ad info




CNN.com
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 U.S.
 LOCAL
 POLITICS
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
 SPACE
* HEALTH
 AIDS
 Aging
 Alternative
 Cancer
 Children
 Diet & Fitness
 Men
 Women
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 ARTS & STYLE
 NATURE
 IN-DEPTH
 ANALYSIS
 myCNN

 Headline News brief
 news quiz
 daily almanac

  MULTIMEDIA:
 video
 video archive
 audio
 multimedia showcase
 more services

  E-MAIL:
Subscribe to one of our news e-mail lists.
Enter your address:
Or:
Get a free e-mail account

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

  CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 AsiaNow
 En Español
 Em Português
 Svenska
 Norge
 Danmark
 Italian

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 TIME INC. SITES:
 CNN NETWORKS:
Networks image
 more networks
 transcripts

 SITE INFO:
 help
 contents
 search
 ad info
 jobs

 WEB SERVICES:

  health > ethics mattersAIDSAlternative MedicineCancerDiet & FitnessHeartMenSeniorsWomen

Ethics Matters

We'll Pay You Not to Have Kids

June 28, 1999
Web posted at: 1:10 p.m. EDT (1710 GMT)



by Jeffrey P. Kahn, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Director, Center for Bioethics
University of Minnesota

A California-based private group called C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) has reportedly been succeeding in its goal of preventing drug-addicted women from having unwanted children. The program offers cash payments of $200 to men or women who undergo long-term birth control (like Norplant, or an IUD) or permanent sterilization (such as tubal ligation or vasectomy). And now C.R.A.C.K. has begun exporting its program to other states. This approach pits the goals of protecting children from harm against reproductive liberty, and we need to ask how far we should go in favor of each.

Center
for Bioethics

What's your opinion?
Selling the right to procreate?

No one should have children they don't want. It's bad for both the children and their parents. And contraception offers a way to avoid it. But offering cash in return for long-term contraception makes birth control someone else's idea.

Some people lack the financial means to obtain birth control, but public health programs offer it to them for free. Paying drug-addicted women to give up the ability to have children takes advantage of the fact that drug addiction often leads people to do anything for money to support their habit. Offering cash in return for sterilization can lead to questionable, and potentially irreversible, decisions. Since the right to procreate is basic in our society, how appropriate is it to allow women to "sell" that right under the duress of addiction?

Deciding who counts as a good parent

C.R.A.C.K.'s underlying principle seems to be that these women and men should not be having children. Its activities put those who run the program in the position of determining what counts as acceptable parenting. We certainly all have our views about what makes good parents, and we are generally free to apply them in our own lives. But paid sterilization begins to impose one perspective onto a particularly vulnerable group. Efforts to help people succeed in conceiving or not conceiving children are good so long as it is the individuals' desires that are served, not those of whoever runs a program like C.R.A.C.K.

Efforts to influence reproductive choices are not new. Some have even suggested licensing parents as a way of controlling who is allowed to have children. But who gets to set the standards for licensing, and how would society enforce them? Could we tolerate forced contraception and the "reproduction police" needed to carry out such a policy? It is easy to see why such an approach would and should fail.

Good options, good choices

We can all agree that we ought to do what we can to protect the interests of children, but we can go too far. Does preventing the birth of a child protect his or her interests? Should we focus on discouraging drug-addicted women from having babies, or on the drug abuse that is the root cause of questionable decision-making? Programs that combine drug abuse rehabilitation with free contraception might give women the means they need to make better choices for themselves and their children.

We long ago determined that no one should be forced to give up their right to procreation, and while offers of payment are not the same as threats of force, both succeed by undermining free decisions. Programs such as C.R.A.C.K. force us to ask just how free we want these decisions to be.



A California-based group called C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) offers cash payments of $200 to drug-addicted men or women who undergo long-term birth control or permanent sterilization. How far should we go in protecting children from harm when the cost is reproductive liberty? Who should decide who can be a parent, and how can such decisions be enforced? Should programs such as C.R.A.C.K. be allowed?

Post your opinion here.



Visit the
"Ethics Matters" Archive
where you'll find other columns from Jeffrey Kahn
on a wide range of bioethics topics.


"Ethics Matters" is a biweekly feature from the
Center for Bioethics and CNN Interactive.


RELATED STORIES:
Ex-drug addict mom wins custody battle
March 9, 1999
D.C. needle exchange faces funding cutoff
October 24, 1998
Woman pays addicts if they get sterilized
November 7, 1997

LATEST HEALTH STORIES:
China SARS numbers pass 5,000
Report: Form of HIV in humans by 1940
Fewer infections for back-sleeping babies
Pneumonia vaccine may help heart, too
 LATEST HEADLINES:
SEARCH CNN.com
Enter keyword(s)   go    help

Back to the top   © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.