An Australian parliamentary report has recommended adopting out children of drug addicts. The chair of the committee said, the children would benefit from being given "a real chance at life", instead of living with parents who only wanted them to claim welfare payments.
The report has created quite a stir. It also says that drug treatment programmes should be aiming to cure addictions and not funded if they aren't. Here and in Australia it would seem programmes tend to simply maintain people and reduce crime. Can a case be made for them even if they only do the second? I would have thought so but it doesn't follow the same people should be supported/encouraged to have families.
I, Robot
1 hour ago
7 comments:
The Stolen Generation 2.
Coming soon to a theatre near you.
Some drug-addicted parents can provide love and care. If however parents are abusing or severely neglecting their children (substance abuse is a factor for abuse by females in particular) then their children need protection. If the parents (or parent) is given one or more chances to straighten up in order to regain custody and repeatedly fails, what would you then propose Richard?
I'm totally appalled by this report and so should you be! Let's get a couple of things straightened up.
Firstly, as you say, substance abuse is a risk factor for child abuse, but they are not the same thing.
Secondly, drug addiction is a risk factor for substance abuse, but they are not the same thing, either.
So, A (drug addiction) is a risk factor for B (substance abuse) which is a risk factor for C (child abuse). Now, this report does not propose that children be removed from families where C is present, which is a proposal I can agree with. No, it proposes instead that children be taken away from drug-addicted parents permanently and adopted out. In other words, that children be removed from families where A is present.
Some drug-addicted parents can, and do, provide love and care. But the report's recommendations apply as much to these parents as they do to drug-addicted parents who abuse and neglect their children. As critics in Australia have emphasised, government committee members argue that addiction alone should determine whether a child is separated from their parents rather than the more robust test of the best interests and safety of the child.
You ask what I would propose "if the parents (or parent) is given one or more chances to straighten up in order to regain custody and repeatedly fails." Which is a somewhat misleading question, since, asked if the parents could get the child back if they became drug free, Mrs Bishop [the Liberal MP who chaired the inquiry] said: "No, not after adoption". Well, of course, I wouldn't be proposing removing custody of children from merely drug-addicted parents in the first place. I myself am a drug-addicted parent. I've tried repeatedly, and failed repeatedly, to function without coffee. (Seriously!) So, can I have my kids back now, please?
Drug users are the new Jews or (in Australia) the new Abos. In the U.S., it's seen as perfectly OK to incarcerate drug users who have done nothing wrong. In Australia, it seems it's now OK to confiscate drug users' children.
The present report handed down 30 other recommendations, many of them similarly odious, such as compulsory treatment for teenage addicts (completely disregarding that everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment and oblivious to the fact that drug addiction is a lifestyle choice, not a disease, and so cannot be cured) and withdrawing funding from drug programs that promote harm minimisation. The blithely indifferent Mrs Bishop reportedly said that the committee expected to face criticism for the report but did not think their views were extreme.
It's just the latest government escalation in the internecine War on Drugs™. As it says on the back cover of the latest Free Radical, wake up and smell the coffee before the government bans that too.
Richard, You have construed my posting about the report as support for it. My first comment makes it clear I do not believe all drug addicts are people who should lose their children. And in my post I made it clear I didn't agree with pulling funding from harm minimisation programmes.
But unlike you I am not "totally appalled". I am interested that the Australian govt is at least prepared to examine the situation In particular the role that welfare plays (which I also indicated by my post.)
I am appalled that some children are born addicts and their life chances are very restricted from the outset.
It is often said that methadone maintenance programs are a success because they reduce the amount of crime comitted by the "addict". Incarceration would be even more effective and cost about the same. I dish out methadone to 50 "addicts" a day and I would would not wish the lives of their children on anyone.
Anon, the cost of incarceration would surely be more unless we are paying the individual a benefit, accommodation supplement, disability allowance, etc and they are still committing crime on the side (with the costs to society that incurs).
I understand some methadone recipients work. Is that your experience?
There are around 4250 methadone programme placements nationally but nowhere near that many people are on a benefit with drug abuse listed as their major incapacity. Of course they could be categorised under another complaint or simply be on an unemployment benefit.
I suspect you are not dispensing from a retail pharmacy as the number seems too high. You may be seeing a different group than are out in the community.
Lindsay I am dispensing from a retail pharmacy and yes I have 50 "clients". 5% of them have full employment. The rest are on sickness, invalids, and the DPB. They are also still engaged in crime. In fact take home doses of methadone enable them to supplement thier benefits and in doing so aid and abett further crime.
Post a Comment