Friday, May 15, 2009

Alcoholic mothers - time to get real

As it stands Rachael Brown is a lawless menace. It would appear nothing can be done to stop her drinking and diving. She was sentenced to a year in prison yesterday which will keep her contained for some months but,

Serving jail time for similar past offences had not stopped her offending, [Judge James Weir] said.

She has been ordered to undergo treatment for her alcoholism,

She will have to serve at least six months in jail, and will have special conditions to help her with her alcohol problem when she is released.

But in another report we learn that alcohol treatment agencies are swamped and cannot cope with the numbers needing help.

There is every chance Brown is a lost case. The community cannot control her so best stay out of her way as much as possible. BUT there is one thing that should be done. She should be offered a tubal ligation operation while in custody. If necessary a system of cash incentives should be instituted for compliance. If not an operation, a reward for using long acting contraceptive injections. Not just for Ms Brown. But for any other female who is not physically safe to carry or raise a child. They have been responding to the cash incentive to produce children - for years in some cases. Time to try a different way of harnessing that response.


Anonymous said...

I agree. How much do you think it would take to agreement?

Oswald Bastable said...

A bottle of rum and a carton of fags.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

The people I have in mind are typically already on benefits. They aren't going to be moving off a benefit any time soon having drug/alcohol problems and a dependent child/ren already in their care. Bearing in mind, if she has another child the additional family tax credit would be around $3,000 per year anyway, I think a payment of $1,200 for a voluntary tubal ligation or $300 for quarterly contraceptive injections should be attractive enough. The overriding aim here is, within the existing system, to stop her producing more children that may be born damaged and certainly at risk of the kind of upbringing which turns out more of the same problem.

I concede that it's a ghastly abrogation of classical liberal principles (even though there is no force applied to the beneficiary there is to the taxpayer) but it's better than what we do now.

Anonymous said...

"I concede that it's a ghastly abrogation of classical liberal principles (even though there is no force applied to the beneficiary there is to the taxpayer) but it's better than what we do now."

Force is applied to taxpayer to pay for her and her children anyway. Lesser of two evils is to pay her not to reproduce.

I think you may have the $1200 for sterilisation right, but I'm not sure about the jabs... Is that $300 pa? How about $100 per jab?


Anonymous said...

Not physically safe is but one thing, I would add "not socially safe" to that as well. It sounds tough and like fascism and eugenics, but many of these women have a track record of CYFS and Family Court involvement as well. Their cost to society, taking all that in account, is simply horrendous and in no comparison to their benefit to society (which is normally about zero). They are a menace to themselves and everybody around them. Voluntary sterilization in exchange for an opportunity to obtain support to turn things around seems a proper trade-off for the individual involved and society at large.

Anonymous said...

What about no more money for children born to mothers already in receipt of the DPB. Won't cost the taxpayer a cent.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

The key is a positive cash incentive to do something. A negative cash incentive to do something isn't strong enough with people already well ensconced in benefit dependency. For instance benefit sanctions eg a penalty for not naming the father, are very ineffective.

Anonymous said...

Lindsay, only because they are not fiscally severe enough.

Comrade MOT said...

Good post. I think that alcoholic/druged mothers having children is a great problem. Abortion may be ok, but if the child is going to survive, damaging the foetus is just as bad as letting them grow up then giving them a head injury. I find it appauling that there are no laws against this.