I also heard the prog on radio 4, and she talked an awful lot of sense. They offer to reverse the op later on if the person wished to change their mind, but they have not had one take up the offer. On the face of it it is bordering on right wing eugenics, but when you heard this passionate & very caring person talk about the affects of drug addiction on unborn & totally unwanted babies, and how these children suffer terribly when born and have to be weaned off the drugs it was heartbreaking. and if all that didn't make you think again, they had done a study and 'costed' how much it took to look after one of these children from birth right through until he died of neglect at the age of 3 - $4m! I know we should not put a price on life, but c'mon someone has to say it!A very difficult subject, but one that needs to be discussed
No suprise on the American attitude of cure rather than prevention.
Its not an either/or debate. Drug addicts get significant help in the UK and there are countless bodies striving to reduce drug use and dependency. For some this will never be enough and a reversible method that restrict child birth for some would be appropriate.
I see the other end of the issue - MrsSwadey is the one who has to get the court order to take the baby away...whatever you think, it's not as easy as it sounds, legally, ethically or personally.
I can't help thinking that either some people need to be encouraged/cajoled into not having more kids, or we need to make it more straight forward to remove the kids immediatly and give them to some decent loving families to adopt while they are still young enough not to be damaged.
Might also solve some of the problems for those losing out in the IVF lottery as well.
