Vera's Essay

Get Birth Control, Get Money

—— Should drug addicts be paid to get sterilised?

Introduction
Drug and alcohol addicts will be paid if they are willing to get sterilisation——under a program called CRACK (Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity) founded by a US based organisation: Project Prevention. The organisation which started in 1997 by a housewife and a former waitress named Barbara Harris in Orange County, California, after she adopted four children from the same drug-addicted mother. "Children born to drug addicts regularly suffer emotional scars and medical disabilities and end up in foster care at taxpayers' expense," she said (The New York Times, Jan. 6, 2003). The main objective of the organisation is to reduce the number of substance exposed births to zero. Since the program was started, 3,242 drug addicts received their money for sterilisation. Most of them were women and almost half of them were permanently sterilised. Also, there were 35 men who have had vasectomies. Criticisms have been rising about ethical concerns of the program. Therefore, this essay will take consideration of whether the drug addicts should be paid to get sterilisation or not, as well as the benefits and criticisms of the CRACK program——from the aspects of the organisation, the drug addicts and the society. Then it will give conclusions of the proposal and feasible suggestions for the organisation and drug addicts.

Benefits of CRACK

The CRACK program was designed to dedicate to protect children, So the most important benefit of it is to prevent children from suffering physical and mental illnesses. Substance abusing pregnant women go through health problems which include sexual transmitted diseases, HIV, hepatitis B and C, anaemia caused by iron and folic acid deficiency, malnutrition related lack if appetite, liver diseases, absorption abnormalities and vitamin and mineral deficiencies (Fischer, et al, 1999). All of the above symptoms make it very dangerous for babies which born by drug and alcohol addicts. In spite of this, it is hard to get pregnant drug addicts to take medical treatments due to the fear of facing legal confrontations and the feeling that female treatment programs are uninformed. Therefore, if there is no sufficient professional treatment available, drug-addiction during pregnancy could cause increased morbidity and death rate in both mother and infant (Finnegan, 1995).

Secondly, the program could reduce the chance of drug-addicted parents from heartbroken because they wouldn't be allowed to raise their children. Most drug-abused pregnant women are living in poverty. If they give birth, they wouldn't have the ability to raise their children. Because it's already hard enough for them whether they try to get rid of drugs or keep drowning in them, thus, they wouldn't have the energy to take care of their babies even if they want to. Under this situation, their babies will be sent to foster cares by the government and it's difficult for the mothers to keep in touch with their children. A story told by Barbara Harris, the founder of Project Prevention, a woman who had 13 children taken away from her and sent to care before she finally got rid of drugs. After she was clean, she couldn't contact any of her children. "She was heartbroken. She didn't know where they were, they are gone." said Ms.Harris (BBC News, 8 Feb. 2010). In addition, because it's a major spend for government to support the children of drug-addicts who should be sent to foster cares and this huge cost will be taken from taxpayers. If CRACK stops drug-abusers from having children with illnesses, it could release the burden from both the government and the taxpayers.

Another benefit of CRACK is that it could encourage drug addicts to give birth after they get rid of drugs and alcohol. Drug-addicts can use the money offered by Project Prevention to get treatments to stay clear from drugs if they want to have children. Apart from drug abuse, most pregnant women don't want their children to suffer from the moment they born, just because their situation may leave them no choice such as lack of money or medical care. The money from CRACK may give drug-addicts who want to give birth to healthy children a hope and a chance to get off drugs and then start a new life.

Criticisms of CRACK
However, criticisms have been rising with the growth of the CRACK program. Some critics said that the program is Hitleresque eugenics and discrimination on drug-addicts. According to the point of view of Renee Chelian who is the president of the MARAL——the Michigan Affiliate of NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America, the CRACK program makes the reproductive rights of women being threatened. And instead of making effort on improving the lives of women who are struggling to get rid of drugs and alcohol addiction, the CRACK program is strictly focused on birth control of these women and simply tries to stop them from having children. The ethical concern is that like many other diseases of illnesses , drug abuse can be cured with the right treatment. The approach of the CRACK program has been criticized by medical professionals and addiction specialists which pointing out that the opinion of sterilisation should be offered as a part of a more comprehensive plan for drug-abused women by health care professionals (Renee Chelian, 2003). Due to the ethical issues have been raised along with the growing of CRACK, the program can be viewed as punishment of drug-addicted women's behaviour during their pregnancy and even as the condemnation before they get pregnant.

In addition, drug-addicts may use the money offered by Project Prevention to get more drugs rather than get treatments. With CRACK mainly takes consideration on birth control, there aren't any restrictions on how the drug-addicts will spend the money. So CRACK just hardly scratched the surface than solve the problem from the roots. Some addicts just simply ask for more money to get high.


Conclusion
With the purpose of stopping drug and alcohol abusers from giving birth, the CRACK program has achieved some contribution on reducing the birth of ill children. Because of the consequences caused by drug and alcohol abuse during pregnancy such as ill children get HIV disease from their addicted parents, the more babies the drug abusers give birth to, the heavier the burden it leaves to the society. However, ethical questions have been asking about CRACK. Since the program is focused on reducing the birth of babies with illness, it doesn't consider the right of the drug-addicted mothers who go through hard times during their pregnancy. CRACK affects the reproductive rights of drug addicts and it ignores the truth that drug addiction can be cured. Drug addicts shouldn't be punished condemned for giving birth just because their behaviour. The Project Prevention should work out a better way to stop drug users spending their sterilization money on more drugs and help drug-addicted parents to get rid of drugs , so they can live better lives with healthy children.

Bibliography
http://www.projectprevention.org
http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/prenatal.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8500285.stm
http://nytimes.com/2003/01/06nyregion/sterilization-offer-to-addicts-reopens-ethics-issue.html?pagewanted=1
Fischer G.et al (1999), Review article: Pregnancy and Substance Abuse, in 'Arch Women's Ment Health' (1999) 2:57-65
Renee Chelian (2003) Remarks on the "CRACK" Program: Coercing Women's Reproductive Choices, in Journal of Law in Society, vol.5:187 2003