Project Prevention

[neufox47]

https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/t...43657b77720fa4

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://video.vice.com/en_us/embed/597799074f43657b77720fa4" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I had no idea this would be so controversial. At the risk of going polyasshat, does anyone really object to the idea that people who are drug addicts should not have kids? I'm not for anything forced, but this is as simple adding an incentive to get an IUD or their tubes tied. A third party, a doctor, determines whether the individual is capable of making the decision to undergo the procedure. Seems like a great idea to me and I donated. Couldn't find their financial disclosures, if anyone comes across them post em up.

I thought this piece showed quite a bit of bias on the part of the reporter. She didn't challenge the critics at all on their assertions (getting pregnant while heavily using drugs does not cause bad outcomes, seriously?), but was pretty relentless at challenging everything the founder said.

[St. Jerry]

Personally, I think they should have it for everyone who is not blonde haired and blue eyed. But other than that I like the idea.

[Mazderati]

Sounds like a noble project at first glance but it walks an extremely fine ethical line. Drug-addicted pregnant women are a vulnerable population and history shows these populations are often exploited. Compulsory sterilization of prison populations to prevent crime was already a thing. Withholding of standard of care from sick populations in the name of research was already a thing.

[neufox47]

Sounds like a noble project at first glance but it walks an extremely fine ethical line. Drug-addicted pregnant women are a vulnerable population and history shows these populations are often exploited. Compulsory sterilization of prison populations to prevent crime was already a thing. Withholding of standard of care from sick populations in the name of research was already a thing.

Well if they voluntarily participate they won't be pregnant. As pointed out multiple times, this is not compulsory. It's completely voluntary and has to be approved by an independent third party, a doctor.

No one seems to want to identify the line. Should they be encouraged to get pregnant? Is it wrong to offer free birth control or is it the compensation offered? Should these women be prevented from obtaining birth control? Is it wrong to discourage this population from having kids?

[GeezerSteve]

I don't see an ethical problem with a voluntary take-money-to-not-have kids program, which is quite distinguishable from compulsory sterilization against one's will.

[GiBo]

One of the women in the piece had 7 children. She said a lot of John's don't want to use the condom so she gets pregnant. Not seeing a problem trying give someone like that an incentive not to have kids.

Spare me the eugenics and race bullshit.

[ill-advised strategy]

couldn't agree more ^^^

[PB]

Yeah I mean eugenicists got a bad rep in WWII and all, but they had some good ideas...

Attachment 210069

4th grade Science Fair poster?

[Dantheman]

Disclaimer--I didn't watch the video yet. The slippery slope argument has some degree of validity here, the road to hell and all that. Sterilization probably crosses a line in my view, but I definitely have no problem with easily reversible long-term BC like IUDs and implants. Hell, I think it should be standard practice for all girls to get a no-cost IUD at, say, 14.

[summit]

I love how some look at voluntary incentivised birth control or sterilization (it's their choice) and see evil eugenics rather than an attempt to reduce the number of babies born with all the complications of being exposed to addictive drugs in-utero to parent(s) who didn't want the kid and are often ill-equipped to handle a health baby much less one suffering the syndromes imposed by gestational drug exposure. Here is a short list of life-long problems babies exposed to addictive drugs during pregnancy experience at higher rates than average:

Low birth weight
NICU stay
Smaller head circumference
Behavioral issues
Cognitive delays
Increase anxiety
Difficulty holding jobs
Difficulty maintaining relationships
Increased risk of drug abuse

I'm pro-choice as fuck. Birth control is the second smartest public health option for total government subsidization (after vaccination). It should be free to everyone. Screw the religious right. I'm definitely for incentivizing the option for the unfortunate folks who are most likely to impart life-long disability by abusing drugs during pregnancy.

[neufox47]

^^ agreed. Note - I had to read the first sentence (err paragraph) 3 times before I picked up what you were putting down.

Inexcusable that Vice journalist let the statement "drug abuse during pregnancy does not cause long term health effects" go unchallenged. Wtf Vice.

Sent from my SM-G930V using TGR Forums mobile app

[Mazderati]

Well if they voluntarily participate they won't be pregnant. As pointed out multiple times, this is not compulsory. It's completely voluntary and has to be approved by an independent third party, a doctor.

Voluntary participation requires informed consent; not a signature. Any one of being intoxicated, pregnant, or poor require additional consideration for participation and these women are often all three. Courses are devoted to and volumes are written on the subject.

Compulsory sterilization was provided as an example of medical programs once touted as beneficial, not to show this program is compulsory. Physicians are biased and make mistakes just like anyone else and no adept physician should accept the consent of someone in a compromised state. Some literature even suggests treating physicians separate themselves from the informed consent process to further mitigate any possibility of bias or coercion.

No one seems to want to identify the line. Should they be encouraged to get pregnant? Is it wrong to offer free birth control or is it the compensation offered? Should these women be prevented from obtaining birth control? Is it wrong to discourage this population from having kids?

The most concerning issue I see is the vulnerable state in which the women are approached. Strung out, pregnant, and poor. Only looking at the $300 sterilization provides and not fully understanding the permanent ramifications of the procedure.

[Mazderati]

"They got strung out, they decided they wanted $300 to sterilize themselves. And if it's a decision they regret, it's a decision they made."

- Project Prevention

[summit]

The most concerning issue I see is the vulnerable state in which the women are approached. Strung out, pregnant, and poor. Only looking at the $300 sterilization provides and not fully understanding the permanent ramifications of the procedure.

What about the alternate option: permanent ramifications of pregnancy in drug addicts?

Ever seen a newborn in heroin withdrawal? (neonatal abstinence syndrome)

Or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

Or a tiny IUGR premie crack baby in the NICU?

Maternal mortality is 2.7 times normal with maternal drug/alcohol abuse during pregnancy and then you get the baby with disability and no momma

[dunfree]

I love how some look at voluntary incentivised birth control or sterilization (it's their choice) and see evil eugenics

that's probably because evil eugenics programs often claimed to be "voluntary". India's sterilization campaign of the 1970s was couched as voluntary, poor people received a cash reward or loan for sterilization. It didn't take long for people to see there was very little "voluntary" about the campaign.

I always thought the greatness of the US was a willingness for reinvention. Guess that doesn't apply to people anymore.

[iceman]

Look, you can't ask people in a compromised position to make a permanent decision for some short money. You can't. However, IUD's and incentives could work. And would be a net positive for society no doubt, if they worked.

[summit]

Look, you can't ask people in a compromised position to make a permanent decision for some short money. You can't. However, IUD's and incentives could work. And would be a net positive for society no doubt, if they worked.

I agree with that. Other options include Depo-Provera and long release hormone implants.

From the OP's linke: "Project Prevention, pays substance-abusers $300 to get sterilized or put on long-term birth control like the implant, or an IUD. "

[iceman]

I'm completely fine with paying these folks some cash to prevent births as long as their decision can be reversed later. People do get straight. People do wake up. In the meantime they shouldn't have kids. We can agree on that.

[neufox47]

Voluntary participation requires informed consent; not a signature. Any one of being intoxicated, pregnant, or poor require additional consideration for participation and these women are often all three. Courses are devoted to and volumes are written on the subject.

Compulsory sterilization was provided as an example of medical programs once touted as beneficial, not to show this program is compulsory. Physicians are biased and make mistakes just like anyone else and no adept physician should accept the consent of someone in a compromised state. Some literature even suggests treating physicians separate themselves from the informed consent process to further mitigate any possibility of bias or coercion.




The most concerning issue I see is the vulnerable state in which the women are approached. Strung out, pregnant, and poor. Only looking at the $300 sterilization provides and not fully understanding the permanent ramifications of the procedure.

Regardless of any incentive, I don't believe a doctor can perform any voluntary procedure on anyone who cannot give informed consent. To me, that defeats the arguement of informed consent. The org does not supply any services.

Also, the organization has stated many times, and I see no one disputing this, that they do not promote sterilization. They promote getting birth control. Sterilization is an option to the individual and they will pay them if they complete the proceedure.

I also would be less of a proponent of this if it were a government program. It is not.

[iceman]

Sterilization will always have a bad ring to it, they should just jettison that and move on to reversible but long-term options, and I believe they could sell that to middle america, where their kids are dying because of opiates and selling their bodies to get more in the meantime.

It's a workable sellable proposition. If I had some balls I'd dedicate the rest of my life to it but I'm fat and happy god help me.

[summit]

I agree with iceman

[mtngirl79]

I agree with that. Other options include Depo-Provera and long release hormone implants.

From the OP's linke: "Project Prevention, pays substance-abusers $300 to get sterilized or put on long-term birth control like the implant, or an IUD. "

It said they get 300 dollars for sterilization or "smaller installments" for long term birth control. Poor, homeless, drug addicted women are super vulnerable. I have no issue with long term birth control, but the sterilization is too far, IMO.

[mtngirl79]

I don't see an ethical problem with a voluntary take-money-to-not-have kids program, which is quite distinguishable from compulsory sterilization against one's will.

Sterilize yourself so you can afford to pay your rent, or buy your existing child food or go to the dentist or any other tough spot that a drug addicted woman might be in isn't really ok, though. That is basically what it is.

I am also wondering how they screen for drug addicts.. I mean, could someone dress like a crack whore and get 300 dollars?

[mtngirl79]

What about the alternate option: permanent ramifications of pregnancy in drug addicts?

Ever seen a newborn in heroin withdrawal? (neonatal abstinence syndrome)

Or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

Or a tiny IUGR premie crack baby in the NICU?

Maternal mortality is 2.7 times normal with maternal drug/alcohol abuse during pregnancy and then you get the baby with disability and no momma

How about permanent ramifications for men who impregnate drug addicts?

[iceman]

How about permanent ramifications for men who impregnate drug addicts?

Yeah great idea. Thanks for your deep thought on the topic.