Cash for vasectomy....

[Anomalocaris]

If a person on drugs books himself into a vasectomy programme of his own genuine free will, I've got no problem with that. But to do it on the basis of a £200 bribe? Come on. Show some responsibility.

That is showing responsibility. One is not subsidizing the addict's self-destrctive habits to any degree beyond what is necessary for the purpose of eliciting a particular behavior highly desired for the public good.

You want to give him a much better shot at overdosing himself by paying for much bigger windfall of substances?

[Existentialist]

The core of the problem is exploiting the individual's vulnerability to get them to agree to an operation they would otherwise not consent to. Exploiting people in this way is irresponsible - it is a small cost to the eugenics-driven charity but a massive cost to the individual. Let's keep the public good out of this - I'm part of the public and I don't think it's to my good to let people be manipulated and abused in this way.

[Anomalocaris]

What you deem to be the core of the problem seems consequentially minor compare to the enormous direct impact of the other parts of the problem. How does the magnitude of cost to him compare to that of the cost he would extract from each of his child?

And what about the cost to society of making good the damage he inflicts on his children?

You are a infinitesimal part of the public. Your opinion of what is public good is not interchangeable with what is the public good.

[Existentialist]

I don't understand how you can 'extract' a cost from a child. Please explain.

Whether a person has children or not is their choice. When you start making judgements for them, you become a eugenicist, and that's not an easy position to defend ethically.

I may be an infinitesimal part of the public. That is why I have one vote out of 30 million votes. As we have not had a vote on this subject, I do not think you are in a position to make pronouncements on what the public think is good for them.

[Tiberius]

When you start making judgements for them, you become a eugenicist

*sigh*

No. Just no.

[thesummerqueen]

Ex, indulge me in case it has already been answered since I read most of this while at work and skimmed through several portions, but would you have the same issues if public money were merely being spent on offering the operation the same way free contraceptives are handed out - as in no extra money being passed around?

[Existentialist]

Ex, indulge me in case it has already been answered since I read most of this while at work and skimmed through several portions, but would you have the same issues if public money were merely being spent on offering the operation the same way free contraceptives are handed out - as in no extra money being passed around?

Bit of a long question. I hope I've understood you correctly.

I'm against paying people any money to incentivise them to undergo medical procedures.

[Spectrum]

Ex, indulge me in case it has already been answered since I read most of this while at work and skimmed through several portions, but would you have the same issues if public money were merely being spent on offering the operation the same way free contraceptives are handed out - as in no extra money being passed around?

Bit of a long question. I hope I've understood you correctly.

I'm against paying people any money to incentivise them to undergo medical procedures.

What if they want to be paid? You can't yell out "manipulation" at every turn.

[thesummerqueen]

Ex, indulge me in case it has already been answered since I read most of this while at work and skimmed through several portions, but would you have the same issues if public money were merely being spent on offering the operation the same way free contraceptives are handed out - as in no extra money being passed around?

Bit of a long question. I hope I've understood you correctly.

I'm against paying people any money to incentivise them to undergo medical procedures.

What if they want to be paid? You can't yell out "manipulation" at every turn.

I think I see the point trying to be made here - that if someone is desperate enough for drugs, they will not use their best judgement and chose to get the operation just to ensure they can buy their fix later on. I just wanted to know if people would have the same objections if someone was encouraged to have an operation but WASN'T handed money for it. Tax dollars might be spent on it, or it could be entirely charity, but it would be similar to the programs where condoms and other contraceptives are handed out for free.

[Existentialist]

... I just wanted to know if people would have the same objections if someone was encouraged to have an operation but WASN'T handed money for it.

There's a difference between making something available and encouraging people to use it. It depends on what the encouragement consists of.