Quote by fem_4_taboo
even hard working middle classes can be on methodone.
Though unlikely. Not because of a class thing... just based on the factual effects of shooting up on the brown and then later (when on a programme)the effects of the meths.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
The world has gone mad.....
i have friends who use drugs, there called alcohol and nicotine. i have friends who are under mental health teamsand on scripts. i dont judge them for the situations they are in.
i also didnt say i think the pct made the right desision here, but im guesing emotions are running high here and people get defensive and snappy.
i have experienced the non gutter press quotting people and know its still wrong.
the question here was had the pct done the wrong thing?? who knows if were basing our opinions on what the press have wrote.
would i let a friend who is a ex street drug user look after my kids? well that would depend on many factors. but i dont think that is the question that was raised?
xxx fem xxxx
im withdrawing from this debate as i feel its turning into personal attacks where by i was just airing general thoughts on the topic as a whole
i also didnt say i think the pct made the right desision here, but im guesing emotions are running high here and people get defensive and snappy.
i have experienced the non gutter press quotting people and know its still wrong.
the question here was had the pct done the wrong thing?? who knows if were basing our opinions on what the press have wrote.
would i let a friend who is a ex street drug user look after my kids? well that would depend on many factors. but i dont think that is the question that was raised?
xxx fem xxxx
im withdrawing from this debate as i feel its turning into personal attacks where by i was just airing general thoughts on the topic as a whole
I think there's a lot missing here from the Daily Record report, which is fairly predictable. That is the details about the rehabilitation of the couple. It sounds as if they are making a genuine attempt to get themselves sorted out and the reports about this are probably confidential, so its not possible to assess what they have been through accurately and clinically.
But it would seem that those people who are responsible for making such decisions, have assessed the situation to allow this to proceed. Such authorities would not exist in the first place if they were not designed to see the best in the situation and allow people a new start.
Now the children are born, so its a fait accompli, and life must go on as best it can for this family.
If one considers the progeny of such as rock stars and celebrities, who have probably consumed vast amounts of drugs and alchohol and still had children, when were the children last mentioned as being out of whack with the world?
But it would seem that those people who are responsible for making such decisions, have assessed the situation to allow this to proceed. Such authorities would not exist in the first place if they were not designed to see the best in the situation and allow people a new start.
Now the children are born, so its a fait accompli, and life must go on as best it can for this family.
If one considers the progeny of such as rock stars and celebrities, who have probably consumed vast amounts of drugs and alchohol and still had children, when were the children last mentioned as being out of whack with the world?
Sexpert
I havent personally attacked anyone 
As far as i'm concerned its a debate, albeit fairly heated, as you would expect on an issue such as this.
As far as i'm concerned its a debate, albeit fairly heated, as you would expect on an issue such as this.
Quote by PoloLady
And, on top of that, why do people pursue fertility treatment for years yet never consider adoption? Surely being a parent is more important than being pregnant? However, that's a different discussion entirely
Though, it did make me think.... strangely enough, meth addicts would not be accepted as suitable people when it comes to adoption :?
i was just thinking the same.
Just to throw another point into the needle pile…
There have been plenty of cases of natural, unassisted mothers (who are meth addicts) being sent to jail for allowing/giving/drugging up their babies with meths – in one of the most recent cases the mother killed her toddler with an overdose of meths (though it was shown at the inquest there were traces of heroin in the child’s hair growth and other signs that this had not been a one-off ).
In all of these cases (where the child/baby did not die as a result of being exposed to meths) the parent was jailed and children taken into care. Judges expressed their sheer horror at innocent children being exposed to the effects of methadone by the very person/people that should have been holding the care of the child as their highest priority.
So is it any wonder really that it does not sit well with some people that a children should be born, with the full aid, blessing, support of the authorities with the green stuff already in their tiny fragile bodies?
There have been plenty of cases of natural, unassisted mothers (who are meth addicts) being sent to jail for allowing/giving/drugging up their babies with meths – in one of the most recent cases the mother killed her toddler with an overdose of meths (though it was shown at the inquest there were traces of heroin in the child’s hair growth and other signs that this had not been a one-off ).
In all of these cases (where the child/baby did not die as a result of being exposed to meths) the parent was jailed and children taken into care. Judges expressed their sheer horror at innocent children being exposed to the effects of methadone by the very person/people that should have been holding the care of the child as their highest priority.
So is it any wonder really that it does not sit well with some people that a children should be born, with the full aid, blessing, support of the authorities with the green stuff already in their tiny fragile bodies?
Sexpert
Quote by PoloLady
Just to throw another point into the needle pile…
There have been plenty of cases of natural, unassisted mothers (who are meth addicts) being sent to jail for allowing/giving/drugging up their babies with meths – in one of the most recent cases the mother killed her toddler with an overdose of meths (though it was shown at the inquest there were traces of heroin in the child’s hair growth and other signs that this had not been a one-off ).
In all of these cases (where the child/baby did not die as a result of being exposed to meths) the parent was jailed and children taken into care. Judges expressed their sheer horror at innocent children being exposed to the effects of methadone by the very person/people that should have been holding the care of the child as their highest priority.
So is it any wonder really that it does not sit well with some people that a children should be born, with the full aid, blessing, support of the authorities with the green stuff already in their tiny fragile bodies?
Amen
Meth addicts who become pregnant are encouraged to remain on methadone throughout their pregnancy (and frequently find they need to up their dose) – the reason for this is to avoid the mother going through the symptoms of withdrawal. Yet strangely the main effect of the transfer of meths from the mother to the unborn will be the newborn baby going through withdrawal once out of the womb.
It’s probably OK for a baby to go through withdrawal though – they are too small to bitch about it or go robbing houses so they can get a fix.
Apparently, the main concern about methadone and childbirth is the low birth weight – which in itself can lead to a number of other problems and a higher chance of infant mortality. Can a multiple birth (as common with fertility treatment) be a wise move when low birth weight is already predictable for singular births to meth addicts? Irrespective of whether it did or didn’t effect this case (or whether you think 2 out of 3 ain’t bad) the risks are meant to be one of the main considerations for the health authorities and in other cases (not involving meth addicts) a risk of low birth weight could be enough to refuse fertility treatment.
So is this issue really about double standards within the NHS?
Some people get riled by double standards, others don’t (and a few can’t say jack shit about them as they are constantly demonstrating double standards themselves).
It’s probably OK for a baby to go through withdrawal though – they are too small to bitch about it or go robbing houses so they can get a fix.
Apparently, the main concern about methadone and childbirth is the low birth weight – which in itself can lead to a number of other problems and a higher chance of infant mortality. Can a multiple birth (as common with fertility treatment) be a wise move when low birth weight is already predictable for singular births to meth addicts? Irrespective of whether it did or didn’t effect this case (or whether you think 2 out of 3 ain’t bad) the risks are meant to be one of the main considerations for the health authorities and in other cases (not involving meth addicts) a risk of low birth weight could be enough to refuse fertility treatment.
So is this issue really about double standards within the NHS?
Some people get riled by double standards, others don’t (and a few can’t say jack shit about them as they are constantly demonstrating double standards themselves).
Seems to me people will accept any crap as reason to 'fund' these people.. lets face it the NHS is in fact you and I the tax payer.. and as its partly MY money I would rather it spent on someone who would treasure a child not abuse it even before it were born... (and in saying that I would not even give em meth either but spend the money on better things like better more secure jails to lock em up in. After all is it not still a crime in this country to take heroin)? Having fertility treatment she knew she was likely to get pregnant then so not exactly a surprise arrival... she had her chance to prove herself in my eyes.
Liberal minded lilly livered so and so's need a big old boot up there arses.... Thats what is making this country the mess its getting into..
Wheres Polo when she's needed eh??
Mike xx
Liberal minded lilly livered so and so's need a big old boot up there arses.... Thats what is making this country the mess its getting into..
Wheres Polo when she's needed eh??
Mike xx
Quote by hisandhers
I'm gonna stand by splendid & say that no one has a right to judge others if you don't know the facts.
1) I nor you here know the facts only what you have read.
2) I don't know about methadone & the side effects it may cause- do you? If not again should we be making judgements
3) Side effects can affect people in different ways, so we can't really say how much these babies have been affected.
At the end of the day, these babies are here & the parents nor the NHS can send them back to where they have come from.
If they are addicted to the methadone can the babies, like others come off it slowly :dunno:
can methadone do permanent damage to these babies :dunno:
Was the NHS aware of the parents addition :dunno:
sorry lots of questions but they need answering before any one of us can judge the parents & the NHS.
Not read the article
Who gave them methadone? Of course they knew..
I can't add much to this debate this far down the line.
My real interest lies more in those people that have been declined IVF treatment rather than judging those that have been lucky enough to receive treatment
NHS should be looking more into the post code lottery reasoning that appears to be happening, for IVF and many other treatments.
My real interest lies more in those people that have been declined IVF treatment rather than judging those that have been lucky enough to receive treatment
NHS should be looking more into the post code lottery reasoning that appears to be happening, for IVF and many other treatments.
Having thought about it again, I think the decision may well have been based on the difference between the addicts having a baby on H, or having it on meth.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.
Sex God
Quote by fem_4_taboo
i say this as even local non sensational papers get "facts" wrong.
Even the BBC has been known to put words into mouths that in fact never said them. Here's a trivial example: . You can't even rely on quotes. They're often not word-for-word, and sometimes invented.
Without knowing who fed the story to the paper, what spin they wanted put on it, what everyone involved really said, thinks, and did, I don't think there's nearly enough information to pass judgement.
You don't read a newspaper to find out what's happening in the world. You read it to find out what someone wants you to think is happening. You choose the paper that presents the version of reality that you want to see.
Quote by hisandhers
I'm gonna stand by splendid & say that no one has a right to judge others if you don't know the facts.
1) I nor you here know the facts only what you have read.
2) I don't know about methadone & the side effects it may cause- do you? If not again should we be making judgements
3) Side effects can affect people in different ways, so we can't really say how much these babies have been affected.
At the end of the day, these babies are here & the parents nor the NHS can send them back to where they have come from.
If they are addicted to the methadone can the babies, like others come off it slowly :dunno:
can methadone do permanent damage to these babies :dunno:
Was the NHS aware of the parents addition :dunno:
sorry lots of questions but they need answering before any one of us can judge the parents & the NHS.
Not read the article
what a stupid thread sorry but it has to be said, yes i do know the effects of methodone i have had the misfortune of seeing people who i know addicted to heroin and then subsequently methodone.
this has got my back right up : If they are addicted to the methadone can the babies, like others come off it slowly :dunno:
Why the fook should they have to, i have read some bollocks on here in the past but this takes the biscuit and the cake!!
I dont need to read the article the facts remain the same : Woman addicted to methodone has fertility treatment whilst on said methodone and conceives a child that is going to be suffering methodone induced symptoms whilst in the womb and when born!!
If your all so liberal and want to get on the "dont judge bandwagon" in this instance your off your heads.
Go on start the retaliation, back biting, cliquey (is that a word?) comments that favour the ideas of those you know, bring it on im used to it on here!!
I think the 'judgement' thing could be applied to any argument and was introduced quite early into this debate, setting off a characteristic set of responses. So its not the main topic of the debate.
I see the discussion as: whether or not it was a valid decision to allow this to happen. This is still a worthwhile debate.
But maybe its come to a grinding halt.
I see the discussion as: whether or not it was a valid decision to allow this to happen. This is still a worthwhile debate.
But maybe its come to a grinding halt.
Sex God
I would like to apologize if I have upset people on here - no intention meant honest All I was doing was trying to look at each angle
This has clearly come across wrong
I'm sorry
Yes I have children & no I don't agree with what has happened. I don't apologize for feeling that we have not heard all the facts though
This has clearly come across wrong
I'm sorry
Yes I have children & no I don't agree with what has happened. I don't apologize for feeling that we have not heard all the facts though
Orgasminator
Quote by essex34m
plenty has been said about the rights and wrongs of this, but isnt there a possibility that the focus of the parents will now be on the child, therefore giving them enough drive to get clean?
Highly unlikely. From personal experience, I learnt the hard way that a herion addict will only give up for themselves, no one else and until that time they will drag everyone else in their world down with them.
They don't deserve sympathy imo, taking it in the first place is a choice, we all have the choice not to.
What never ceases to amaze me is you can be vetted for buying a dog but anyone can have a child. If you can't look after yourself, there is no way on the face of this earth you should have the right to have a child.
Harsh maybe but I have first hand experience. Those who choose to give it up however and have sucessfully done so (being on methodaone is not the same thing as it's just another way of getting a fix) DO deserve a second chance and a big congratulations for doing so as it is really hard to get there. Seeing someone withdraw from heroin/methodone is not pretty.
*Her*
Quote by Mrcoupleseekfun
The assumption you offered is that the people on methadone are neither hardworking nor middle class - isn't it possible that they are both?
No, because it mentions in said article that they are both on benefits with no job prospects. He is claiming disability because he was attacked with a hatchet.
You may think my views are narrow minded, i'm not really bothered, but i think its plain to see where a baby/babies would be better born into...
I'm not labelling you as anything, simply commenting on the fact that your view of who is suitable might be skewed. I was and still am in agreement that the couple with the drug problem were not a suitable choice for receiving IVF assistance. I'm actually not a particularly big supporter of IVF anyway but certainly not for people whose lifestyle could potentially harm a child before it's even been born. 
Sex God
Quote by couplefunuk
What never ceases to amaze me is you can be vetted for buying a dog but anyone can have a child.
*Her*
Anyone who is fertile yes anyone who is infertile no. Anyone wanting infertility treatment has to take a form to thier GP which has a multitude of questions on it not just a tick here if this couple are ok have a baby box. It requires the GP to answer specific questions which if they did not know the answer to they would have too look up the patients records. This form is then submited to the HFEA the body in charge of everything to do with infertility treatment and research. If there is any question that the person/people involved may not make good parents or may be a danger to the child then its the HFEA who make the decision as to if treatment can take place or not. On top of that Private clinics and NHS authorities will have thier own guide lines to which you would have to conform for them to give you treatment. Its estimated that it takes the equivilent of three full time doctors each year to compleate the paper work that is returned to the HFEA with referance to this, thats a lot of hours. Not directing this directly at you Couplefun its just theres been a lot of "who the hell authorised this" comments in this thread, well now you all know.
From my own personal experience of how infertility treatment is handled here in the UK I would have to give the couple the bennefit of the doubt. Its a pretty finicky process to get on the ladder to treatment everything will have been weighed up including the effect of methadone on babies in the womb and after. For them to be getting free NHS treatment there must be either a female infertily problem or a threat to the future of the males fertility. Even considering those reason NHS treatment is still very difficult to get and at the moemnt I think only accounts for around a national average of 11% of fertility treatment carried out in this country.
Quote by Serendipity
I'm actually not a particularly big supporter of IVF anyway.
As I receive infertiltity treatment I would be interested to know why it is you are not a particualrly big supporter? Please do enlighten me.
Sex God
Heroin/Methadone addicts = Suitable for becoming parents. Oh, for bloody hells sake Don't be dim!
Anyone who has legitimatly freed themselvesw from these addictions can and should be applauded. Also after time maybe yes the idea of the 'state 'assisting' in aiding a once again normal couple to have a child maybe ok.
Whether media hyped or not this is a fair topic even taken in the hypothetical sense as a what if .... type subject.
If we didn't discuss things that were headed up in the media topics would be at timesthin on the ground.
In this instance the subject matter is Heroin/Methadone users rich poor left right black or white no body else.
Having help having babies? - NO NO NO NO NO!
Anyone who has legitimatly freed themselvesw from these addictions can and should be applauded. Also after time maybe yes the idea of the 'state 'assisting' in aiding a once again normal couple to have a child maybe ok.
Whether media hyped or not this is a fair topic even taken in the hypothetical sense as a what if .... type subject.
If we didn't discuss things that were headed up in the media topics would be at timesthin on the ground.
In this instance the subject matter is Heroin/Methadone users rich poor left right black or white no body else.
Having help having babies? - NO NO NO NO NO!
Quote by hisandhers
I would like to apologize if I have upset people on here - no intention meant honest All I was doing was trying to look at each angle
This has clearly come across wrong
I'm sorry
Yes I have children & no I don't agree with what has happened. I don't apologize for feeling that we have not heard all the facts though
It wasn't that you were trying to get the point across that we should look at all angles to be honest that got peoples backs up, it was the ridiculous statements you made.
ie " Side effects can affect people in different ways, so we can't really say how much these babies have been affected."
" If they are addicted to the methadone can the babies, like others come off it slowly "
I mean how thoughtless is that? It is as if you were taking the fact that these babies have been born with methodone addiction and their subsequent need to go through withdrawal with a pinch of salt.
I dont know you from adam but i do know that what you said in your post stands as the biggest pile of clearly unthoughtful rubbish i have ever read on these forums.
Im not going to sit here and read crap like that and not have a go about it for fear of upsetting anyone. I make it a real rule a)never to intentionally upset anyone but b) also to speak my mind in all cases, and if that subsequently does cause offense then so be it.
Quote by duncanlondon
Having thought about it again, I think the decision may well have been based on the difference between the addicts having a baby on H, or having it on meth.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.
Oh well, thats ok then..... If she was determined as you say then so be it.. let nature take its course and if it couldn't make sure she was clean and stayed clean for a decent amount of time before!
I just cannot understand at all how anyone can think it ok to even think about let alone allow this to have happened. No one but themselves made them what they are..
Quote by tweeky
I'm actually not a particularly big supporter of IVF anyway.
As I receive infertiltity treatment I would be interested to know why it is you are not a particualrly big supporter? Please do enlighten me.
Quote by Dawnie
I was going to ask the same tweeky :thumbup:
Two reasons, both personal rather than a generalisation though.
1. IVF seems potentially very destructive to marriages - it's expensive, often disappointing, reduces an act of love (sex) to something that has to be timed just right and the treatment attempts can go on for years, not work and end up with couples splitting over their inability to conceive which is so sad, when it's probably not the reason they chose to marry each other. And yes, I know that's not true for everyone who goes through IVF/Fertility treatment but I've seen enough evidence of it to know it's common.
2. If egg freezing, sperm donors, IVT etc had been this prevalent in the lates 60s/early 70s I wonder if someone like me, who was adopted, might have spent a lot more time in an orphange/childrens home. Obviously I can't answer that, but my personal choice would be trying to adopt over IVF because of my own background.
So, like I said, it's my personal feeling - what anyone else chooses is up to them, we all have our own reasons for what we would or wouldn't do!
Quote by mdr2000
Having thought about it again, I think the decision may well have been based on the difference between the addicts having a baby on H, or having it on meth.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.
Oh well, thats ok then..... If she was determined as you say then so be it.. let nature take its course and if it couldn't make sure she was clean and stayed clean for a decent amount of time before!
I just cannot understand at all how anyone can think it ok to even think about let alone allow this to have happened. No one but themselves made them what they are..
Perhaps fertility treatment and methadone did keep her off the H. It may have given her the incentive to stay off the H, although not completely free of drugs. But as I said, it may well be a better solution than having a whole family that eventually drifts back into H because they have had all hope removed from their lives.
So that's why I think the authorities decided to take this move. It does seem either completely insane or very brave and decisive.
If the children are healthy and well formed they could go on to have a reasonable life. If they had been born without fertility treatment they may well be suffering all sorts of problems, as well as methadone or H addiction.
Would the choice have been to have the woman sterilised? No, she didn't come under that category.
I know it hard to accept, but professionals are working in these fields of endeavour and have to make such decisions. There's probabaly worse than this out there.
