The world has gone mad.....

17 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
sorry Polo. absolutely wrong.

Sorry neil, I accept there are exceptions, hence my use of the term 'unlikely'. I chose my term carefully in this instance and stand by my statement that it is 'unlikely'. I have an extremely close working relationship with a company which quite probably deals with the highest market share of un-counselled/non residential methadone programme addicts in the UK.
You are absolutely wrong to suggest I am absolutely wrong in this particular quote.
fair enough. took your statement at face value. i took it to mean that you find the idea of middle class, hard-working methadone addicts 'unlikely'. no more, no less. i felt you were wrong on that score? if i'm absolutely wrong in suggesting that you were absolutely wrong, well, i accept that in that instance i was absolutely wrong. dunno

I'll have a look through the rest of it in a bit

bollox! :doh: just when i'd decided i'd said everything i intended, in the most neutral way possible, and could safely stay out of the thread from here on in. :? ;)
Just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in?
*wanders off to find even more of his own statements that were maybe not qualified enough, and open to misinterpretation?*
neil x x x ;)

17 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances going and really far more common than any methodone or heroine adiction.
Are they refused treatment for not being off the nicotine?

Actually yes , some IVF programmes do require the potential parents to quit smoking.
Good. I'm glad to hear it.
While I will not condemn anyone for taking their own path in life, I would defend the right of the unborn child to have the best chance given to them right from the start too. Education and information from those in the profession who know and can advise knowledgably, not scare stories and propeganda, is the way forward in my opinion.
However, my point with things such as nicotine, alcohol and the other substances Les mentioned as dependancy based, is they are commonly available either off the shelf from several shops or through prescription. Because they are more common they are less likely to be decried as 'disgusting' because it's more socially disapproved of to be a class A drug user than it is a smoker or have a few drinks, in my experience. Yet a mere glass or two of wine per week when pregnant can lead to foetal alcohol syndrome. But this requires actually looking at your own back yard instead of something distant... everyone knows someone who drinks or smokes but not everyone knows someone who has had a heroine addiction.
It is very easy to condemn something you don't understand.

18 May 2007

On a more general topic. Why, when we can not afford cancer treatment for those already born are the NHS spending money on fertility treatment.
...but to spend money on fertility treatment for addicts mad, mad, mad.
Travis

18 May 2007

Quote by
On a more general topic. Why, when we can not afford cancer treatment for those already born are the NHS spending money on fertility treatment.

Because to be infertile is an illness which sometimes is treatable similar to having many other health issues.
People don't choose to be infertile, for some it is something they are born with but some people do choose to bring on the effects of cancer at times, such as with smoking confused

Surely it isn't a case of one or the other gets treatment, in an ideal world funds should be available for everyone to get their individual needs met.

18 May 2007

Quote by Dawnie
On a more general topic. Why, when we can not afford cancer treatment for those already born are the NHS spending money on fertility treatment.

Because to be infertile is an illness which sometimes is treatable similar to having many other health issues.
People don't choose to be infertile, for some it is something they are born with but some people do choose to bring on the effects of cancer at times, such as with smoking confused

Surely it isn't a case of one or the other gets treatment, in an ideal world funds should be available for everyone to get their individual needs met.
But we are not in an ideal world, we are in a world where choices have to be made and some people have to be told "no, you cannot have that treatment".
Someone with cancer is likely to die prematurely against their will. A person who cannot conceive won't.
Someone with heart disease who requires a by-pass operation is unlikely to be able to lead a full and active life whilst sitting on a waiting list. A person who cannot conceive can.
IVF is not an essential element of health care, it is a bonus IMO. Just the same as NHS boob jobs for people who think they should have bigger tits.
In the same year that a very close friend of mine managed to convince the NHS she 'needed' a D cup bust and had her implants free of charge, a guy I worked with died because his by-pass operation had been postponed for a third time. The hospital had over-spent on that department’s budget and all operations were cancelled until the beginning of the next financial year. The 3 month wait killed him.
He died and left behind a wife and 3 children, she got bigger tits - what an ideal world hey?
I don't resent people receiving IVF treatment; I just feel it is not a high priority in terms of where money should be spent within the NHS.
I do resent people who would be deemed unfit to adopt (through their own life choices) being given the green light to receive IVF, not just because the money could have been spent better else where (again IMO) but because the whole thing just doesn't make sense. If they are unfit to adopt a baby what in god’s name makes them fit to be ‘helped’ to conceive 3? dunno

18 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
I do resent people who would be deemed unfit to adopt (through their own life choices) being given the green light to receive IVF, not just because the money could have been spent better else where (again IMO) but because the whole thing just doesn't make sense. If they are unfit to adopt a baby what in god’s name makes them fit to be ‘helped’ to conceive 3?

Spot on PL
My own slant on this:
Whilst I can understand a couple's desperation to have children when they can't conceive naturally ( and I have known a few couples in this situation ) this case shows that the NHS has gone completely up the wall.
I've seen cases where non-emergency operations have been rushed to the top of the list for fear of the patient shouting racial/sexual/cultural/etc etc discrimination and other patients having their own treatment postpones YET AGAIN because of it.
I've also seen a patient being told they can't have an operation unless they lose weight because of the increased risk under anaesthetic. The fact that this couple were allowed IVF before they were completely clean is ludicrous!
It's not a case of denying them altogether but just saying, for the sake of the babies, sort yourselves out first

18 May 2007

Good to see common sense prevail here.. majority of people seem to follow the same thought process.
I can seriously understand those who think there is no tollerance and its narrow minded, maybe even conservative in the way I think but far from it.. I can say without any doubts whatsoever I know what these people are like, how unpredictable unbalanced and fickle they can be.. I have seen it first hand over 10's of years not months the changes these people go through and the neglect they can give themselves never mind others. Sure theres the odd case where it goes against this thought and people get and stay clean, live happy productive lives but is the risk even barely worth it.. The lives they affect are very real.
Sure its happened now, they are here they have had the treatment and the future will tell what kinds of parents they turn out to be.. My big fear as said before is that others see the attention they have got and think the same thing. No way!! Bad move to start with never mind repeat..
I hope whoever thought this acceptable has had enough time to reflect..
Mike x

18 May 2007

Its fucking ridiculous trying to defend the logic of the health authority involved. methadone is just as destructive and addictive as the drug it is intended to substitute.
Those poor kids are never gooing to stand much of a chance of having happy childhoods and fulfilling lives.

18 May 2007

Easyease... but methadone is available through the doctor and so they don't have to fund the habit by seeing the local drug deelers. They are under the care of medical professionals who can monitor them and help them with their journey rather than the people addicted having to fund their habit any other way, like theft.
What about other prescription drugs which can be addictive? dunno

It's still a drug habit afterall.

Quote by mdr2000
snip...
I can seriously understand those who think there is no tollerance and its narrow minded, maybe even conservative in the way I think but far from it.. I can say without any doubts whatsoever I know what these people are like, how unpredictable unbalanced and fickle they can be.. I have seen it first hand over 10's of years not months the changes these people go through and the neglect they can give themselves never mind others. Sure theres the odd case where it goes against this thought and people get and stay clean, live happy productive lives but is the risk even barely worth it.. The lives they affect are very real.
...snip

I disagree.
If you treat people like they are worth nothing, as complete and utter scumbags, they go down the route of self fulfilling prophecy and act like scumbags who are worth nothing. I'm sure a good proportion would choose not to take the wrong path if the support were available and people didn't condemn them at every single turn.
Afterall, what's the point of making the effort to get better if nobody respects 'an addict' as a human being anyway? :dunno: confused

18 May 2007

Quote by little gem
Easyease... but methadone is available through the doctor and so they don't have to fund the habit by seeing the local drug deelers. They are under the care of medical professionals who can monitor them and help them with their journey rather than the people addicted having to fund their habit any other way, like theft.
What about other prescription drugs which can be addictive? It's still a drug habit afterall.
snip...
I can seriously understand those who think there is no tollerance and its narrow minded, maybe even conservative in the way I think but far from it.. I can say without any doubts whatsoever I know what these people are like, how unpredictable unbalanced and fickle they can be.. I have seen it first hand over 10's of years not months the changes these people go through and the neglect they can give themselves never mind others. Sure theres the odd case where it goes against this thought and people get and stay clean, live happy productive lives but is the risk even barely worth it.. The lives they affect are very real.
...snip

I disagree.
If you treat people like they are worth nothing, as complete and utter scumbags, they go down the route of self fulfilling prophecy and act like scumbags who are worth nothing. I'm sure a good proportion would choose not to take the wrong path if the support were available and people didn't condemn them at every single turn.
Afterall, what's the point of making the effort to get better if nobody respects 'an addict' as a human being anyway? :dunno: confused

This is good stuff.
If these people stay with the programme they get help, advice, support, medication, a chance, a future etc.
If they don't get this what are they going to get? Anyone like to spell it out?

18 May 2007

Here we go again, putting words in where they are not missing! Can't recal saying anyone was a scumbag can't recal saying they are worth nothing?? What I say is they are unstable, unreliable!! Fickle even. Please correct me if I am wrong!!
Now again dress this as you like but if you have kids yourself ask yourself one simple question.. Would you leave your children with a meth or heroin user over night? For a week? A month.. No?? I know I wouldn't ff's no matter how feckin nice they seem!
This isn't a competition to prove who is right or wrong.. My opinion is just that .. My opinion. I think the money should have been spent elswhere simple. All the liberal minded fookin loonies can stuff as far as I care cause I won't be swayed by might have's could be's and maybe's.. This is peoples lives.. Not toys to be played with..
So would you honestly leave your kids/babies with someone who openly admits to using like they do?
Mike

18 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000

Now again dress this as you like but if you have kids yourself ask yourself one simple question.. Would you leave your children with a meth or heroin user over night? For a week? A month.. No?? I know I wouldn't ff's no matter how feckin nice they seem!

Oh come on Mike, surely you can't tar everyone with the same brush with that comment.
Would I leave my kids with someone on a meths program that I knew really well and trusted them, yes I would.
People can be on meths for years so I'd much rather do that than leave them with someone I don't know or I pulled from a baby siting service.

18 May 2007

Quote by Dawnie
I don't know or I pulled from a baby siting service.

Sorry to bastardise your quote redface

Some babysiting services offer only registered sitters but....
I do see your point..... kiss

19 May 2007

Quote by Dawnie

Now again dress this as you like but if you have kids yourself ask yourself one simple question.. Would you leave your children with a meth or heroin user over night? For a week? A month.. No?? I know I wouldn't ff's no matter how feckin nice they seem!

Oh come on Mike, surely you can't tar everyone with the same brush with that comment.
Would I leave my kids with someone on a meths program that I knew really well and trusted them, yes I would.
People can be on meths for years so I'd much rather do that than leave them with someone I don't know or I pulled from a baby siting service.
Well not many people I know would use either of those options..
My point is that these kids will be with these people for life.. Not really saying just overnight It was more a point of awareness. Just as the would you given the facts before the treatment was given actually pay out of your own pocket to help them.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone lol... My Opinion is my opinion, others are just as entitled to there own for sure.. I'm sorry but I value the more traditional values.. I have truly seen with my own eyes LONG term effects of drug users, sure one min they are fine. Most of the time its managed but theres always that chance that they can snap at any point over anything and I would not risk much on that basis..
Mike xx

19 May 2007

And i'm not saying one more word on the subject...
Final lol... Nope not a word. :undecided:

21 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
On a more general topic. Why, when we can not afford cancer treatment for those already born are the NHS spending money on fertility treatment.

Because to be infertile is an illness which sometimes is treatable similar to having many other health issues.
People don't choose to be infertile, for some it is something they are born with but some people do choose to bring on the effects of cancer at times, such as with smoking confused

Surely it isn't a case of one or the other gets treatment, in an ideal world funds should be available for everyone to get their individual needs met.
But we are not in an ideal world, we are in a world where choices have to be made and some people have to be told "no, you cannot have that treatment".
Someone with cancer is likely to die prematurely against their will. A person who cannot conceive won't.
Someone with heart disease who requires a by-pass operation is unlikely to be able to lead a full and active life whilst sitting on a waiting list. A person who cannot conceive can.
IVF is not an essential element of health care, it is a bonus IMO. Just the same as NHS boob jobs for people who think they should have bigger tits.
In the same year that a very close friend of mine managed to convince the NHS she 'needed' a D cup bust and had her implants free of charge, a guy I worked with died because his by-pass operation had been postponed for a third time. The hospital had over-spent on that department’s budget and all operations were cancelled until the beginning of the next financial year. The 3 month wait killed him.
He died and left behind a wife and 3 children, she got bigger tits - what an ideal world hey?
I don't resent people receiving IVF treatment; I just feel it is not a high priority in terms of where money should be spent within the NHS.
I do resent people who would be deemed unfit to adopt (through their own life choices) being given the green light to receive IVF, not just because the money could have been spent better else where (again IMO) but because the whole thing just doesn't make sense. If they are unfit to adopt a baby what in god’s name makes them fit to be ‘helped’ to conceive 3? dunno

Surely it isn't a case of one or the other gets treatment, in an ideal world funds should be available for everyone to get their individual needs met.

As the above proves, yes it is a choice.

21 May 2007

I have been following this, and have respected the opinions, whether I agree with them or otherwise, of those who have posted...
not wishing to get drawn into the debate specifically raised here...
but a point has been made about whether drug users (managed, on a programme, street, or ex-users and clean) can snap at any time, making them I assume untrustworthy.
My opinion here is:
Anyone, in any situation, no matter thier medical history or drug status, is capable of snapping.
Anyone at all.
lp

21 May 2007

i have read and studied carefully the replies on here.. and imho.. 2 many are getting caught up with "the parents" and the rights to concieve. Only a few have stated or commented on the effects on the children.
There is no way any person here would in their own true mind say yes to allowing the suffering of a new born child, to allow any child to go through this is torture.
this is child abuse and torture.....

21 May 2007

Quote by LondonPlaything
I have been following this, and have respected the opinions, whether I agree with them or otherwise, of those who have posted...
not wishing to get drawn into the debate specifically raised here...
but a point has been made about whether drug users (managed, on a programme, street, or ex-users and clean) can snap at any time, making them I assume untrustworthy.
My opinion here is:
Anyone, in any situation, no matter thier medical history or drug status, is capable of snapping.
Anyone at all.
lp

:giveup:

21 May 2007

As it stands so far; would it be fair to say that:
The 'loonie left', consider the parents to be convincingly on the mend, the authorities have made a pro-active decision and that the situation looks positive for all concerned.
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen proof that the parents had completely reformed, before IVF treatment was given.
Are these the basic aspects of the debate so far?

21 May 2007

Quote by thumper
i have read and studied carefully the replies on here.. and imho.. 2 many are getting caught up with "the parents" and the rights to concieve. Only a few have stated or commented on the effects on the children.
There is no way any person here would in their own true mind say yes to allowing the suffering of a new born child, to allow any child to go through this is torture.
this is child abuse and torture.....

We dont know to what degree if any these babies will be affected by methadone. Also this isnt uncommon there are plenty of woman who concive naturally who will do the same or people on other perscription drugs that may affect babies far worse than methadone. Its "probably" not nice for a baby to have to withdraw from methadone but lets face it it hasent got a clue whats going on it isnt going to remember this in 5-10 years time and its very unlikely to emotionaly disturb the child in later life. One year later the kids probably wont remember a thing about it or be affected by it. So lets take a hypothetical question to an imaginary 23 year old with a partner and happy life this person was born addicted to methadone an experience they no longer remember anything about and that has had no long term effect on them. The hypothetical question is
Would you rather not exist?

21 May 2007

Quote by tweeky
Its "probably" not nice for a baby to have to withdraw from methadone but lets face it it hasent got a clue whats going on it isnt going to remember this in 5-10 years time and its very unlikely to emotionaly disturb the child in later life.

If thats the case, why doesnt everyone take drugs, smoke and drink theirselves stupid while they are pregnant rolleyes

After all the baby might not remember confused

Its emotionally disturbing enough to have parents that take drugs let alone having to go through it yourself as a child.
louise

21 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen proof that the parents had completely reformed, before IVF treatment was given.

its not really much to ask for ...is it? rolleyes

21 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen proof that the parents had completely reformed, before IVF treatment was given.

I'd hardly call it 'hard right' nor 'cruel to be kind'....more like the most sensible and caring answer for the babies? dunno

21 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
As it stands so far; would it be fair to say that:
The 'loonie left', consider the parents to be convincingly on the mend, the authorities have made a pro-active decision and that the situation looks positive for all concerned.
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen proof that the parents had completely reformed, before IVF treatment was given.
Are these the basic aspects of the debate so far?

21 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
As it stands so far; would it be fair to say that:
The 'loonie left', consider the parents to be convincingly on the mend, the authorities have made a pro-active decision and that the situation looks positive for all concerned.
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen proof that the parents had completely reformed, before IVF treatment was given.
Are these the basic aspects of the debate so far?

im glad someone else thought that was a piss take as well, :giggle:
i realise its an important thread and good points made on both sides

21 May 2007

Quote by Ukwineman
As it stands so far; would it be fair to say that:
The 'loonie left', consider the parents to be convincingly on the mend, the authorities have made a pro-active decision and that the situation looks positive for all concerned.
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen proof that the parents had completely reformed, before IVF treatment was given.
Are these the basic aspects of the debate so far?

im glad someone else thought that was a piss take as well, :giggle:
i realise its an important thread and good points made on both sides
I was laughing at that ^ bit - bacause there is no-way that can be a serious statement
lol

:lol: :lol:

21 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
As it stands so far; would it be fair to say that:
The 'loonie left', consider the parents to be unsuitable candidates due to taking meths, the authorities have made a proper balls-up of a decision making, insulted may people who have been turned down for IVF for minor reasons and that the situation as a whole causes great concern.
The 'hard right', 'cruel to be kind' collective would rather have seen the parents lined up against a wall and shot before IVF treatment was given.
Are these the basic aspects of the debate so far?

:thumbup:
(if you want a bias summary that is - not that your first one wasn't) rolleyes

22 May 2007

Perhaps a simpler summary would be:
'This house believes that', the 'loonie left' are going about their usual business; and so are the 'we know what's good for 'em right'.
rolleyes

22 May 2007

the main purpose of methadone treatment, these days, is not to get the addict clean...
... (cont)
just how many hoops do you want them to jump through FGS, before you will allow them the possibility of the kind of family life you take for granted?

I want them to jump through the same hoops I have to. The same hoops other people like me have to. But we have to sit with an unfair system of PCTs dolling out money as they see fit.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances going and really far more common than any methodone or heroine adiction.
Are they refused treatment for not being off the nicotine?

Yes. Us sad niccotine addicts (ex-addict for a week now, thank you) have to give up and go clean, detox on our own expense, and do so for a year before being allowed IVF. At least in this PCT area.

Because it's not controversial enough to be able to point 'over there' outside of our own back yards and say 'oooo, look at those dirty users having children, how disgusting'.

Which is why the smokers are becoming the new pariahs of society with all the new laws about smoking in public places (enclosed) and on business premesis (includes grounds of said business)

At what point do you pigeon hole a person, decide the person is a waste of space even though they are making an effort, afterall 'a leopard can't change it's spots' , write them off as a loss and go down the line of euthanasing anyone who doesn't live up to a set ideal? :?

All I asked was for people to have an even playing field. If smokers can't get IVF till they give up their addiction/habit then why should other addicts/habitual users be allowed to be funded?
Smokers have a risk of babies with low birth weight, birth defects, complications with development etc. So do Heroin users. Meth users. Alcoholics. People addicted to painkillers/tranquilisers. People on antidepressants. People who are overweight. People who are underweight.
The list goes on.
It just makes me spit to know that I have to jump through all the hoops and play the game by all the rules, but others don't. I have to make the lifestyle changes, I have to wait until my 36th birthday (when the chances of conception are that much lower anyway and then only have a window of opportunity of three years) and I have to do all the other things asked of me, but others can bypass that because they live in an area whre IVF is funded by the PCT under much more lax guidelines.