For your convenience, we have installed the link below to make donations to this website easier. Now you can utilize your PayPal account or your credit card.

--------------

---------

Dehumanization ...

Note: The following is another in a series of columns on subjects of a philosophical or ethical nature by a Schuyler County resident who prefers to go by the nom de plume of A. Moralis -- a reference to what the writer sees as the lack of a moral compass in the world during this rapidly changing Age of the Internet.

By A. Moralis

While flipping through the television channels the other night, my interest was piqued by a study that the BBC channel presented.

The topic examined a situation where drug abusers were offered money to become permanently sterilized -- a topic that prompted numerous pros and cons by various interview subjects.

Some of those interviewed felt sterilization-for-pay was a good idea, while others argued that every child has a right to be born. It had, in other words, echoes of the abortion debate.

Of interest was the amount offered -- $200, which was the cost of one day’s worth of drugs. The addicts had a life-changing decision to make, facing the temptation of easy money to feed their habit, albeit for but a single day.

All of the addicts were over the age of 21 and considered legal adults and free to make decisions; all were also addicted to the point of what was described as "no recovery." Exactly who made the decision that the addicts were beyond recovery was not mentioned.

While the non-addicted can pretty much see what the addict would choose, the whole enterprise begged the question: Does this study dehumanize the addicts? Or is it a kindness to their unborn children? They would, if born, be addicted too, and would likely be destined for less than ideal surroundings supported by society through welfare dollars.

Even so, the very practice is problematic -- open wide to debate, just as abortion is. While sterilization-for-pay is not genocidal, opponents could point in that direction since it targets a specific group -- a sort of second-generation disposal of the drug-addled unwanted. And, by extension, it could be argued that it aims at the group itself, since if tightly controlled, such a program could terminate the procreation of the group and thus limit its future.

Is this the right thing to do, even though the addict has serious problems and no hope for recovery?

Another perspective is that of the social psychologists involved in the study. Possibly their intent is to examine the powerful effects of addiction and how the need to feed one's addiction overpowers all emotion and logic.

But what is frightening is this: What will someone do with the outcome of this study? It takes place overseas, where there are few regulations placed upon research. Who would initiate such a study -- one that seemingly has parallels to Hitler/Himmler thinking? And will this be a tactic used to support the war on drugs?

I guess when people become things, the logic that follows supports that they can become dispensable -- and any atrocity can be justified.

Maybe we all need to ask ourselves what our own addictions are ... and if they have the potential to become something scapegoatable and target-worthy.

We all, after all, are imperfect.

And in those imperfections (logic would seem to dictate) lie the seeds of our own oppression.

That should give us pause -- and perhaps trigger our outrage when we see it happening to others.

**********

Previous A. Moralis columns:

The first one is here.
The second one is here.
The third one is here.
The fourth one is here.
The fifth one is here.
The sixth one is here.
The seventh one is here.
The eighth one is here.
The ninth one is here.
The 10th one is here.