Skip to main content

Steralisation for cash

Last night I caught half off InsideOut, a TV show on the BBC (I think) that was discussing whether drug addicts should be offered cash in return for agreeing to be sterilised and thus never having children.  Also, on the show was one of Margaret Thatcher's former advisers who said that he advised Maggie to bring in a system of compulsory sterilisation that would form a sentence of the courts.

I'm talking purely now about the offer to pay rather then the forced sterilisation, which the Daily Mail would have a fit over if it was happening in any Arab country.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this suggestion.  On the one hand, I find the idea of twisting the arms of the desperate and often mentally incapable (due to their drug use) quite unpalatable. 

On the other had, I've had dealings with drug dependant mothers and fathers whose children live the most miserable lives that the authorities seem unable to improve.  One girl I came across is regularly in court for one thing or another.  I was informed by the Youth Offending Team that they are certain that this 13-year-old child is being prostituted by her mother on a regular basis to adult men so that mum can buy drugs.
Many of the clients I deal with come from homes where one or other parent is a drug addict and it isn't difficult to see how they end up in the care and court systems.

I wonder what other people's views on this subject are?

If you didn't catch the programme, the charity behind the idea is Project Prevention - I'm sure they have a web presence you can google if you're interested... I'm not sure I want to put up a link here.

Comments

  1. It gives me a very uneasy feeling about historical parallels and where this avenue might lead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would like to see a reversible sterilisation process - something like Norplant or its successors, though you'd want a version with fewer side-effects - for everybody. Simply end unwanted pregnancy.

    For a permanent version: from a legal point of view is it not the case the the people to whom it's being offered to are considered to be responsible adults? In which case we should surely have nothing to say as to such contracts as they choose to enter into with other responsible adults.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any long term solution will inevitably mean short term casualties but this also makes me feel very uneasy.
    De-criminalising drugs,controlling the sale through legitimate outlets to get rid of the pushers and the `forbidden fruit`factor is the only way this tragic situation will be improved.
    Prohibition does not work

    ReplyDelete
  4. jerym is right -- if we had a sensible drugs policy in the first place, this sort of measure wouldn't need to be contemplated. In the meantime, any attempt to tinker seems likely to do at least as much harm as good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't see many addicts being interested. Apart possibly as an opportunity to by £200 worth of drugs. In this event, would it be an informed decision?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Roger BW. A 'reversible' sterilisation would be an excellent idea. Like Mr Brown (and yourself), I see people who have great difficulties addresing their own issues, without adding the complication of children. These children, if not subject to significant intervention by Social Services, are fostered/adopted. All the while, this has both a massive financial cost to the taxpayer and a likely emotional cost to the parents and child.

    Support it; the alternative, is I fear, too high a cost.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…