Should CRACK pay drug addicted women in exchange for utilizing 'permanent' birth control? Why or why not? What are the competing considerations in this case? To what extent might this be considered exploitation? Would it make a difference if the birth control required was short term only? Does society have a right to prevent births that may increase the size and costs of public welfare systems? Why/when does one (individual reproductive rights) outweigh the other (societal rights)?
Suggested completion date: September 26, 2008
Posts
22 comments:
The answer is written from a neutral consideration with trying to see many viewpoints as possible. However, one must remember that the program already went thru evaluation of long term affect of CRACK children - No hope - They all become victims of "foster care drift".
Should CRACK pay: Yes, it's a worth prevention of bringing the innocent children to harsh life ahead. These children face very little chance of living a "normal" life unless enormous government and social help are provided.
I don't see any implication of exploitation going on here; women are given choice of long term or permanent solution. I can't imagine anyone forced or talked into the birth control decision by the US government.
Yes, a short term control is an attractive option. We’d have a better argument if the case was presented with some sort of data. What percentage of women are regretting? And why? Are they misinformed, what changed, what have they learned, and so on.
With a collective thought society should have some degree of right to prevent birth of doomed future human life with well informed consent.
We must put focus on WHO suffers most - a mother, child, or society? We shouldn't make judgement based on the cost of welfare which CRACK birth children entail. Because it creates the endless questions with lopsided answers rather than focusing on the root causes to resolve and seeking for comprehensive solutions.
In most of CRACK cases, negligent that is, individual reproductive rights should be considered based on foreseeable, suffering of human life that will be created by irresponsible human being. We do have child protective system from abuser, therefore it's difficult to not apply the same analogy to this case.
Again, one should ask what is the intention of CRACK program and who suffers the most?
Jinwon
I agree with CRACK that prevention of conception is preferable to bringing a child in to the world to suffer. The prevention will also help reduce the pressure on our social welfare systems and society in general. One thing not mentioned in the article is what happens to the children when they grow up. A high percentage of them end up in the criminal justice system, so society ends up paying for them for a great deal of their adult lives and innocent people suffer from crimes committed.
I disagree with permanent birth control when a person is not competent and vulnerable. I think long term birth control would be more of an answer. Permanent, but reversible methods would be an ideal answer. A drug addicted person doesn’t want a baby, but doesn’t think far enough ahead to prevent it. Paying someone in that situation to get them to agree to long term birth control is a win win in my opinion. Some people do turn their lives around though, and permanent birth control could be a decision they would regret later in life.
As far as government interference with reproductive rights goes, I think society outweighs the individual in that respect. We, by nature, compete for resources. We compete with each other and the other inhabitants of our planet. If we don’t limit our population ourselves nature will do it for us. Natural methods are not pleasant. We regulate people’s behavior in almost all aspects of our lives. Why should reproduction be any different?
Greg Dawson
I don’t believe that CRACK should be allowed to push permanent or short term birth control. Every woman out there is able to make their own decisions regarding their birth control options and in the long run I think that this could pose more serious problems. What if the addict decides to clean up their act and settle down and have a family and that they have taken that 200 dollars and spent it on drugs. I would be concerned that it would be a way for them to try to make money for their habit as well. And what about the long term effects of permanent sterilization? Are these addict going to have problems with hormonal imbalance? And what about birth control pills? Some people cannot take birth control pills. I believe that you are not supposed to smoke while on birth control for fear of increased heart problems. Imagine what this could do to a woman who is smoking crack, not only is she already reeking havoc in her body with the crack but throw birth control into the mix…I just don’t think that this is the kind of program that we need, I think we need to offer up therapy and support programs with more specialized training rather than just thinking in the short term scope of this issue.
ML
I agree with ML’s opinion “Every woman out there is able to make their own decisions regarding their birth control options...”, and we should provide more support programs rather than a more radical program like this Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity, “C.R.A.C.K.”
Most drug addicted women do not use pill for their birth control. Taking the birth control pill daily require discipline. If these women are concerned about their health even remotely, they would not become an CRACK addicts.
If I remember correctly, the form of a long term and permanent birth control that the article talking about are the use of physical device and/or surgical procedure.
This case article did mention the traditional ways of addressing this problem and treating drug addiction. Perhaps it wasn’t successful. Frankly, I don’t factor in welfare cost for this case. The $$ comparison for a quality of human life, especially CRACK children is irrelevant. People DO NOT adopt the CRACK babies. The sociological harm is already done before they’re even born.
I support preventions and solutions that derived from conscience level, and not so much from the cost point of view. We will not able to solve the systemic problem that way. Money is easy to count but not the human behaviors.
JWK
Erin Bell
I think the CRACK program is an interesting idea and I can definitely see both sides, but I don’t really think that this program will work out the way that it is supposed to. Just because someone is addicted to drugs doesn’t mean that they should have one of their basic human rights taken away. Besides the fact that some of these people might rehabilitate themselves someday and decide that their decision to sterilize themselves for 200 bucks was a bad one, many of the people who are participating in this program are going to do it for drug money, and that is just worsening the problem. It is the woman’s choice to get involved with this program, but can someone really make an educated decision when they are high on drugs?
It would make a difference if the birth control was only short-term, making it a much less harsh decision to make, but that wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of CRACK- to keep drug addicted women from having children? After the birth control period was over, the woman could get pregnant just as easily as before.
If society has a right to prevent births that may increase the size and costs of the public welfare system, than who knows what else they would do from here. It’s hard to say when reproductive rights outweigh societal rights, but in my opinion, the money would be better spent offering these drug addicted people some kind of counseling or rehabilitation.
What becomes of a baby that is born of a crack addicted mother and immediately given up for adoption? Is the baby destined to fail as an adult? Will he/she never make anything for themselves? We really have no idea and can never be certain. So that is why we should not target vulnerable women to give up their right to have a baby for cash. A women addicted to crack is not capable of making a decision that will affect her for the rest of her life. I think C.R.A.C.K. is on the right track for trying to help women get birth control but why does it have to be long term? Is it cheaper for them that way? I think short term birth control would be affected but shouldn’t we focus on the bigger problem? We need to focus our attention on getting these women off of crack. What happens if she rehabilitates and decides she does want to have children? Will C.R.A.C.K. help her out then? Not likely.
In the United States there is a safe haven law to protect mothers who do not want their baby. The law states that you can drop your baby off at any emergency room, fire dept, or police station and there will be no consequences. I think we should promote this sort of act to crack addicted mothers instead of raising their child in an abusive or drug infested home. It is not the most ideal situation but it at least ensures the baby will receive proper medical care.
I think any organization that has a motto “Don’t let a pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit," has some issues. C.R.A.C.K. is attempting to help women but in the long run may not be doing what is in the best interest for the mom.
Joe king
I believe CRACK is making the world a better place. Public welfare systems treat children horribly and most of the children end up with severe psychological problems because of it. First of all let me just say the women we are talking about are so addicted to drugs they can not even use a condom. These women are not just having children they are giving birth to children with AIDS, HIV or cocaine addictions. I think it is fantastic that someone is offering a permanent birth control solution so these women never have to worry about getting pregnant. CRACK is not forcing addicted women to use their method of birth control it is completely and entirely up to the woman if she wants to go to CRACK. It is possible that some addicted women will go to rehab or quit drugs all together. However, it is very likely some of these women will quit using and then start again later on in life. The percentage is very high for an ex-abuser to return to abusing. I think a permanent solution is the most practical and it is after all just another option.
Amanda Rhoades
Things to consider from the case - Do ALL of these babies become a burden on society? Or just a greater percentage than otherwise expected? If these women are under the influence when they accept cash for birth control, is this a legally binding agreement? Are these women even competent to make a decision? Or is the CRACK organization taking advantage of them? Which matters most, intention or effects of the program? Do individuals have the right to make poor decisions? Why or why not? Does it make a difference if the birth control option is temporary as opposed to permanent/irreversible? Does society (or the state) have a right to intervene in personal reproductive matters? What if society decides reproduction should be prohibited for some based on race, religion, IQ, etc? How would this be much different from former policies of forced lobotomies, mandatory sterilization of mentally ill..... Is reproduction a basic human right? Is it ever ok to restrict it? Why or why not? And if restriction is ok, where do we draw the line? Is CRACK trying to help these women or just limit societal impact? Does this matter?
I agree with JWK in that I support this blog. I think it would be in the best interest of all children who suffer or would suffer the outcome of being a drug baby. One thing that would be a problem though, the women may use the money to buy drugs, but that would be better than a child suffering. The babies should be the highest priority, and since there has been no other way so far that has significantly reduced the number, this may be the best way. I also want to say how selfish these women are by not doing everything to keep from becoming pregnant while on drugs.
Michelle Camping
Amanda Breed
I don't believe that CRACK should be administering permanent birth control. Women who are on drugs are not in the right mind state to make that life changing decision. I think temporary birth control is a great idea, it could save many children from a great deal of pain. I think women on drugs don't want to have babies but choose to spend their money on other resources and birth control gets put aside. Maybe if the birth control was free then it might have an impact on the number of drug addicted babies. I don't think that CRACK is designed to cut the costs of welfare; the program is trying to prevent drug addicted babies. The women who choose to use CRACK are making their decision on their reproductive rights. Its just not fair that a woman who doesn't make the best choices, under the influence, should be pushed into permanent birth control.
Amanda Breed-
You have a great point about temporary birth control. However, have you considered some of these women have sexually transmitted diseases that can be given to their children through the birthing process? Maybe testing a woman for STD'S first before giving the permanent birth control would be an even better option.
Amanda Rhoades
Amanda Breed--
You mention that "women who are on drugs are not in the right mind state to make that life changing decision." But my question to that is, does that mean they are in the right state of mind to bring a child into this world, or in the right state of mind to give up their child for adoption?
Kayla Parent
In response to Joe King:
"I think any organization that has a motto “Don’t let a pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit," has some issues. C.R.A.C.K. is attempting to help women but in the long run may not be doing what is in the best interest for the mom. "... couldn't have said it better myself!!
M Longtin
The benefits far outweigh the costs in this case. I completely agree with what CRACK is doing. Many of these mothers who are giving birth to still born children, because they wouldn’t put down a pipe for 9 months, are disgusting. The thing with this program is that it is not mandatory; it is strictly on a volunteer basis, and therefore cannot be considered exploitation at all. The children that are placed into foster homes never make it out, and this is devastating to see. CRACK should also offer temporary birth control (i.e. the pill, IUD, etc.), as well as parenting classes for those who do not wish to pursue permanent birth control. I think that society as a whole would like to see the welfare system reduced in size, maybe this would allow more for those who really need it. As I said before this is a choice, if you don’t want it don’t take it.
Kayla Parent
Michelle Camping
11-15-2008
In regards to Erin, I don't believe it to be taking away the right. They choose to have the proceedure done. I think it will work for now in decreasing the amount of the babies born with a horrible life.
I believe this is a great idea. I think that if they can prevent women on having children who obviously usually go through horrible living circumstances and worse, they should. I believe that yes they may be enabling these women for horrible habits (possibly many) I also think that if they can prevent children from going through living horribly (if at all) they should. I do believe these women might take this "help" the wrong way and do it just for the money possibly but if they were really in a mindset of wanting a child I believe they would try to straighten up their life first (I know it doesn't always work like this). I know highly unlikely but knowing what their child would be going through if they didn't, maybe they would. Overall I don't see too many downsides to doing this. I think if CRACK did pay these women it would help a lot.
I do think that convincing these women to do this when they are drugged up, not in a normal state of mind, etc is somewhat unfair. I do think that instead of permanent they should try to convince a long term birth control because if they did end up turning their life's around what a shame it would be to want a child and not be able to because of a choice that was presented to you when you were in a different state.
Commenting on A.Rhoades
I agree that it is a great option for women but at the same time (I notice you didn't put it), do you think these women are in a right state of mind to decide something as big as permanent birth control? Let alone if they are choosing to do it, they are getting $200 they didn't have before, to be used on food or more drugs.
I do think it is a very good idea since a lot of these children born from mother's like these not only have to live in horrible conditions but do end up with serious medical issues that can not be prevented otherwise. I think the cost for the foster homes are not even an issue. I think the cost from taxes, state, etc shouldn't even be a consideration I think it is the fact that the children have to live in bad conditions and with medical conditions, some extremely serious.
JWK
Since we can not be totally sure that the child growing up from a crack-addicted mother will fail I think it is a bad idea. I know it is easy to say well they are gonna grow up and follow the path of their mothers and end up in jail. No one can predict the future.
Joe king
I think that the organization C.R.A.C.K is providing a great service to society. We live in an already overpopulated world and limiting the burden and cost of these types of situations only benefit communities. I feel that reproduction is a basic human right which can be waived if so desired. I do however believe that certain stipulations would need to be put into place in order to ensure that an ethical and legally binding agreement is being made. The women would need to undergo psychological evaluation to determine if they can in fact understand the agreement they're part of and can make a competent decision. I feel that permanent birth control may be a bit extreme, but if the woman is found to be capable of making a sound decision then it should be left to their discretion. In addition to providing monetary compensation in exchange for birth control, I also feel that C.R.A.C.K. should try to encourage drug treatment and recovery programs to let the drug users as well as the community know and understand that this is not just an attempt to limit the amount of “substance exposed” children born into this world but a way to better society as a whole. - Alana Zinkie
I do think that CRACK should be paying for drug addicted women for using the birth control. First of all because if you are drug addicted you do not need to have a drug addicted baby. I understand that most of the time if you are addicted to drugs you use all the extra money for drugs and do not even think about birth conrtol; but we do not need any more children being ripped away from thier parents and being put in foster homes. These innocent children need to be born into a loving home.
Jennifer Faulkner
I think that if any type of measures were taken in relation to birth control that CRACK would be a very rare instance. I think it would depend on specific situation and all contributing factors. I do understand that welfare and the programs used to support it are of concern but I am not sure women should be paid for this type of thing. Especially those who have substance abuse problems. It might appear to work initially but those suffering from specific problems are unreliable and this type of program would not work. Eventually it would begin cycle in my opinion that would futher keep those on welfare, dependent.
Shundeen Cadman
In respomse to Joe-
I like what you said about how there is no way to know for sure what exactly might happen to a child who is born to a mother who is addicted to drugs, because there really isn't any way to tell. Some babies can be born fairly normal to women who abused drugs or alcohol during there pregnancy. Good point!
Erin
Post a Comment