The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
A FURIOUS coroner has branded a junkie mother irresponsible – after her three babies were born addicted to heroin.
Stanley Hooper hit out after hearing Michaela Mullen’s daughter Chelsey was killed by a massive heart attack aged three months.
Another of her children is thought to be in care. And Mullen was not at the inquest into Chelsey – because she was in hospital after a THIRD birth.
Yesterday she admitted she had not even realised that she was pregnant.
Mr Hooper fumed: “This little girl’s life was gravely prejudiced by the behaviour of her mother.
“She keeps producing children who are addicted to heroin.
“We live in a society where the European Convention on Human Rights entitles everyone to get married and have a family.
“Michaela Mullen has not bothered to get married but keeps doing her best to have a family while she’s taking heroin.”
Pitiful
Mr Hooper said there was nothing that social services could have done to prevent Mullen having children.
He added: “Neither I nor anyone else can do anything about that. But I can say that no responsible person would conceive children while she was a heroin addict.”
The inquest in Doncaster, South Yorks, heard Chelsey spent the first six weeks of her pitiful life in hospital and was living with foster parents when she died.
She had been unresponsive from birth, never blinking or moving her head.
She had suffered from diarrhoea and vomiting – classic signs of heroin withdrawal.
Her tiny body was ravaged by a stomach bug and her heart failed.
Doctors in Rotherham failed to revive her and Chelsey was sent to Sheffield Children’s Hospital.
She was kept alive artificially but finally her life support machine was switched off.
Mullen was allowed to cradle the tot before she died.
Pathologist Dr Marta Cohen said the heart attack was so serious she had only ever seen one similar case in a child so young.
Mr Hooper ruled that death was from natural causes.
He had heard that Mullen has admitted using heroin and drinking while pregnant.
Rotherham Council is carrying out an investigation into the baby’s death in January last year.
Shocking
A neighbour said: “It’s shocking – she’s just had another baby girl and we understand that one is also not well. She walks around in the streets in her pyjamas. This woman is a disgrace.”
But Mullen, who gave birth two weeks ago, shrugged off the coroner’s remarks yesterday when her 51-year-old boyfriend David Essex drove her from hospital in a red Robin Reliant.
She was clutching a bag of medication as she arrived with part-time delivery driver Mr Essex – the father of her first two children – at their home on the outskirts of Rotherham.
Mullen claimed the effects of heroin stopped her realising she was pregnant with her babies. She said: “I’m off drugs now. I’ve been on a course of methadone and am hoping to stay off them.
“As for what the coroner has said, I didn’t know I was pregnant. I didn’t have any periods when I was on drugs. I’m not saying anything else. I don’t want to talk about it.”
I know its a sun story, but the report begs the question of do we stop women like this having babies? Or at least giving her the 5 year implant until she sorts herself out?
I don't understand what the problem is. They are only newborn babies and presumably not feeling anything due to being too young to understand anything and being on the best opium derivative pain killer available. If they are are suffering from heroin withdrawal symptoms and you want them to live - here's a thought, give them more heroin its a cheap natural drug after all, or would that be unethical because they should be treated with an expensive and useless pharma company drug?
I think that they should be allowed to give a viable form of contraception to girls who increasingly get pregnant and either abort, use hard drugs or children end up in care. They can administer it after they've given birth. Saves more babies potentially dying from their selfish parents self inflicted drug abuse, and more babies costing the overstretched system even more.
I don't understand what the problem is. They are only newborn babies and presumably not feeling anything due to being too young to understand anything and being on the best opium derivative pain killer available. If they are are suffering from heroin withdrawal symptoms and you want them to live - here's a thought, give them more heroin its a cheap natural drug after all, or would that be unethical because they should be treated with an expensive and useless pharma company drug?
As many as half of all babies of heroin users are born with low birth weight. These babies, many of whom are premature, often suffer from serious health problems during the newborn period, including breathing problems, and are at increased risk of lifelong disabilities.
Use of heroin in pregnancy also may increase the risk of a variety of birth defects. What is not entirely clear is whether these effects are directly due to the drug itself or related to the poor health behaviours that women who take heroin often have, or whether these effects are due to the substances that the heroin often is mixed with when it is made.
Most babies of heroin users suffer from withdrawal symptoms after birth, including fever, sneezing, trembling, irritability, diarrhoea, vomiting, continual crying and, occasionally, seizures. Babies exposed to heroin before birth also face an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
While heroin can be sniffed, snorted or smoked, most users inject the drug into a muscle or vein. Pregnant women who share needles are at risk of contracting HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and passing it on to their babies.
Care to start them off with your opinion then and i'll follow behind you with my agreement or disagreement and reasons.
I dont think its fair to bring children into the world in poor situations, and where you have a mother whos supposedly a heroin addict, shes going to be out of her mind pretty much 24/7 in one sense or anther, be it high or angry/massively irritable. Equally i dont think its peoples right to have children, regardless of situation and bringing a child into the world, risking their life in the process only to give them a childhood of very poor support/nurturing etc. Spending their allowances on drugs and the child suffering is clearly rediculous, noone deserves to be born into that and the kids deserve a much better chance.
Im not qualified to say whats best to deal with the mothers, often that kind of drug abuse is not something people choose to enter into, but a series of bad or unfortunate events/choices in their life. It would sound sensible for them to be given an implant, especially if theyre known to be prostituting themselves.
I guess most of that really goes without saying though.
Apologies if my previous post seemed harsh, its just that the serious discussion is supposed to be about people discussing *their* beliefs and standing up for them, not googling for an opinion or arguement and posting that. This forum has seen some great debates in the past, without the need for plaguerising content.
Personally, I believe that forced sterilisation should be legal and implemented for such cases where it is deemed the potential mother is a liability or unaccountable for their own actions.
I don't think the ability of mothering a child should be some kind of divine right, I believe it should be something that needs to be earned, by proving worthy of parenting. I have no idea how such a thing could be implemented without being seen as hugely violating human rights and all the kind of thing and without every humanity group and freedom to do this that and the other group rioting.
As someone said on a different subject, my view on this is a bit like Starship Troopers, there are civilians and citizens, I think peoples rights should be defined by some similar kind of system where people have to earn a variety of rights, including the right to parent children.
Of course, an entire demographic group can't be stereotyped with a single opinion and not every woman who has ever taken a drug is a bad mother or even a bad parent, so obviously every case has to be treat with a degreee of personality and individual treatment, otherwise you end up with the kind of systems currently in place in this country for a whole host of other situations which instead of helping have actually made things a lot worse.
A different angle on this really is, is a child baring woman on drugs any different from one smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol, because while we all know that drugs like crack cocaine or heroin in this case can result in the unborn baby being addicted to the drug before even being born, it is also known for unborn babies to have nicotine addiction problems or alcohol addiction problems. Although quite rare I recently read about babies being born with lung cancer as as a direct result of the mother to be smoking and the same with other babies being born with liver problems due to excessive alcohol being consumed while pregnant. But hey, what good is it abstaining from those just for the term of pregnancy if the new mother then starts getting regularly drunk, drugged up or smoking close to a new born baby. But at the other end of the scale, taking drugs, smoking and drinking alcohol doesn't mean the parent is automatically "the worst mum in Britain", because even though the mother clearly has problems and a lack of respect for her child/ren, it doesn't mean she dislikes her children and we all know there are a lot of women out there these days who do dispicable acts to their children without ever having taken drink or drugs.
Personally I think there is a lot more to this subject than it being just plain and simple black and white.
Pura, I completely agree, some subjects like silly quotation threads and jokes and the likes are fine to be copy pasted as that is what everyone does, news is pasted from official news sources and gmaing news as am I informed directly by the game publishers, but discussions like serious debates are intended to be proper debates, in my opinion the initial post as in this thread posted by Sash to instiage the discussion is fine, but the responses given by people should be personal and thought out opinions and not just generic paste jobs, otherwise it defeats the entire purpose of the discussion.
Apologies if my previous post seemed harsh, its just that the serious discussion is supposed to be about people discussing *their* beliefs and standing up for them, not googling for an opinion or arguement and posting that. This forum has seen some great debates in the past, without the need for plaguerising content.
apology accepted i was in a rush trying to sort puppy out and get to work, but wanted to post, yes i copied and pasted, but.. its true, unfortunately
It's like with the abortion thing, it's a subjective issue, there is of course something wrong about a heroin addict woman bringing a child into a bad, bad world, but there is also something very unsettling about forced sterilisation.
there is also something very unsettling about forced sterilisation.
What do you find unsettling about it? I can see why someone would, to me it's like in the same way as euthanasia is more about morality and potential abuse than anything else, but I do also agree with euthanasia under the strictest of conditions.
Surely someone who is going to murder their child, directly or indirectly if it is allowed to be born or even conceived, gives up their right to bare a child. To me the forced sterilisation part isn't the issue, it's the route and factors counted towards forcing sterilisation against an individual that are questionable, in otherwords, what conditions would someone need to meet in order to be deemed unfit to raise a child. Who would have such a right as to say when it would be the correct thing to do. Morality and human rights obviously come into it, but like everything, campaigners for the rights of the unborn child would state that by allowing conception it would surely in fact be consenting to murder and other rights groups would claim the mother should have the right to decide?
It's like with the abortion thing, it's a subjective issue, there is of course something wrong about a heroin addict woman bringing a child into a bad, bad world, but there is also something very unsettling about forced sterilisation.
I wouldn't agree to forced sterilisation but I would agree to forced contraception, ie a year implant or a 5 year mirena coil as in my mind that will allow them to have more children, but give them time to sort out their lives.
I wouldn't agree to forced sterilisation but I would agree to forced contraception, ie a year implant or a 5 year mirena coil as in my mind that will allow them to have more children, but give them time to sort out their lives.
That's not such a bad idea. Forced sterilisation is a massive no no imo but maybe anyone proven to have given birth to a baby addicted to heroin should be forced to have semi permanent contraception. If they refuse they don't get any dole.
I actually see that as far worse than forced sterilisation. Taking someones money away from them isn't going to stop them spitting out more kids, it's simply going to mean that the resulting child/ren would be taken care of even less and the parent would be more likely to turn to some form of crime.
Stop such people having any more babies completely is a guarenteed result, however unethical it may seem.
Once the dole is stopped, they pretty much automatically become incapable of caring for their children so necessary steps should be taken and the children go into foster care. They'd probably be better off.
However unethithical it might be? Forced sterilisation is basically mutilisation. You have the ethics of Hitler.
However unethithical it might be? Forced sterilisation is basically mutilisation. Who are you, Hitler reborn?
There is no need to be insulting, we are all entitled to our own opinion.
I don't for one moment pretend to be some kind of divinely innocent angelic purist. I have thoughts and opinions which would be considered sinful, unethical and wrong by others. But anyone else trying to claim they are some kind of sinless purist is either a liar, or someone suffering from delusions or simply trying to fooling themselves.
I think what is far far more cruel than forced sterilisation, is having no consideration for the Planet Earth, in the human population consistantly booming like the parasites humans are, meaning that at some point in the not too distant future, children born under any kind of circumstances are going to live very poor quality lives. Just look at Ethiopia, yet again the country has hit a famine and people are starving to death left right and center, yet it doesn't stop them breeding like rabbits, even though they know full well there is no way in hell they can keep their offspring healthy and in the end hundreds of thousands of born children are dieing every year as a result of starvation. Forced Sterilisation would be a far better answer and would keep the population at a sustainable level.
I didn't mean to be insulting but I don't know how to put something as horrific as mutilating people in a more polite way, it is simply Hitleresque. He and his doctors would have loved the idea. Rather than insult you I was trying to jolt you into some realisation of how bad what you are suggesting really is.
Quote:
I don't for one moment pretend to be some kind of divinely innocent angelic purist. I have thoughts and opinions which would be considered sinful, unethical and wrong by others. But anyone else trying to claim they are some kind of sinless purist is either a liar, or someone suffering from delusions or simply trying to fooling themselves.
For anyone to say they are against the idea of mutilating people against their will (!?) does not imply that they believe they are a sinless purist. That's just silly.
As for the Etheopians, why not cut off all their nobs so they can't give each other aids while we're at it
For anyone to say they are against the idea of mutilating people against their will (!?) does not imply that they believe they are a sinless purist. That's just silly.
As for the Etheopians, why not cut off all their nobs so they can't give each other aids while we're at it
So it's all fine and dandy for women to have boob jobs, tummy tucks, gastric ops, face lifts, inject botox into themselves, abort living featus's, drink or drug themselves unconsious, or concentual sterilision etc, etc, etc, simply because they have taken the decision themselves, yet take the decision away from the person for any number of perfectly respectable reasons and suddenly it becomes horrific mutilation? Oh c'mon, please....
Junkie is worst mum in Britain?
Linear Mode
