won't stop her from getting pregnant.

No one knows "without a doubt" what another person is going to do. And other than setting up shop in a neighborhood known for the availability of drugs, I'm not sure how the program would target drug addicts to the exclusion of everyone else. You could drug test them, but that just proves they've used. A user and an addict are not the same thing. I'm only willing to pay the ladies for getting IUDs...I don't go along with the sterilization thing.

Drug banks? We have drug banks now?

Apples and oranges. Castration is permanent - an IUD is removable with no lasting effects.

Not exactly....no more than, say, paying the same woman to shine your shoes would be perpetrating the drug trade. Society can't be held responsible for the way people spend their money. Druggies sell their blood for drug money, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

A drug-addicted woman is unlikely to take advantage of free birth control (too much trouble), but she might drag herself down to the clinic and get the IUD in order to collect the incentive of $300. And presumably, $300 would be a mere drop in the bucket, compared to the cost (to society) of raising the 5 or 6 children each woman might thrust upon the system.

Hard-core drug addicts don't have much libido anyway, so pregnancy is only a big issue for women who trade sex for drugs (or money with which they can buy drugs). I say give those women the $300 to have an IUD implanted. The Depo Provera injections, either for men or women, would be much harder to monitor. Addicts are desperate and foolhardy. Some of them would go to every clinic in town, repeatedly, and sign up for the injections. And too much of that stuff is undoubtedly bad for you.

What does society taking care of its young have to do with anything? Offering free sterilization to drug addicts is just that - an offer with no strings attached. If they accept, they have presumably done so for the right reasons - they realize they would make lousy parents. But if you offer money as an incentive, then you are dangling a carrot that an addict, always desperate for money, is unlikely to refuse. These people, after all, think nothing of selling their blood, stealing, or prostituting themselves for drug money. exploitation - an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly) Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers. Still and all, that doesn't make it okay for society to take advantage of its drug addicted citizens. How about homeless people, or winos? Would it be okay to bribe them with the same $300? Even though food, clothing, and shelter are essential to human life, it is no one's obligation to provide them for us. Health insurance is not a right - it's a commodity, as is most ordinary medical care. Again, the fact that drug addicts cost society money, time, and God knows what else does not preclude our responsibility to uphold their basic human rights.

Laurend... I think sterilization, by definition, is permanent. Anything less is called birth control.

Grumpy? I'm anything but grumpy.

No, they are not all "medically related". When an organ transplant program drops you from the list because you have no insurance, that's about money. Band doctors who exclude patients banded in Mexico, but will accept patients banded by another US doctor - not medically related. My own PCP who chooses not to treat anyone under 18 or over 65 is exercising his rights as a businessman, but his decision isn't medically related.

Laurend... I agree that each of us is born with a presumed right to reproduce. It's what is generally referred to as a "God-given" right (although I don't know what Atheists would call it). I don't agree, however, that we have a right to be fed and clothed. We have to provide those things (food and clothing) ourselves.

When we (society) offer free sterilization to drug addicts, that's a good thing. When we start PAYING drug addicts to be sterilized, then we're taking advantage of desperate people, in order to entice them into doing something that is in OUR (society's) best interest - primarily because we don't want to be responsible, financially and socially, for any children they might produce. I don't understand your references to a "putative father", or potential children. We aren't talking about children who have already been born, or even conceived. You can't exploit a person who "might have been".

I think offering free sterilization would be great - for anyone who might want it. Paying people to be sterilized is problematic for me. I think it reeks of exploitation.

Doctors pick and choose what services to provide, and which patients to treat, all the time. It is neither unethical nor illegal. Most organ transplant centers refuse to transplant smokers or drinkers. They also have a priority list and if you lose your insurance before you get a new organ, they kick you off the list - which means you will DIE. Too bad...so sad. Band doctors, as someone else pointed out, will rarely fill a patient banded elsewhere. OB/GYN docs will generally not accept patients who are more than five months pregnant. My PCP does not treat children, nor will he accept new Medicare patients. He also discriminates against smokers, as he will give drug samples to non-smokers only. So far, no one has sued him. A physician is morally obligated to provide care only in case of an emergency - meaning a situation that is life-threatening. Apart from that, he can tell you to go suck a lemon.

Wasn't the requirement post 9/11 that the cockpit doors be reinforced virtually the same thing - useless? Sure....a terrorist could no longer kick in that little cardboard door to gain entry to the cockpit, but what about the rest of the adjacent wall? Couldn't he move over a couple of feet and kick THAT in?

Kiss me....I'm Irish!!!

No you weren't....I can definitely be a pain in the ass. I fit everywhere and nowhere. I am a conservative Democrat, a practicing Catholic who favors gay marriage and refuses to get involved in other people's reproductive systems. I am rabidly anti-Bush, but not anti-Republican. I can even envision myself voting GOP if one came along that was somewhat liberal. I like to argue...I don't enjoy it when the discussion turns nasty, however. I love the people on LBT. I'm not an Atheist by a long shot, but I understand why intelligent, educated people might be. As I've often said, I didn't choose God....God chose me.

I'm a Bible believing Christian. The fact that I do not interpret every word literally does not make me less so. No one does that....absolutely no one. Many SAY they do, but they don't. They always have a reason why the verses/books they don't subscribe to aren't inspired by God. The last argument, I believe, dealt with "context". The Bible, some claimed, was to be interpreted literally, except when the context indicated otherwise. The problem was, no one could agree on when "context" should be applied and when it shouldn't.

I'm sure the information she was imparting was correct. Of that I have no doubt. But was she "right" in saying what she did? Not by a long shot. Maybe if she had phrased it differently.....

My late husband died of liver cancer. Toward the end, we were going to do Hospice - go home from the hospital and just do the comfort care until he died. He had a DNR order, and I was okay with that. No heroic measures. But when the rep from Hospice came to talk to me, to make the arrangements, she pointed at the glucose drip and said, "You know, if you disconnected that, this whole thing would go a lot faster." I changed my mind about Hospice.