The world has gone mad.....

30 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:
But rapists and murderers hurt people.
But drug users can hurt people too,they can even destroy whole families if they try hard enough!
As can alcoholics, ...
And I do believe (or trust) alcoholics would be refused IVF - so your point is?
There is a huge stigma said with drawn in sucking of teeth at the bare mention of the word DRUGS. Everyone puts thier moral hat on and makes judgements about what they THINK they know which judging by this thread is not a lot. Thats all I was saying if this was about ex alcoholics the thread would not be half as long. The words DRUGS and ILLEGAL send people into an OHHH I am outraged frenzy
Was your point that although alcoholics are not ideal role models for society, can have numerous health and behavioural issues and are also not suitable candidates for IVF... when they take their very first drink they are not committing any crime. Where as a class A drug user knowingly is?
No my point was that by using the the sterotypes that society has of drug users in conjuntion with the bare facts about alcohol and herion or methadone whatever, then anyone taking thier first drink of alcohol SHOULD be breaking the law. Social heroin users dont commit crime in general where as social drinkers frequently get into fights down town smash up pubs and cause a great deal of cost to tax payers. Yes its a small minority of social alcohol drinkers that do this but compared to social heroin users that commit crime the numbers are much greater. Heroin addicts commit crime because they have to fund the habbit the alcoholic doesnt because his drug is legal and available in Spar for If you could get heroin in spar for heroin addicts wouldent commit crime. If Alcohol wasent available in Spar for but only via an illegal source at 10 quid a bottle then alcoholics would be robbing grannies on the way out of bingo on a much more frequent basis. In basic what I was saying was comparing alcohol to heroin side by side then alcohol should be a grade A drug. My own personel view is that niether should be illegal.
Yes, the only difference is the legality – people who seek to buy heroin know it is illegal and they had to do a damn sight more than go to a supermarket to get it!
Since when did rules or laws ever stop anyone dunno

makes little odds really. Kids under 18 shouldent be drinking but they do.
Methadone is no longer generally considered a treatment for heroin addiction (due to it having just as many problems and being an addiction in it's own right) it is an opiate substitute – ‘substitute’ being the key word – not ‘treatment’). It does nothing to treat the person; it treats the social affects of heroin - crime.
And let's also be clear... many heroin users who want to get clean don't go on to methadone schemes as the synthetic opiate says in the body longer than the heroin does - making it harder to get off of it.
Not a medical professional but from the little I know there are conflicting views on the use of methadone so I wont comment.
At a Nottingham community based methadone clinic (treating 60+ addicts per day - and yes they are methadone addicts - even the PCT refers to them as addicts not patients) the largest proportion of methadone users just want to get off of heroin because:
a - they have nothing left to sell to get a fix
b - they don't want to go robbing anymore
c - the court gave them the option and it kept them out of prison
Ever person that attends this clinic has to be supervised taking the methadone - mainly because they can't be trusted not to sell it on the street then come back an hour later and say they dropped the bottle.
If you want to walk home with a few of these people then it can be arranged - just don't let on you have any money on you! And before you jump in with “how can I make such an assumption”… I know how many of the team who work their have been assaulted, mugged, harassed into handing over money… and so on.
I dont need to jump in with at all I have plenty of experience of my own on which to make my own views on. That includes drug use of all types and alcoholisum. My Sister was an alcoholic shes dead my brothers an alcoholic he's in prison. From 1990 when I left school to 1994 I witnessed just about everything there is too see in relation to illegal drug use of all types. I saw the use, I saw people I went to school with become addicts to both smack and crack, I saw the planning of and the execution of crimes to fund habbits, the purchase of and dealing of, distress to familys, everything. I had a addiction issue of my own which greatly changed my life but it wasent with heroin. So I judge my opinions on those experiences and stand by what I say.
What I am trying to do is take some of the hysteria around this thread and heroin and relate it directly to something (alcohol) thats legal and that people do everyday and show that the effects long term and short term are not much different.
Its a bit current but lets look at the case of Maddy thats in the news at the moment, born from IVF you know. Parents a DR and a lawyer left the kids in an appartment and went to a restraunt from where they couled barely see the appartment. Myself ex drug addict with a spent record works in a manual job and Mrs Tweeky left school with no qualifications takes prescription drugs for anxiety, would never do that. Its tough to see what decisions parents will make no matter who they are.

31 May 2007

Quote by tweeky
...

Then I would not think you and your partner suitable for IVF either and that is the point of this thread isn't it? ... opinions on the decision to fund IVF for a couple who are methadone addicts?
Comparing alcoholics with heroin addicts does not lessen the stupidity (IMO) of the IVF funding for the meth addicts - it simply demonstrates there exists yet another group within society which should also NOT have IVF funded.

31 May 2007

I think that those who don't agree with the decision of the IVF treatment are unhappy because they would have preferred to see the addicts cured of their addictions. But they don't see anything wrong in the treatments as such.
The detox route is a 'fairy tale ending'. There is unlikely to be a magical transformation. It rarely works like that, so its a redundant suggestion.
Also if one has faith in the professionalism of detox agencies, why is there doubt in the decision of a more comprehensive set of professionals? They work in very closely related fields in close association with each other.
The overall tone is one of 'the addicts did this to themselves, we need some real proof that they have mended their ways'. Only then would they be allowed to progress onto the next stage.
Again this is one of those ideas, where someone can transform themself by overcoming a fear or labour against a great disadvantage. Another convenient, 'miracle' solution.
So what is it that makes one hold to this preferred route? And how does one recognise that someone is truly ready to change, if they are to benefit from this route? And what is it that convinces one, that this process is completely successful?

31 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Then I would not think you and your partner suitable for IVF either and that is the point of this thread isn't it? ... opinions on the decision to fund IVF for a couple who are methadone addicts?.
Comparing alcoholics with heroin addicts does not lessen the stupidity (IMO) of the IVF funding for the meth addicts - it simply demonstrates there exists yet another group within society which should also NOT have IVF funded.

Great lets just set it up like an A-Z of who should and shouldent be allowed taking into account only the peoples problems and nothing else. Got a few moments lets make a start
Aardvarkphobics
Alcoholics
Anoraks
rotflmao

I always disliked the HFEA they create too many finicky rules and too much paper work but with view points like yours around I am for the first time I am glad they exist. Over the next 50 years infertility rates are set to rise quite significantly due to a multitude of factors. Its going to be interesting with such stereotypical views out there I am glad we are nearly done with it all.

1 Jun 2007

Quote by tweeky

Then I would not think you and your partner suitable for IVF either and that is the point of this thread isn't it? ... opinions on the decision to fund IVF for a couple who are methadone addicts?.
Comparing alcoholics with heroin addicts does not lessen the stupidity (IMO) of the IVF funding for the meth addicts - it simply demonstrates there exists yet another group within society which should also NOT have IVF funded.

Great lets just set it up like an A-Z of who should and shouldent be allowed ...
Don't they already exists? Aren't you about to tell us that they do in your next paragraph? rolleyes

Quote by tweeky
... I always disliked the HFEA they create too many finicky rules and too much paper work but with view points like yours around I am for the first time I am glad they exist...

1 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady

Then I would not think you and your partner suitable for IVF either and that is the point of this thread isn't it? ... opinions on the decision to fund IVF for a couple who are methadone addicts?.
Comparing alcoholics with heroin addicts does not lessen the stupidity (IMO) of the IVF funding for the meth addicts - it simply demonstrates there exists yet another group within society which should also NOT have IVF funded.

Great lets just set it up like an A-Z of who should and shouldent be allowed ...
Don't they already exists? Aren't you about to tell us that they do in your next paragraph? rolleyes

Quote by tweeky
... I always disliked the HFEA they create too many finicky rules and too much paper work but with view points like yours around I am for the first time I am glad they exist...

I find that an interesting comment considering what my view point actually is (if you are able to remember that far back). However, to save you time I shall summarise:
I see no humanity in a decision to 'force' babies through the hell of methadone withdrawal (along with the yet unknown long term effects on them as children) when the parents neither had the bollox or (judging by their current doses) the intention of doing it for themselves... before receiving IVF.
To give the babies the best possible chance and start in life, the parents should have gone through detox - yet they didn't and I can't help feeling that going through IVF whilst still addicted to methadone was selfish - that is putting the desire to have children before the wellbeing of the children themselves.
You're right it's not a humane thing to do, it's just simply the more practical option. The powers that be get to do those things.
The desire to have children, when it happens , is one of the most powerful forces anyone can encounter in life. Few of us consider our own or the child's well being until they are in our arms. Very little will get in the way of anyone's desire to have children.

2 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady

Then I would not think you and your partner suitable for IVF either and that is the point of this thread isn't it? ... opinions on the decision to fund IVF for a couple who are methadone addicts?.
Comparing alcoholics with heroin addicts does not lessen the stupidity (IMO) of the IVF funding for the meth addicts - it simply demonstrates there exists yet another group within society which should also NOT have IVF funded.

Great lets just set it up like an A-Z of who should and shouldent be allowed ...
Don't they already exists? Aren't you about to tell us that they do in your next paragraph? rolleyes

Quote by tweeky
... I always disliked the HFEA they create too many finicky rules and too much paper work but with view points like yours around I am for the first time I am glad they exist...

I find that an interesting comment considering what my view point actually is (if you are able to remember that far back). However, to save you time I shall summarise:
I see no humanity in a decision to 'force' babies through the hell of methadone withdrawal (along with the yet unknown long term effects on them as children) when the parents neither had the bollox or (judging by their current doses) the intention of doing it for themselves... before receiving IVF.
To give the babies the best possible chance and start in life, the parents should have gone through detox - yet they didn't and I can't help feeling that going through IVF whilst still addicted to methadone was selfish - that is putting the desire to have children before the wellbeing of the children themselves.
No the HFEA dont make an A-Z they consider each case individualy with the main focus on the well being and safety of the child.
I wrote this before on metadone and babies may as well quote it otherswise just keep repeating myself

Quote by tweeky
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?.

It would be great if we were all born into perfect worlds but we are not plain and simple. If we care that much about perfect states then everyone whos going to have a child shouild be psycologicaly evaluated and steralised if seen as a threat. Why only impose the rules on the infertile?

2 Jun 2007

Why? Because they can. There's no strict breeding programme in this country for those who can produce offspring whenever they wish (or whenever they have that accident that leads to it, or are careless/ignorant/stupid/teenage and doing it because it's seen as cool to have an STD by the time they're 14/after a council house) There is however a strict (Ish) breeding programme for those who are unable to nip out, have sex and get pregnant.
Feel free to explain to me why a smoker has to be "clean" for a year while a meth addict doesn't.
Feel free to explain to me why some babies have to go through that detox process, why it is inflicted on them by parents who obviously won't do it themselves, but are quite happy to pass it on to the defenceless outcome of the stupidest decision about their fertility treatment options.
If you're not going to care enough to give up X (pick your substance of choice), you can't have a kid. Simple.
We smokers (ex-smoker. Two and a half weeks and counting. It doesn't make you live longer, it just feels like it) have to give up to give any possible offspring from IVF the best chance of being a viable pregancy and healthy babies, so why the F**K am I sat here reading this S**T about how we should be nice to Meth addicts who don't have to give up anything?
To use your hypothetical and ansewer the question with a request: Show me absolute proof that there is no short or long term psychological or physical damage done to a baby who has to go through withdrawal symptoms.
Would I rather that person didn't exist? Unfair question, and an attempt to emotionally hijack the advantage.
Let me ask you another question: If you had a choice between funding fertility treatment for a couple who were infertile from cancer treatments or a couple Meth addicts, which would you choose? How about the choice between those who are infertile because of PCOS as opposed to having extremely low fertility because of a Heroin/Meth addiction? A choice between someone who is infertile but 10lb over the BMI of 20 to 25 listed as being one of the criteria for IVF or a Meth addict?
"Probably not nice for a baby to have to withdraw from Methadone"? What planet are you on? What withdrawals do normal adults have to go through but have the advantage of being able to tell you that it's the spiders crawling the walls that makes them scream out, or the feeling that their veins are filled with fire or ice that makes them shake? Why would it be any different for a tiny infant who has been subjected to those same drugs for up to nine months?
If you can give me a sensible answer as to why, if the safety of the adult and the child are taken into consideration before treatment, that Meth addicts can have treatment while others with no such dependancies cannot, simply for being too young (under 36 here) too fat (BMI of over 25) too old (over 39) or any number of other hoops that people have to jump through, I will see your point. Currently it is escaping me.

2 Jun 2007

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Why? Because they can. There's no strict breeding programme in this country for those who can produce offspring whenever they wish (or whenever they have that accident that leads to it, or are careless/ignorant/stupid/teenage and doing it because it's seen as cool to have an STD by the time they're 14/after a council house) There is however a strict (Ish) breeding programme for those who are unable to nip out, have sex and get pregnant.

My point was hypothetical it happens all the time so whats the big fuss about? If there are babys born to drug addicts meth addicts alcoholics each week with natural pregnancys. Anyone with a legitimate concern should try doing something useful about it sure there are lots of charitys that could use the help. So whats the whole thing about? 6-7 grand as this was NHS funded thats what people are so worked up about. The NHS wastes money left right and centre on loads of other crap anyway its nothing new.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Feel free to explain to me why a smoker has to be "clean" for a year while a meth addict doesn't.

Are you private or NHS? if its NHS then its all linked to the big anti smoking push we can see all around us. If you are private its obviously a specific rule of your clinic. I know for a fact this wasent in place here when we started out.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Feel free to explain to me why some babies have to go through that detox process, why it is inflicted on them by parents who obviously won't do it themselves, but are quite happy to pass it on to the defenceless outcome of the stupidest decision about their fertility treatment options.
If you're not going to care enough to give up X (pick your substance of choice), you can't have a kid. Simple.

As I have said its happening all the time perhaps they have used statistics and reasearch from all the babies born like this in making the decision about this case. Whatever they are far more qualified experienced and informed in specific to this case than you or I so they are far better placed to judge.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
We smokers (ex-smoker. Two and a half weeks and counting. It doesn't make you live longer, it just feels like it).

Really :lol2: If you keep it up you have you will have lost your 1-3 chance of dieing from a smoking related disease

Quote by CarmelaDeA
have to give up to give any possible offspring from IVF the best chance of being a viable pregancy and healthy babies, so why the F**K am I sat here reading this S**T about how we should be nice to Meth addicts who don't have to give up anything?.

We all know the risks of smoking and pregnancy I know nothing about methadone in pregnancy. Like Ive just wrote above we know nothing except for a newspapaer article about this case. I would think its pretty obvious that Methadone withdraw was considerd but rejected for reasons I would not be qualified to judge on.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
To use your hypothetical and ansewer the question with a request: Show me absolute proof that there is no short or long term psychological or physical damage done to a baby who has to go through withdrawal symptoms.

I said they probably dont, psychological damage I doubt, physical no idea but once again this is all weighed up by people far more qualified than me. My Mum smoked all the way through pregnancy as did many, anyone remember dying for a fag at 2 weeks?

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Would I rather that person didn't exist? Unfair question, and an attempt to emotionally hijack the advantage.

No its a perfectly valid point. People come from all kinds of beginings which will cease to be the case in the not to distant future with technology that comes directly from IVF ICSI etc. In 200 years time I may not be alowed to exist I will be screened out due to a gene I carry. Why are people allowed to abort down syndrome risk babys? you know the risk before pregnancy. So its a hard life beinging up a kid with downs so dont take the risk or give it up. Plenty of perfectly happy people with Downs out there why should they be denied existance. Maybe Hitler didnt need to win the war after all.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Let me ask you another question: If you had a choice between funding fertility treatment for a couple who were infertile from cancer treatments or a couple Meth addicts, which would you choose? How about the choice between those who are infertile because of PCOS as opposed to having extremely low fertility because of a Heroin/Meth addiction? A choice between someone who is infertile but 10lb over the BMI of 20 to 25 listed as being one of the criteria for IVF or a Meth addict?.

Mytical people all of them and I dont know any of them so cant judge. I am not going to put the Meth addicts in a group labled Meth addicts and say they shouldent have IVF or ICSI they all need to be judged as individuals not Meth addicts same for all of the other conditions you have mentioned. The cancer patient could be a the woman over the BMI of 20 to 25 may beat her husband. Try putting them not into groups and assesing them as individuals.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
"Probably not nice for a baby to have to withdraw from Methadone"? What planet are you on? What withdrawals do normal adults have to go through but have the advantage of being able to tell you that it's the spiders crawling the walls that makes them scream out, or the feeling that their veins are filled with fire or ice that makes them shake? Why would it be any different for a tiny infant who has been subjected to those same drugs for up to nine months?
If you can give me a sensible answer as to why, if the safety of the adult and the child are taken into consideration before treatment, that Meth addicts can have treatment while others with no such dependancies cannot, simply for being too young (under 36 here) too fat (BMI of over 25) too old (over 39) or any number of other hoops that people have to jump through, I will see your point. Currently it is escaping me.

All addressed above and Ive run out of time rolleyes

Not medically qualified to judge on witdraw symptoms for babys

2 Jun 2007

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Let me ask you another question: If you had a choice between funding fertility treatment for a couple who were infertile from cancer treatments or a couple Meth addicts, which would you choose?

deliberately emotive none argument?
there is no suggestion WHATSOEVER that anyone was forced to make that kind of choice? who's being emotive here exactly? hhhmmmm???? confused

there is NOTHING, whatsoever, to suggest, in this article, that anyone lost out, including cancer patients, so that these two could have a kid?

Quote by CarmelaDeA
Show me absolute proof that there is no short or long term psychological or physical damage done to a baby who has to go through withdrawal symptoms.

CarmelaDeA, i am very reluctant to argue with you, cos i get the impression this is a bit close to home? ;)
it's always gonna be VERY difficult to try and prove a negative. so much easier to prove that pre-natal exposure to Heroin / Methadone DOES cause lasting, permanent damage to the child. as far as i know, no such proof exists. IMO, in the absence of proof either way, that particular argument is redundant. neither of us can win? doubt you'd put much store in the medical documentation available on sites i could link to discussing withdrawal in methadone exposed neonates? i'm not qualified to comment further on it? :?
having said that, if withdrawal causes no lasting physical / psychological damage in adults, i can see no reason why it would cause lasting physical / psychological damage in newborns? remember that heroin, and it's substitutes, essentially are perfect mimics of naturally produced chemicals / endorphins. if those endorphins cause no damage, no reason to think it's mimics will either? withdrawal is mainly the consequence of of a lack of endorphins, and an over-production of noradrenalin, both of which can be moderated with readily available treatments. they're body processes that the body can fix, with or without help. as hinted at, a newborn is not fully conscious or self-aware in any meaningful sense of the word, so their withdrawal is entirely different in character to that experienced by an adult.
not replying specifically to you anymore. general comment . . . .
really looks to me like what i think i'm saying, and what other people think i'm saying, are two completely seperate things. that's the only way i can explain the sneering lines of emoticons and not much else, and the quite often personally offensive comments from those on the other side of the fence saying . . well . . . what they said? ;)
the question asked was not, 'Generally speaking, should heroin addicts be entitled to IVF do you think?' if you'll forgive just this one sweeping generalised statement, that's the question some of you seem to be answering quite often in your replies, as i read them, and also seems occasionally to be the question some of you think i'm trying to answer? :? it's not!
the question asked was 'On balance, given appropriate supervision, with enough safeguards and sanctions in place to cope with any eventuality, can we safely putthiscouple forward for IVF, and manage all possible consequences, even though they're still on methadone.' it's nothing like the same question, so obviously there's an entirely different answer. if we appear to be at crossed swords, maybe it's cos the language used can have multiple meanings, and you're bound to read it in the context of the particular question you're trying to answer, just as i'm gonna read your posts in the context of mine.
i do not for one minute endorse wholesale IVF entitlement for heroin addicts. i've never said i do. i can imagine a very small number of exceptional circumstances where it could be a valid course of action though. nor am i entirely unfamiliar with the absolute chaos that most frequently constitutes a Heroin addict's day-to-day existence, and the damage they cause others in their wake. i'd react with horror at the thought of your stereotypically problematic Heroin addict choosing to become a parent, naturally or otherwise, myself, but that's a world away from non-problematic and stable, monitored over 5 years. it's not the same thing at all!
of course not being on methadone during pregnancy is infinitely preferable to being on methadone pregnant, but there must be at least one exceptional set of circumstances where IVF on methadone was preferable to the alternatives, whatever they were. that exceptional circumstance is the one we're talking about? :? generalised, anecdotal evidence is entirely inapplicable in this case.
neil x x x ;)

3 Jun 2007

Quote by someone
the question asked was 'On balance, given appropriate supervision, with enough safeguards and sanctions in place to cope with any eventuality, can we safely put this couple forward for IVF, and manage all possible consequences, even though they're still on methadone.' it's nothing like the same question, so obviously there's an entirely different answer.

The answer to the above question in truth is 'no', purely because there have not been any significant and fully conclusive long-term physical, psychological or sociological studies on the effects of babies born to methadone addicts through their later development - we cannot truly assess the 'safety' aspect. To be fair though an alternative version of the answer is ... possibly.
But was the question really 'can we'?
We (society, science, whoever) 'can' do lots of things - as in the capability, technology, etc exists.
The deeper question, which I believe was the original question and the question many have answered, is... 'should we'?

3 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady
The answer to the above question in truth is 'no', purely because there have not been any significant and fully conclusive long-term physical, psychological or sociological studies on the effects of babies born to methadone addicts through their later development - we cannot truly assess the 'safety' aspect. To be fair though an alternative version of the answer is ... possibly.
But was the question really 'can we'?
We (society, science, whoever) 'can' do lots of things - as in the capability, technology, etc exists.
The deeper question, which I believe was the original question and the question many have answered, is... 'should we'?

yep. i absolutely agree. just cos we can, should we? not always, no! are we safe in our belief that there's damage? no! is anyone else safe in their belief that there ain't? no? no evidence either way? we'll have to agree to disagree, cos we have nowt that can back up our arguments, which is kinda the entire point? ;)
the 'should we' is a general question? i don't have an answer to that? except to say it's a general question? my reply to your general question, would probably be, generally speaking, 'no!
give me a specific case, with shitloads of well-documented evidence, i might be inclined to make a decision based on the facts i'm presented with?
what i'm not prepared to do is make a decision on a case for which i have no facts, evidence, etc, whatever, whatsoever? i'm not that daft?
i'm getting all circular and repetitive? i can't qualify owt i've had to say any more than i have done already? if we have to agree to disagree? fine! i ain't trying to change opinion? i'm just stating my own?
neil x x x ;)

3 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
You're right it's not a humane thing to do, it's just simply the more practical option.

Prove it!

3 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady

You're right it's not a humane thing to do, it's just simply the more practical option.

Prove it!
I thought you were in a pink fluffy phase?
Its a practical option because we have a willing participant and the facilities and support to work the problem. Its not nice for the squeamish, but there is a result.
As I said before if I was a barefoot doctor in a far away place I'd have to let the victims suffer.

3 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon

You're right it's not a humane thing to do, it's just simply the more practical option.

3 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady

You're right it's not a humane thing to do, it's just simply the more practical option.

Prove it!
I thought you were in a pink fluffy phase?
Its a practical option because we have a willing participant and the facilities and support to work the problem.
Sorry, that is neither explaining why it is practical nor factual.
We don't yet truly know what support is required, nor if that support will be sufficently available.
The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies. They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

3 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies.

Sorry but that bit just tickled me.
Do you know what the majority of Methadone programmes consist of? ...
Going into a pharmacy or dispensing centre and either necking the dose there and then or picking up a day/weeks supply - ordinarily there is no support other than periodic dosing reviews.

Quote by duncanlondon
They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

3 Jun 2007

I thinks Duncan is living in Cookoo land.. Sorry! The real world is just outside the round window..
No offence Duncan... but those are clouds up there mate not cotton wool!
Sorry.. Shhhhhh Not another word, Not one I promise. :censored:
Mike

3 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady

The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies.

Quote by duncanlondon
They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

Do you know how many children are on an 'at risk' register in the UK? The Social Services department responsible for guarding the best interests of the children on this register admit they struggle to stretch their resources far enough to provide the levels of support they would like to in all cases.
What was that little girls name who was 'at risk', had previously been burnt with cigarettes, had a broken arm and some other stuff and eventually turned up dead after being starved to death and repeatedly beaten? I can't remember her name, but I do remember the story in the news.
How is adding further demands to under resourced support services practical?
I know most rehab programmes are pretty scrappy and depressing, I worked in one for a few months. I know they don't offer much, but for some people its something.
The parents have been on a programme for a few years and probably just as much dependent on the programme as the drugs. Its a crap situation but its what's working for them.
The girl was Victoria Climbie. She lived not far from me.

3 Jun 2007

Quote by mdr2000
I thinks Duncan is living in Cookoo land.. Sorry! The real world is just outside the round window..
No offence Duncan... but those are clouds up there mate not cotton wool!
Sorry.. Shhhhhh Not another word, Not one I promise. :censored:
Mike

Its okay, you know how you feel. I just haven't seen a convincing argument yet from those who don't approve of this decision about IVF for the parents.

3 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
I thinks Duncan is living in Cookoo land.. Sorry! The real world is just outside the round window..
No offence Duncan... but those are clouds up there mate not cotton wool!
Sorry.. Shhhhhh Not another word, Not one I promise. :censored:
Mike

Its okay, you know how you feel. I just haven't seen a convincing argument yet from those who don't approve of this decision about IVF for the parents.
Convincing?? As in how? Why should anyone NEED convincing? surely the people who NEED convincing are as much a part of the problem in the first place..
Sure in the ideal world all people should be able to have all things.. sadly this world does not and will never exist. As a direct and yes I mean that a DIRECT result of those people recieving the treatment they did someone else missed out.. Now in MY world the people who should get help are those who deserve help.
IF they had earned the right by giving up all drugs before hand then and only then should they have help.. Lets not forget they are already a DRAIN on recources by giving them bloody drugs.. on the NHS again money that could and should help people in NEED.. ill people and the like.
They are the ones who choose to take the bloody drugs and don't go banging a drum about people from deprived this and that cause there are bloody millions of people from this that and the other who DON'T take them and no matter what won't. They should have proved themselves by giving up FIRST.. Simple.
Sorry but in the world where the round peg goes in the round hole etc thats the way things should be done.. its the namby pamby do gooders of this world who fluck things up and its the rest of us who suffer as a result.
Nothing personal honest.. I don't know you but jeeze you are as bad as the pillocks who approved the prats in the first place.. No wonder this country is a pile of bloody dog poo.. Where has the standards gone!
Anyway rant over lol..
Either your trying to wind peeps up or your just plain stupid lol.
Have a nice day :kick:
Mike

3 Jun 2007

straight forward issue in my parents right to choose against the needs and welfare of children. Deny the parents rights if there is any chance the children will suffer. As for the care Trust managers what can you expect. they're Trust managers cause they could not run a private enterprise without bankrupting it. I worked for the NHS for 30 yrs and their incompetence defies imagination.

4 Jun 2007

Quote by mdr2000
As a direct and yes I mean that a DIRECT result of those people recieving the treatment they did someone else missed out.. Now in MY world the people who should get help are those who deserve help.

evidence please? have you got any? no! you haven't got any evidence at all that could back that statement up? have you? rolleyes

Quote by mdr2000
I thinks Duncan is living in Cookoo land.. Sorry! The real world is just outside the round window..
No offence Duncan... but those are clouds up there mate not cotton wool!
Sorry.. Shhhhhh Not another word, Not one I promise. :censored:
Mike

mike? no offense, but the only people giving offense are the likes of you? confused

mike? you're living in cloud cuckoo land mate!!!! :roll: sorry! no offense! ;)

Quote by Mike
surely the people who NEED convincing are as much a part of the problem in the first place..

yep! if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

Quote by Mike
Either your trying to wind peeps up or your just plain stupid lol.

statements like that can be a double-edged sword you know? either your trying to wind peeps up or you're just plain stupid lol

4 Jun 2007

As I said before the detox idea is a fairy tale ending. To say 'they should detox, simple as that', conveniently offers no explanation as to how effective this is, in this scenario.
There will be many other addicts in similar circumstances throughout the country who won't get this support, but in this case the authorities took a decision based on their collective expertise. If you have faith in a detox programme, why do you lack faith in the collective expertise?
The situation has been sensationalised by the press and debated here in an alarming and emotional way. But really its not such an big deal. The addicts are co-operating and putting themselves into the hands of those doing what they can legally do for them. The arguments about child abuse and such are very imaginative. The problems of the children will again be owned and managed.
None of us enjoys any of this kind of thing, but its what's acceptable in the eyes of the law in a developed society.
This is why I consider it a practical choice to own the problem and manage it, through a comprehensive set of professionals. They are not there in a pointless role. We all know the NHS is wasteful and inefficient, but in most cases they are effective.
If you don't think this is the case, then the reliance on any agency to support an argument is redundant.
The anti-treatment lobby have simply raised reasonable points of argument but have not presented a workable alternative. This is why I am not convinced by the arguments.

4 Jun 2007

This is a very emotive subject which lends itself to strong debate. Strong debate AND the AUP does not allow insults. If you cannot debate without insults, then this will be locked.
This thread is being watched, so keep it on topic without insults or rising to them.
Mal

4 Jun 2007

Quote by neilinleeds
As a direct and yes I mean that a DIRECT result of those people recieving the treatment they did someone else missed out.. Now in MY world the people who should get help are those who deserve help.

evidence please? have you got any? no! you haven't got any evidence at all that could back that statement up? have you? rolleyes

Quote by mdr2000
I thinks Duncan is living in Cookoo land.. Sorry! The real world is just outside the round window..
No offence Duncan... but those are clouds up there mate not cotton wool!
Sorry.. Shhhhhh Not another word, Not one I promise. :censored:
Mike

mike? no offense, but the only people giving offense are the likes of you? confused

mike? you're living in cloud cuckoo land mate!!!! :roll: sorry! no offense! ;)

Quote by Mike
surely the people who NEED convincing are as much a part of the problem in the first place..

yep! if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

Quote by Mike
Either your trying to wind peeps up or your just plain stupid lol.

statements like that can be a double-edged sword you know? either your trying to wind peeps up or you're just plain stupid lol

sorry!
no offense!
;)
mike? don't patronise us? do not, for one minute, talk down to us like we're idiots? don't, whatever you do, try to suggest we're fucking stupid? :roll: don't call us pillocks for disagreeing with you? o.k. please stop doing that? ;)
mike? you can't retract offensive comments like that once they're posted? prolly best not to post 'em in the first place? :?
have a nice day!? :kick: ;)
n x x x ;)
Seems like someone touched a nerve, can't remember mentioning you in anyway Neil.. Sorry but my opinion is my opinion.. just as yours is yours.
I think people who make these choices the way they do have seriously affected this country and all who live here.
The NHS is funded by hard working people who if given the choice would have absolutely denied this treatment. There are far better causes and many many people who don't get treatment as 'funds are not available' Proof? read the news, watch TV, talk to your friends and neighbours maybe even your own family. talk to doctors nurses people who really know what is going on.. Yes its emotive and I truly believe people are stupid and totally misguided in allowing drug addicts anything on the NHS like this without first proving they are capable of rational and able choices.. lets face it it is possible to give up any drug.. meth, heroin anything 'if you really want to'
I'm sorry you feel victimised in anyway.. as I said MY opinion remains as it does. Yours is yours. It really isn't a personal thing to you (Neil) or Duncan its purely your thoughts on this that drives me nuts.
Who knows.. you may well be right we should treat all drug users with kit gloves and utter respect, divert resourses away from truly needy folk after all most of them are long past being able to put anything back again.. so sod em eh. We would not need all these so called professionals if we took a harder stance against stupid drugies.. What gives them the rights all of a sudden? Its self inflicted is it not?
Mike

4 Jun 2007

Wonder if we're read in the papers in a few months from now...that the two babies have been taken into care for their own good!

4 Jun 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
Wonder if we're read in the papers in a few months from now...that the two babies have been taken into care for their own good!

Or the consultants lol

4 Jun 2007

Quote by Mal
This is a very emotive subject which lends itself to strong debate. Strong debate AND the AUP does not allow insults. If you cannot debate without insults, then this will be locked.
This thread is being watched, so keep it on topic without insults or rising to them.
Mal

Mal, your quite right.. and I humbly appologise. Stupid to get carried away.
Its emotive and no matter what I can't see a reason to allow such a thing to have happened.
I have MY own reasons to dislike drug users first hand. They can never see the damage they cause no matter what..
I will seriously try not to be so personal with my views.
Also to Duncan I appologise. Though its your view I find stupid.. Not you. Maybe I'm not as eloquant as some.. maybe I'm even a tad basic. I can live with that.
Sorry..
Mike

4 Jun 2007

Quote by mdr2000
What gives them the rights all of a sudden? Its self inflicted is it not?
Mike

This point is quite valid.......
Even more so when you take into account the new NHS brainchild......
Smokers will not be allowed to have treatment (scheduled operations such as hip replacements etc but not emergency procedures) unless they give up smoking...
Smoking is self inflicted as well.....