Good ole Wrighty has alerted to me a very interesting topic of conversation this morning. Put simply, there is an organisation in the US which offers a cash payment for the sterilisation of and provision of long term contraception to women addicted to drugs and alcohol because of the long term negative effects on children born in these circumstances.
It appears that this discussion has arisen out of a recent BBC Radio 4 broadcast which you can listen to here (very compelling listening!)
So what do you think?
Is a $300 payout to an addict a fair offer? It seems that these women will be motivated by the money which Project Prevention offers them and make choices which, in their state of mind are not fully conscious. Listening to Barbara Harris, the founder of the organisation, I get the feeling that her heart is in the right place and that she is genuinely concerned about the welfare of unborn children of addicts as she is an adoptive parent of four children of a Los Angeles addict.
However, it has been argued that she appears to be playing God, deciding which sectors of society are 'good enough' or 'socially undesirable' (as quoted by Fergal Keane) individuals to produce children. The argument (and her critics) has even gone as to far to argue that she is an advocate of and supporter of the theory of Eugenics preaching Nazi ideals.
Too far?
What about the addicts?
The Wright stuff panel argued that perhaps the focus should also be on the addict mothers and their rehabilitation. They pointed out that while it may be honorable of Harris to think of unborn children and the medical and financial implications involved with caring for these babies, that the mothers ought not to be essentially 'baited' by $300 which they would probably use to fund their habit thus not tackling the issue from the origin. Harris said when questioned about the financial incentive,
"...We know the money is the bait... We know the money is what gets them. We know in most cases that they're probably going to spend the money on drugs but that's their choice. The babies don't have a choice."
The babies don't have a choice. She's right. Going with one of the central prinicples of the law involving children, the best interests of the child are of paramount importance when considering decisions which could have an effect on a child's life. Does this apply to unborn children?
Where does the funding come from?
As hinted at in the interview, some of this funding comes from individuals or extremist organisations who have a racist outlook on things and think that black people have a more relaxed view on contraception and child rearing. However, according to Harris, the views of the donors is not what the issue is and she will continue to accept donations from whoever provides it, as the overall purpose overrides the issue of where the money comes from. Is it not surprising then that she is accused, of being racist as accepting donations from racist or extremist organisations may be seen as condoning their views? As one half of a bi-racial couple, it could be said that she is not racist but she fails to recognise how the acceptance of certain donations could be viewed by the public.
An organisation called 'National Advocates for Pregnant Women'(NAPW) which works to protect the rights and dignity of pregnant women and those which are most vulnerable due to ethnic background, low income or drug abuse, contains commentary and testimonials on the Project Prevention ideas and one commentor and former addict said,
"... thank goodness I had not met Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris when I was in active addiction, because I may have taken her up on her offer and missed out on the beauty of having children."
(see further comments and information here )
I think that Project Prevention and its proposals sound like a reasonable idea(in some cases) but feel that more focus should be more on rehabilitation and therapy for these people as simply by not having children, will not work to resolve the drug addiction...
I find this so interesting and would be interested to hear what others have to say so feel free to comment!
CBC
xx
The Law Show
2 days ago
2 comments:
Aaagh! $300? What's that going to do for you when you're an addict? It's only a matter of time before the Daily Mail takes this up with their judgmental attitude to women who drink. Woe betide any women who do what men have been doing for centuries! I am sure there are more constructive ways of dealing with the "issue". Check out the Times Online on "Foyers" for pregnant young women (although that also has slight shades of the workhouse!).
I know! The incentive is hardly that...
Post a Comment