The move has been criticizes by some drug charities that work with addicts. Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris admitted her methods amounted to be ‘bribery, saying that it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy. Drug treatment charity Addiction estimates one million children in the UK are living with parents who abuse drugs. Pregnant addicts can pass on the dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage. Barbara Harris set up her charity in North Carolina after adopting the children of a crack addict (“BBC news”, 2010).
Damage to children: Mrs.. Harris said: ” The birth mother of my children obviously dabbled in all rugs and alcohol- she literally had a baby every year for eight years. I get very angry about the damage that drugs do to these children”. Charity has already paid to 3500 addicts across the U. S. To be sterilized, now visiting parts of the I-J to encourage users to undergo the surgery for cash. John, 38, is the first in the LIKE to accept the money to have a Vasectomy after being involved in drugs since he was 12. He said: ” It was something that I’d been thinking for a long time.
I won’t be able to support a kid; can just about manage to support myself’. Simon Antitrust, chief executive of Addiction said: “No one anted to see children brought up in a drug-using environment but no place for Project Prevention in the ELK. It exploits people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol at probably the lowest point in their lives”. The Reverend Robert Black, of Victory Outreach, which works with former addicts in east London, said he thought Project Prevention’s aims were “very devious” (“BBC news”, 2010).
Reversible Contraception: Maria Crisps, team leader at Collision’s Dovetail service which is part of Cranston Drug Services, said: “l think Barbara uses some very extreme examples to get her point across. It might work in America but Great Britain is very different country. ” But Reverend Martin Blabbermouth, director of Camden Kaleidoscope Project in north London, said sterilization was “worth considering” if it was right for the individual. A spokesperson at the British Medical Association said: “The Beam’s ethics committee does not have a view on the charity Project Prevention. As with all requests for treatment, doctors need to be confident that the individual has the capacity to make the specific decision at the time the decision is required. “The Beam’s ethics committee also believes that doctors should inform patients of the benefits of reversible interception so that the patients have more reproductive choices in the future” (“BBC news,” 2010). Over view of Project Prevention charity: Barbara Harris adopted four of eight children to a crack-addicted woman in Los Angels.
After spending a lot of time watching her children fight through withdrawal, she decided to do something. Mrs.. Harris wanted the California legislature to pass a bill that would have it mandatory that after giving birth to a drug addicted baby the birth mother use long-term birth control. However, the bill couldn’t pass which left Mrs.. Harris with two options. 1. Do Nothing, and 2. Do Something. Doing nothing was not an option for her so she chosen another option, and the Project Prevention was formed in 1997 (“Project prevention”, 2010).
Objectives Of Project Prevention: Main objective of Project Prevention is public awareness to the problem of addicts exposing their unborn baby to drugs during pregnancy. This charity wants to reduce the burden of this social problem on taxpayers and trim down social worker caseloads. The charity does not have the resources to combat the national problems of poverty, housing, education, and rehabilitation services. Resources charity does have are spent to prevent a problem for $300 rather than paying millions after it happens in cost to care for a potentially damaged child (“Project prevention”, 2010).
Project Prevention is the charity organization that means a non-profit organization. Its main objective is to make general public aware of the problem Of drug addicts exposing to their unborn child to drugs during pregnancy. The founder Barbara Harris has a personal experience how the drug causes the problems. This was the only reason this charity was born. Mrs.. Harris has a good intention behind her act. $11. Billion was spent by US government in 1 994 just after the rehabilitation for the addicts and make them drug free but no sufficient result was achieved.
She has already paid 3500 addicts across the US not to have children. She is visiting in the UK to encourage the addicts to undergo the surgery for cash. She has named this task as a “Long term birth control” (“Project Prevention”, 2010). People do take drugs and some of them stop taking it eventually. Am worried about the long-term effect that sterilization may have on ex-addicts who took the cash and went for sterilization. Now, they may regret it years eater when they are in a stable, loving relationship and want to have a family, but they can’t have because they are sterilized.
I don’t think there is something much worse than taking away a person’s natural ability to have children and keep the human race alive, especially when tempted by “cash” payouts! Vulnerable people are called vulnerable because they are easy to manipulate and take advantage of (“BBC News”, 2010). It is quiet annoying and unethical I would say, to sterilize people who are addicted to the drugs inducing by cash. It is something like keeping the addicts away from having the family. Undoubtedly, drugs and the addiction to it, isn’t good at all but the fact is that they can stop taking drugs and can live a normal life. Tryingly believe that Project Prevention is acting UN ethically here as it is trying to take people’s natural right away which stopping the next generation even from to be born. “What about the babies”. In my view, Project Prevention is of the opinion that it’s better not to be born at all, than to be born with ‘problems’. Well, nobody in this world is perfect, and this statement makes me wonder whether they also think that disabled people should be dispatched also, as they too have big problems. This does not suit at all. Addicts are being exploited here (“BBC News”, 2010).
It is now voluntary. Project Prevention could come up with the agenda Of making sterilization compulsory in future if we don’t stop them now from what it is doing. People live and circumstances change daily. What right Project Prevention has, to tell a vulnerable person to make a serious life changing decision for cash, when tomorrow is a new day. I am sure for the facts that all the newborn babies of the addicts are not affected only a few were born with the problems. Just because of a few numbers it is not ethical to punish the rest.
If it keeps on doing to all the addicts then the population will be declining which can harm the country economically. Few years’ later country will not have young workforce and will be struggling for young talent. No country in the world can grow and even survive without its young generation. Today’s babies are the future of the society, country and the world. U. K. Could miss on the personality like David Beckman and Tony Blair and so forth. Today’s baby could be the world’s greatest leader in future who can lead the whole world where there is no drugs and no wars which gives a common person peaceful life.
Japan is one of he best examples. No company in the world with the baby products would want to go and invest in Japan as the population is declining. Not enough babies are there in Japan. Project Prevention is talking about the temporary sterilization as well. Temporary sterilization is a way forward to a permanent sterilization. It is called temporary because the obstacles put on a person by doctor is temporary and that person can have a child if they want. Barbara Harris is witnessed of few women who had temporary sterilization and later on they become pregnant and gave birth to their children.
But medical science saying t is not easy to take those obstacles Off and there is no guarantee that the person can have children later on. It is very complicated when you are temporarily sterilized and then to have children when you want. There are chances that Doctors can’t give you your natural right back. It is very complicated for Doctors and even for the patients. “There is no guarantee that a vasectomy reversal will be successful, as only half the men who have the operation will be able to pass sperm in their ejaculate” (“Discovery Network International”, 2010).
In women sterilization reversal is more complicated as it depends on the age of women as well. So, I believe Project Prevention is misleading addicts by giving them an option for temporary sterilization. It is highly unethical in my views to induce addicts for temporary sterilization when that could result in permanent where those ex-addicts would be without the children for their whole life. Permanent sterilization has also got some complication. What if the clips that were put on the Fallopian tubes during the process of sterilization would come off? It can create a huge problem for women.
Knowing that she is sterilized and can’t be pregnant any more, she won’t be using any kind of unattractive while doing sex. But those clips have been moved for some reason and her eggs getting fertilized and she becomes pregnant. She is not in a state to look after her child, as this is the main point of Barbara Harris doing this work in her charity organization. She has to go for an option of abortion. What if she realizes very late and Doctor advise to keep the pregnancy, as there could be complications in aborting in which she could die. She has to give a birth to her child.
Now, who is going to look after that child? What if that child is born with problems as her mother is a drug addicts ND she was abusing the drugs when she was pregnant. So, believe it is highly unacceptable. It is not ethical the way Project Prevention is offering permanent sterilization. From descriptive theory perspective Project Prevention isn’t ethical at all. A cash of IEEE will give an addict a chance to buy more drugs. The addicts will go straight to their dealer, that’s where the money will go. Why not get away with the cash and just offer them drugs, that way the dealers won’t get any money. M sure there are people who would agree with the above statement, unfortunately! But this money does encourage them to take an option for the sterilization for sure. The addicts are struggling with the money in their life already. They don’t have money but do want drugs. Dealers don’t give them drugs, as the addicts haven’t paid for their last purchase of drugs. So, the addicts are desperate and looking for some help in terms of money from the people around. This is the only reason they do accept cash in return of sterilization.
I do not see Project Prevention acting ethically here as it is taking an advantage of the addicts’ situation. There are few cases in which babies were born who go through withdrawal symptoms, which have multiple robbers such as brain damage and lifetime learning difficulties because of the mothers’ addiction. Would it not be better to offer them long-term contraception, a program of getting them off the habit with a cash incentive at the end when and if they are clean? Just as humans lack of adaptive response to the contraception, they seem to lack such a response to people paying for them to be sterilized.
The amount this charity paying for permanent sterilization seems very small. Response of addicts to such offers is unreliable as it is maladaptive. The individuals would be accepting IEEE to render something that may be as valuable as life itself (“University of oxford”, 2010). The problem is compounded for both addicts and the rest of the society by something else that probably did not exist in our evolutionary history- the addictive drug. Addiction to the substances such as crack, cocaine, and heroin causes substantial behavioral changes.
Addicts tend to prefer short-term gratification and more likely to engage in behavior that is harmful to other members of the society, including any children they may have. Adopting this approach, incentives that assisted the addicts to resist the short-term ratification might be acceptable, but incentives that resulted in permanent sterility might not. But why is the American Agency in U. K.? Americans use more drugs than British. America is the world’s biggest consumer Of the drugs. Project Prevention was formed in U. S. In 1997. It has sterilized 3500 addicts in U. S. Already.
I have failed to understand the reason for Barbara Harris to come to U. K. There are still many more addicts in the U. S. Who could be sterilized. Project Prevention was offering sterilization over there and suddenly decided to help U. K. It sounds very strange to me. It makes me think of any conspiracy Enid it. I may be wrong. But possibilities are there and you can’t deny that. I don’t know yet. Project Prevention is not just focused on permanent sterilization. They pay similar amount for medium-term contraceptive to more permanent options. This option is more acceptable and a way forward.
There are some uses of contraception that are adaptive and less harm full. From utilitarian perspective, the concern that addicts’ response to this type of offer might be maladaptive and can be considered from the perspective of Project Prevention. The concern that Project Prevention is addressing, that addicts are giving birth to children they are unable to care adequately, leading to misery and other social ills, appears to be a genuine one (“University of Project Prevention’s goal is to make addicts and alcoholics use long-term birth control until they are able to care for the children they conceive.
Barbara Harris said: “We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children”, (telegraph”, 2010). The National Health Services could offer this kind of services. This highlights the moral issue about he nature Of morality. From the normative ethical theory perspective, Project Prevention is acting to prevent the society from having the sick and ill children. It wants the society to be free from the damaged children.
In my view, it is not unethical to look for the healthy children in the society who can help develop the future of the nation. It is fact that the sick or ill people can’t help constructing the nation. Nothing is wrong to look forward and construct the nation where people are healthy. Project Prevention, from sustainable development perspective acting in a way where there is no harm to the next generation. I strongly believe that it is better not to have a child at all than to have a sick child. There is nothing wrong in thinking either to have a healthy child or not to have a child at all. Tryingly recommend Project Prevention to create the healthy nation. Personally have seen the addicts and the effects of them in the social life. They are useless fellows. They are just for themselves and will do anything in the consideration of the drugs. These are the people who create the dirtiest scenes in the society. It annoys me personally. Am thinking that Project Prevention is helping me in a way and reforming the nation the ay I want to see it. There should be an agency that could prevent the drugs from being produced, as Project Prevention is Out there to sterilize the addicts.
I am not denying the fact that anything with the drugs is illegal. Police forces and Governments are working over it but result has not been achieved yet. To stop the production of the drugs is the only way this society can be freed from the drugs addicts. But that would be unethical to the people of Afghanistan as this is the only way for them to earn their bread and butter. Afghanistan as a whole is producing 50% of total opium and exporting to the there countries. Opium industry as a whole has a turn over of $1 billion. If the purchase is stopped from Afghanistan, people will be starving to death.
The opium is not good at all as it destroys our society. It is illegal to produce and sell the drugs. But it would not be ethical on the part of Afghans if it were stopped. It is an endless debate here. Every one has its own opinion. Would say Afghans should be given the opportunity to get in to some other industry than opium so that they can earn their lives. Opium industry in Afghanistan has become a big issue now days and it has always been sensitive in the society. Until some alternative arrangements are made it is not ethical to stop the production of opium over there.
It is really an on going and never ending issue where different people have their different opinions about the right and wrong. Some people will find Project Prevention acting ethically and some would argue against that. Have a strong belief in having the healthy nation and for that healthy people are required. So, Project Prevention by offering the sterilization to the addicts acts in an ethical way. But on the other hand it is not ethical to take a person’s natural right of being parent away by sterilized them.