The main objective of Project Prevention is to discourage conception among adult addicts by offering incentives, in terms of money, to encourage them to undergo long-term birth-control procedures such as sterilization. The organization seeks to minimize the number of neglected and abused children because of the adverse effects that drug addiction has on parenting.
Despite the controversies concerning its mission, Project Prevention maintains that getting drug addicts under birth control is essential to save both the parent and child the psychological torture that comes with the placement of a child under foster care. In addition, a pregnant drug addict exposes the unborn child to numerous medical complications associated with drug abuse.
An analysis of the ethicality of Project Prevention’s mission requires a delicate balance between respecting the autonomy of the mother and the right of the unborn child to receive appropriate parental care and love.
Although scientific evidence shows that exposure of unborn children to drugs increases their chances of developing mental and physical disabilities, the approach of encouraging long-term birth control is extreme and unnecessary. Sterilization means that even if an addict undergoes successful rehabilitation, he or she can never bear children, which is something that may induce a lot of mental anguish and torture.
Considering that drug addicts often suffer numerous financial constraints, they are likely to overlooked the consequences of their volunteering for birth-control procedures because the 300 hundred dollars offered to them will relieve their immediate needs including feeding their addiction.
In this regard, Project Prevention’s mission is unethical because it largely thrives on inducement instead of free will, as the addicts are likely to realize the outcome of their participation in sterilization later after undergoing the process. Although Project Prevention’s view on the need of responsible parenting is a major issue in matters of child neglect and abuse, the organization’s remedy for the vice is extreme.
In this regard, it is necessary to discourage the organization’s actions because it does not rehabilitate and restore the dignity of drug addicts, which ought to be the main concern in minimizing cases of drug abuse. I would not donate to Project Prevention because it has a shortsighted mission whose effects are counterproductive.
Proposals on population control through measures such as sterilization and vasectomy have received support and opposition in equal measures. In this regard, Project Prevention’s mission would arouse mixed reactions at both the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, although individuals acknowledge the importance of family planning, the preference is that measures to control the number of children in a family should be through free will rather than inducement or coercion.
However, there have been concerns about the failure of most people to embrace the concept of family planning and thus the need for intervention measures such as those proposed by Project Prevention. At the micro level, Project Prevention would gain significant support considering the rapid decline in natural resources and advancement in technology, which eliminates the need for manual laborers.
A manageable population size means that the distribution of resources and income will allow members of the society to compete effectively. In this regard, there may be the necessity for the government to adopt and sponsor birth control strategies. However, while I recommend offering incentives, I would only support the use of less severe methods than sterilization.