iaabc:

I agree too. Much as i wouldn't trade a child's life for any drug addict's, i still think there should be another way out, even if its just for the minority that would one day change their ways.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any other way on par with this approach in productivity and yet is not more brutal.

The next best thing I can think of is MRBrownJay's suggestion:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-534582.32.html#msg6980390

Yet it is still an inferior approach by a mile.

With that alternative approach, we would have worked hard in guaranting the rights/interests (AT HUUGE EXPENSE due to fostering of offsprings) of mostly ill-discipline or moronicly-behaved adults at the detriment of saving more innocent kids than we could have saved (CHEAPLY), and this larger pool of kids ending up suffering because of our choice to protect the rights of more morons.

I think the interest of the former is of far less importance than that of the latter. I would rather this approach.

I'm going to have to agree with the approach suggested by MRBrownJay. But the question is will they agree?

Even though more children suffer and it cost us tax-payers more money?

No not if ANY child suffers. More tax-payers money, maybe, if its for the benefit of the children and long term benefit of would be repentant ones. Sterilization just seems so darn final.

iaabc:

No not if ANY child suffers. More tax-payers money, maybe, if its for the benefit of the children and long term benefit of would be repentant ones. Sterilization just seems so darn final.

The fact on the ground is that, your chosen solution, will inevitably lead to more children suffering. It is the collateral of the solution you are in favour of.

So do you still choose it at the peril of more children, than can be saved with my approach, suffering?

I don't see more children suffering as a result of reversible vasectomy that could otherwise be carried out on the addicts or pray tell am i missing something in the discussion?

iaabc:

I don't see more children suffering as a result of reversible vasectomy that could otherwise be carried out on the addicts or pray tell am i missing something in the discussion?

In the case of reversible vasectomy, you will have virtually ALL addicts (I will explain why I said "all" in a second) taking the the £200 and having the reversible vasectomy reversed.

Now when I said virtually all, the healthcare services in the UK is free, so there is the HUGE INCENTIVE after blowing the £200 when they decide they need extra funds to get more drugs, they can go in FOR FREE to get it reversed by the NHS and then come back to you to give another £200 and offer to have the vasectomy again.

This leaves 2 options:

1) Refuse to give them another £200 and they are then free to have children. Leading to MORE children at risk of suffering and 200 bucks wasted (multiples of this as I am sure more that 90% will take the route).

2) Give them another 200 bucks and continue giving them anytime they come back so they do not have children. Leading to complete waste of funds as they will probably do this every few months.

Hmm, I see your point and I know you're all for Sterilization but I still say, there has to be another way out. I am so against generalizations of all kinds and so I just can't agree that there's no hope for some of them in the future. Lets think out a way out other than sterilization.

Well they could consider some type of injectable contraceptive for the females . This type of contraceptive for males seems to be still undergoing tests.

Interesting discussion.

@Post: I do understand MrBrownJay's stance - empathy should be applied. But stats says otherwise as majority of the drug addicts never recover and considering the funds invested overtime - treating their addiction & child(ren) care - is ridiculously high.

Sagamite:


If we give a one-off payment of £200 to sterilize a drug head we would have saved circa £200 X 52 weeks X 18 years = £187,200 just for each child (they could be up to or even more than 4) that can go into further educating on drugs.

Sterilization definitely makes more financial sense.

Our (taxpayers) rights and the kids' rights should take priority over irresponsible people.

Fully agree with this.


Ditto this.

Sagamite:


A child having a decent and supported life is more important than bearing and rearing a child.

Verdict: Not everyone is supposed to procreate because s/he has the organs to.