|
|
|
|
Having read your Saturday’s front page headlines regarding a Victoria judge’s wanting to have a woman sterilized to prevent more positive cocaine births, I had expected some timely follow-up. Surely, so novel a proposal has raised some questions.
For example, what good reason is there to violate the freedom of religion question that will surely be raised? If my religion forbids the use of sterilization, would I be forced to submit to it? My Catholicity forbids this for both males and females.
Practically speaking, the expense of such procedures runs into the thousands of taxpayer dollars. Again, practically speaking, sterilization procedures are not guaranteed effective, according to Johns Hopkins studies. One in 100 will be statistically unsuccessful within one year; in 10 years there is a statistical failure rate of two or three.
Taxpayer dollars will no doubt be used to offset the expense of any resulting medical complications such as inflammatory disease and mortality. A Russian study (Russian Academy of Medical Sciences - Moscow, 1178125, Russia) of sterilization reveals such concerns in their area where 65 percent of all pregnancies are terminated by abortion. Both India and the Philippines set up camp sterilization programs with spectacular claims for the number of sterilizations done in one day. Evidently, cost effectiveness was a major factor.
Has anyone considered how effective it would be to simply continue sentencing addicts to prison to keep them away from drugs? Or should we release all those convicted mamas to be economically sterilized?
Woody Guidry
Victoria