So how come they don't also hand out cigarette holders to school children? After all we know they are going to smoke and its safer to smoke using a cigarette holder.
Richard J Stuart | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 7:00 am | #

Planned Parenthood is just taking their warped business model and branching out. I wonder where they'll go next?

I just posted on an assortment of PP evils yesterday at http://www.4simpsons.com/blog2.html, including a couple links back to your site. Thanks for all the great work you do in exposing them.
Neil | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 7:01 am | #

I wonder how the same liberal folks would react to suggestions of teaching kids proper gun safety, you know, how to store them, use them, take them on outings to safely shoot at firing ranges or go hunting with their dads, seeing as, you know, kids will want to play with guns anyway, so you might as well just make sure they're not going to shoot themselves or anyone else or anything (seeing as a lot of the same folks supporting abortion will be strongly anti-gun)
Bob Oblong | 07.20.06 - 8:17 am | #

You know, up until now I wanted to clean my crack pipe. The only thing stopping me was not having spare mouthpieces.

I'm trying to think of an even more ridiculous example to emphasize my point, but these people seriously make it harder and harder to exaggerate.
Andy | 07.20.06 - 8:25 am | #

A change means step by step, baby steps. Don't they mean fetus steps?

The program is free and that includes lunch Who said there's no such thing as a free lunch?

... "Let's be realistic if you don't want to stop, if you can't stop what's the best thing? Prevention. Being safe," said Atilano. ... Don't want to stop - can't stop? Which one is it?

In the group, Thornhill works to change this. “We hope to get her to practice safe sex on a consistent basis, moving her from contemplation—having the need to use condoms in her mind—to walking with them in her pocket and always using them,” he says.

Let me get this straight - I'm paying federal taxes to subsidize commercial sex workers with clean crack-pipes, condoms and free lunches? Or to put it in PP-speak "we're cleaning up the enterprise" and "enhancing safe working conditions" (Hey - is that condom OSHA approved?) and "feeding the poor". What's next housing and satin sheets.

...The mix of judgment-free programs...
Yup - they got that right.

Somehow they keep forgetting about that pesky final judgement.
Chris Arsenault | 07.20.06 - 8:35 am | #

"Every participant is using or has used heroine..."

Another abuse of women by PP.

(Er...do they mean _heroin_?)
Rachel Rose | 07.20.06 - 8:43 am | #

Carrying condoms in the pocket? Doesn't that, after a while, render them useless because of the heat? Or is she having sex often enough that it won't bother the condoms that way?

God help us!
The Soccer Mom | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 8:57 am | #

More insanity from Planned Murderhood.

Next thing you know, they'll be saying, "Well, kids masturbate, so we should teach them to do it right and ...

Oh. wait. My bad.
Zarba | 07.20.06 - 9:14 am | #

Eric Thornhill, a Preventive Case Manager, works in several low-income Brooklyn neighborhoods and runs Safety Counts, a seven-session group, out of Street Beat’s Bed-Stuy office

Can someone please tell why it is such a far-fetched conspiracy theory that one of PPs goals is to encourage people of black descent destroy themselves?
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 9:25 am | #

I thought this plan--clean needles, etc--had already been tried. Back in the eighties, wasn't it? As a way to prevent the spread of AIDS? Does anyone else remember this, or am I mistaken? And if it has been tried, did it work? AIDS hasn't stopped spreading, after all. I guess what I mean to say is: hasn't this plan been tried and found wanting, and if so, why is PP wasting time and money?
Kate B. | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 9:45 am | #

Kate,

Regarding the effectiveness of needle exchange programs, see the following web site.

http://www.dogwoodcenter.org/sci.../ 20science.html
Jerry B | 07.20.06 - 9:59 am | #

Jerry, the link you gave is to an activist organization that lists only the studies that support its political position. I would venture that there are other major studies that have reached different conclusions. Moreover, I don't believe that taxpayer money should be spent on keeping addicts addicted -- any money spent on aiding addicts should be directed towards getting them off drugs (and not to merely "reduce" their addiction with "baby steps").
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 10:06 am | #

Once again, there's no right way to do a wrong thing.

Sex with condoms doesn't make premarital sex or prostitution right.

Clean needles doesn't make drug abuse right.

If anything, it perpetuates a destructive "wrong."

Planned Parenthood never ceases to disgust me.
Jacqueline | 07.20.06 - 10:09 am | #

Dawn,

I don't vouch for or endorse the dogwood center. But the reports to which the web site links are from reputable organizations.

It seems to me that some of the commenters are arguing that the government shouldn't try to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS because it only increases and condones drug use. But the evidence, at least from those studies, indicates that it doesn't increase drug use.

As far as needle exchange programs "condoning drug use", I doubt that the discussion on that issue will be constructive, so I will say we will probably not agree. I believe that you can have a needle exchange program for public health/public policy reasons and still condone drug use for moral reasons. I'm sure most of the other commenters will disagree with me.
Jerry B | 07.20.06 - 10:27 am | #

(Darn -- last version didn't have tags closed properly. Sorry, everyone! Dawn, could you strike that one? Here's a properly-formatted version.)

Dawn -
rather than address the human cost of drug addiction (in post)
any money spent on aiding addicts should be directed towards getting them off drugs (in comment)

Did you read the passages you quoted in the post? Specifically, the part where the program coordinator explains how this is the first step towards helping people get over their addictions and preventing the transmission of diseases in the meantime, ie, addressing the human costs of drug addiction?

What we're trying to do is teach them the stages of change, and how to make changes in their lives....

The ultimate goal would be to have every participant kick the habit, but as ... [a former addict, who identified the program as crucial to her success at breaking her addiction] said, you have to take it a day at a time.


Let me ask you, Dawn, Neil, Richard, etc., what you would do instead? Send the police out to round up any and all heroin addicts en masse and institutionalize them while they're put through a methadone program? Not only would that be ridiculously expensive, anyone who's known an addict who broke their addiction (whether the addict was a friend, family member, or themselves) can tell you that it's basically impossible to treat an addict who doesn't want to get better. And, of course, even among those successfully treated, the recidivism rate is going to be astronomical once the 'former' addicts are put back out on the street.

You can't just wave a magic wand to cure addiction; the transition isn't instantaneous. It's a long, hard process, and even addicts who are motivated to kick the habit -- especially with physically addictive drugs like heroin -- will be compelled to use for a quite a while. A clean needle isn't as good as no needle, but it's still a lot better than a dirty needle, and it can be part of the route to no needle.

Or perhaps you would simply have us ignore the population of heroin addicts -- 'let the sinners burn'? That seems to be your attitude, Chris. So much for Christian compassion for one's brothers and sisters.

Finally -
Jerry, the link you gave is to an activist organization that lists only the studies that support its political position.
Dawn, your link to document the 'human cost of casual sex' consists of a piece you yourself wrote that provides no citations to any studies whatsoever to support your claims, and is based on contextless misreadings of one of PP's webpages. Numerous times you've linked to sources that condemn abortion without providing sources that support the pro-choice position. Shouldn't you be holding yourself to higher standards than those you criticise?
Noumena | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 11:55 am | #

Part of the problem with this, though, is that drug use itself is dangerous. I don't think we can call it a success to say, "This program kept 50 people from getting Hepatitis C, but 10 of them died from overdoses." The 40 that live may suffer long-term debilitations anyway. At absolute best, they're still actively engaged in a habit that dominates their life, costs their jobs, wrecks their families, and empties their savings - only now with the willful compicity of a third party.

It's well-meant but it just puts off the solution - getting clean. In fact, it's way too easy to think that, because you're "doing drugs safely," you now no longer need to get clean. Remember that part of the psychology of addiction is the mastery of lying to oneself - I can handle it, this won't ruin my life. This program aids in that deception.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 12:14 pm | #

Bob Oblong, you write:

I wonder how the same liberal folks would react to suggestions of teaching kids proper gun safety, you know, how to store them, use them, take them on outings to safely shoot at firing ranges or go hunting with their dads, seeing as, you know, kids will want to play with guns anyway, so you might as well just make sure they're not going to shoot themselves or anyone else or anything

It's a fallacy that all liberals (or all conservatives, or all Christians, or all churchgoers, or all [insert group here]) all believe the same thing and act accordingly in lockstep.

This liberal has no problem with gun safety education, nor with owning registered legal firearms. (I don't own any, but that's because I don't want to, not because I believe they should be outlawed.) However, it complicates matters for me (and I'm guessing, most liberals) that the foremost organization that pushes gun safety is also a political pressure group. Do I think the NRA's gun safety education programs are a good thing? Yes. Does that mean I support all the NRA's positions and endeavors, including those I view to be irresponsible? Of course not.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 1:25 pm | #

I believe this effort by PP might fall under the Catholic teaching that "you may not do evil so that good may result."

I think with a morally relativistic world view, it becomes easy to find reasons to aid self-destructive behavior in the name of compassion, and to do evil so that good may result.

I am not arguing against PP from statistics, studies, or research, it it just my opinion that when you violate the above-mentioned inviolable principle, the short term gains inevitably collapse under the long term results. You can go against natural law about as successfully as ignoring the law of gravity. Human beings are not designed to implode with self-destructive behavior. They are made for something higher. We are obliged to help each other get there but never by compromising with evil.

Of course, if your world view tends to downplay sin into things like desirable/undesirable "behavior," and your understanding of evil is limited to the Nazis or some anemic view of good vs. bad, as is often the case in modern "thinking," it is hard to grasp absolute principles, or be open minded enough to see where certain compromises lead.
kc | 07.20.06 - 1:37 pm | #

While, as is their right, most of the above posters rely on "moral" arguments, the plain fact is that needle exchange programs have been proven effective in reducing disease without increasing illegal drug abuse. (The links thoughtfully included by the above poster are just some of the relevant ones; anyone with Google and some spare time can see for him/herself.)

As usual, it's a balancing act, and the moralists simply choose the opposite conclusion from those of us who believe in science. Yes, it may be "immoral" to give clean needles to addicts, or condoms to teenagers; but isn't it more immoral to LET THOSE PEOPLE DIE rather than, God forbid, provide them with clean needles or condoms? Personally, I fail to see how one can claim to believe in a "culture of life" while letting people die rather than attempt working solutions that certain segments of society deem "immoral." Whether the issue is condoms, or clean needles, or stem cell research, I would rather save lives than worry about whether there is something potentially "immoral" in providing condoms, or clean needles, or fetal resarch, according to some particular religious sect's interpretation of its scriptures.

Again, if you think condom use is immoral, or illegal drug use is immoral, DON'T DO IT. But don't participate in the killing of others because the solutions are somehow inconsistent with your own personal religious dogma.
M. Jerome | 07.20.06 - 3:11 pm | #

So by being reluctant to fund clean needle programs, I am "participating in the killing of others"? Just who is sticking the needle in whose arm here?

I do think illegal drug use (and even legal drug use, when used in the wrong way) is immoral. I also think it is immoral to support such activities, even when in the pursuit of a greater goal (like saving lives). Don't you think we're sending a mixed message when we say "doing drugs is wrong, but here are some ways to do it safely"?
Andy | 07.20.06 - 3:43 pm | #

Andy, I don't want to speak for M. Jerome, but possibly s/he is saying that it's sending a mixed message when you talk of your belief in the "culture of life" while opposing programs that are proven to reduce deadly diseases.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 3:55 pm | #

kc -
You identify the following maxim:
you may not do evil so that good may result

First, it is not clear that providing drug users with clean needles, etc., is unequivocally evil. Indeed, one could argue that it is a good -- not as good as if they weren't using needles, whether clean or contaminated, of course, but good relative to using dirty needles, and good as a temporary measure for addicts who want to kick their habit but are still compelled to use the drug. (I vaguely recall reading that the effects of heroin withdrawal can be as deadly as an overdose, though this may not be quite true.)

Thus, rather than being based on an 'anemic' view of good and bad, the rationalization for these programs involves a view that there is a continuum or at least many distinct steps between the highest good and worst evil.

Second, this maxim seems ridiculously strong. To put it into a Catholic context, it would imply that one may not willfully miss Mass on Sunday in order to prevent a murder. Or, one may not lie in order to prevent a murder.

Third, you seem to identify the following principle as the foundation for your maxim:
the short term gains inevitably collapse under the long term results
'Inevitably' doesn't make sense here -- it would be quite easy to identify numerous examples of individuals who did evil in order to do good and were not brought to ruin. If you meant that God punishes all those who disobey this maxim, then my understanding is that, for Catholics, these sorts of proclamations (about who God punishes and why in the afterlife) amount to a sin of presumption.

Instead of 'inevitably', I will read you as saying 'generally' -- generally speaking, the long term results of these sorts of programs will be failures. In this particular context, this amount to Kate's objection, and is an empirically testable claim; and Jerry responded with a list of studies that seem to indicate that these programs are actually successful. You might argue that the studies are flawed or exceptional, and a more objective evaluation of all the research on the issue would show that these programs have not been so successful; but, until you do, it seems reasonable for me to believe that these programs are successful, and that your principle fails in this case, thus also undermining your maxim in this case.

Fourth, on my reading, your principle is an empirical statement of fact, an 'is'. But your maxim is a normative statement of ethics, an 'ought'. As Hume pointed out, it is a logical fallacy to infer an 'ought' from an 'is': just because a course of action is liable to be unsuccessful, that does not imply that it is morally blameworthy. Indeed, the opposite can be the case in some circumstances: I might be unsuccessful trying to stop a fight, but that does not mean my attempt was blameworthy.

Fifth, let me repeat the challenge I levelled in my previous comment: What would you do instead? Condemn all heroin addicts as sinners, unworthy of your aid and charity? This profoundly conflicts with my understanding of Catholic teachings on social justice.
Noumena | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 4:03 pm | #

As usual, it's a balancing act, and the moralists simply choose the opposite conclusion from those of us who believe in science.

I am growing increasingly tired of seeing this claim. It introduces a conflict between morality and science that need not arise at all - unless one is willing to say that science is its own moral system. And that is nonsense. Science is not moral or immoral. It is a technique for learning things about the physical world and has nothing to say about right or wrong.

The fight here is not simply "science" vs. "anti-science." It's over whether science is itself applied morally. This "science good, morals bad" claptrap is just as stupid as "morals good, science bad" - and incidentally, none of the "many commenters" (myself included) are making that claim. We only say that science needs morality because it cannot supply its own set of values.

If you're going to talk about good, better, and best, then best isn't just halting disease, especially since "it doesn't increase drug use" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. The underlying problem is the drug use itself. Shooting heroin is an inherently dangerous act, and giving clean needles to do it with may keep a person from HIV or hepatitis, but it doesn't clean him up - it doesn't save his job or his marriage, and it certainly doesn't make him see the need to get straight. It's arguably better than nothing, but it's a hell of a sight worse than breaking the addiction.

Besides which, I don't hear anyone saying "let them rot" is the only alternative.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 4:28 pm | #

Besides which, I don't hear anyone saying "let them rot" is the only alternative.

Then what others are there?
Noumena | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 4:30 pm | #

Aid and charity for an addict is breaking them of their addiction, not facilitating it.
Flambeaux | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 4:33 pm | #

/begin Jonathon Swift mode/

We could feed the addicts to the hungry and kill two birds with one stone.

/end Jonathon Swift mode/
Flambeaux | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Will nobody address Nightfly's comment? I'd be interested to hear what they would say because two of his statements make a lot of sense
I don't think we can call it a success to say, "This program kept 50 people from getting Hepatitis C, but 10 of them died from overdoses." The 40 that live may suffer long-term debilitations anyway.
***
In fact, it's way too easy to think that, because you're "doing drugs safely," you now no longer need to get clean.

I have to say I am astonished that people could actually support this. I know you can't force somebody to quit if they don't want to but you can make them go into programs that are designed to help them quit and they may decide that they want to quit. Honestly, if your own child was doing heroin would you just get them clean needles or would you get them in a treatment program?
Sarah Faith | 07.20.06 - 4:40 pm | #

Noumena said 'let the sinners burn'? That seems to be your attitude, Chris.

What about you? Blow out that match and listen! My prior post was not directed towards the afflicted lost sheep, but rather the false shepherd of PP. You display hypocrisy by rebuking me - you express a moral outrage when you defend death and perversity. Immorality builds from tiny seeds to roaring war. Those judgment-free programs are moral-free as well. That's just another word for non-moral or immoral. I don't have to condemn anyone - people condemn themselves by their own free will, then suffer the consequences of those choices. Do you have the wisdom to see that you are being used as a pawn in a very large spiritual battle? My true brothers and sisters are those who not only claim Christ as Lord and Savior, but live the life of Christ. They are not so stubborn that they fail to reflect on their own shortcomings.

So Noumena - how do you show real love? I'm not talking 'positive energy', platitudes, or feel good charities. PP is not doing this out of pure love for humanity, but for other purposes. Perhaps their abortionists are getting infected and they want to cut down on cross-contaminations?

Will you sacrifice your own life to save those in the cities? What if you did that, but then some rejected your efforts?

Edited By Siteowner
Chris Arsenault | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 5:26 pm | #

People need love - real love, and not needles, clean crack pipes, or more drugs.

The only way to get through their own cravings and addictions is to do what Christians have done for the last 2 millenium - Give each day to God and rely upon Him to bring you through the fire.

If real love had been there in the first place, then the sex, drugs or death wouldn't have been sought or necessary.
Chris Arsenault | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 5:33 pm | #

The culture of life is so much more than the avoidance of death which is what "sav[ing] lives [rather] than worry[ing] about whether there is something potentially 'immoral' in providing condoms, or clean needles, or fetal resarch," is ultimately all about. The culture of death has a great deal to do with terror of death, terror of losing control. In such a culture, nearly anything can be justified so that a person can have a few more years or avoid the dependence that often comes with illness. Those who subscribe to this culture even believe that it is acceptable to destroy oneself, in the name of preserving ones dignity, so as to avoid reaching the point where it is necessary to have another person provide intimate care. The culture of death is above all a culture of control, a culture of self idolatry.

In the name of avoiding death, clean needle programs also prevent people from bottoming out and undergoing the healing process that allows them to love themselves as God loves them. Speaking of "sex workers" denies that a disporportionate number of prostitutes have suffered sexual abuse, are self-destructive and don't need condoms but need to stop repeating the crimes that were committed against them and seek healing. Fetal research values the possibility of medical treatments that might help one person over the life of another person and is fraught with the horror that the person not valued has absolutely no voice in being judged less worthy than the research. And always, the attempts to avoid death and pain and dependence are futile - we haven't got that much control. The culture of life acknowledges that.

Death is a part of life. It is intensely painful and there is no good time for those who are left behind to lose someone. But there can be a good time to allow someone to die just as there can be a good time to let someone engage in terribly risky, self destructive behaviour. Raising our voices against a culture that is excessively fixated with avoiding death is not "participat[ing] in the killing of others because the solutions are somehow inconsistent with []our own personal religious dogma." It is accepting that death and illness are part of life. In this country, it is exercising our First Amendment rights. It is rejecting fear as a basis for our actions. And, it is choosing healing for ourselves and offering healing to others. Healing does not always involve a cure and might not avoid death but it always restores us: None of us will live forever but all of us can be whole.
Drusilla | 07.20.06 - 6:12 pm | #

Chris, Sarah Faith -
I had a long, direct response mostly typed, when I decided to do a Google search for 'Catholic clean needle exchange'. One of the top hits was this article, by a Jesuit, MD, and advocate for needle exchange programs (NEPs), who presents an argument in favour of the sorts of programs we've been discussing according to a Catholic principle of cooperation.
(NB I'm not familiar with this principle myself. However, his presentation seems fairly self-contained, especially for our purposes here.)
I quote at length, because I believe his arguments elegantly address all the points you two have made in your recent comments, implicitly and explicity. The various claims seem to be substantiated elsewhere in the article, and consistent with the empirical data that has been offered in this thread.

The first requirement—that the object of our action be good or morally neutral—is satisfied by the fact that simply exchanging a dirty needle for a sterile one is itself morally indifferent.

In the second test we must consider if our cooperation would be intending or promoting illicit activity. Since N.E.P.'s do not encourage or condone drug use—but only attempt to make drug use less harmful—our cooperation would be material and therefore permitted, whereas formal cooperation (explicit support or encouragement of drug use) would not.

The third criterion requires that the illicit activity (in this case, injection of a drug) not be the same as the action in which we are cooperating (exchange of needles). In the principle's technical language, cooperation with needle exchange would be judged as mediate (permitted) rather than immediate (forbidden).

In the fourth test our action must be distanced from the illicit act as much as possible. Since we would be cooperating with needle exchange rather than with drug injection, N.E.P.'s meet the test that our cooperation be remote, not proximate.

The fifth criterion—that cooperation be justified by a sufficiently grave reason—is self-evident in the lethal nature of H.I.V. transmission.

Finally, our assistance must not be necessary for the illicit action to be carried out. Since exchange programs provide no means for injection that a drug user does not already have, N.E.P.'s meet the requirement that our cooperation be dispensable, not indispensable.

Noumena | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 6:16 pm | #

Noumena~

#1.by a Jesuit, MD,

#2. Several state bishops' conferences have spoken against exchange programs, but to my knowledge the only U.S. Catholic agency that has actively promoted N.E.P.'s is the Catholic Family Center in the Diocese of Rochester, N.Y. (emphasis my own).

I am so not saying this to be snarky or sarcastic at all. But before you put forth articles by Katholiks to use as ammunition against a Catholic position, Google terminology like "loyal to the Magesterium", Catechism of the Catholic Church. In essence, the Church teaches that you cannot derive good from evil. You cannot promote drug abuse and hope good will come out of it.

As a non-Catholic I can see you do not totally understand that every Catholic priest is not a spokesperson for Church teaching, but can be heterodox. Many Jesuits (but not all, there are orthodox Jesuits here and there) are pretty notorious for heterodoxy as well as the Diocese of Rochester.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 9:03 pm | #

Noumena and Jerome,
I am not a trained theologion, a particularly competent thinker/philosopher, and I am a very busy mom on the run, so I do not have time to argue studies. They need to be researched. And that is why I said that this MIGHT be an application of the catholic principle of not doing evil to bring about good. (and I agree with ouwena on the word "generally".... I was not writing a ph.d essay here.)
"don't participate in the killing of others." Ummm. Jerome, did you read what I wrote or does blind prejudice rule your brain? I said, and I stand by it, that I am not convinced handing clean needles saves lives. Studies/statistics are constantly abused. The only studies I have taken the time to really look at objectively and scientifically are the one linking abortion/breast cancer. That's convinced me there is a link. You want to talk about personal views endangering people's lives? Take on that topic, and start with the science, because I am a fan of science too, despite your ridiculous smear about "those of us who believe in science."
Geez, Noumena, I thought we might have been onto a real dialogue until I got to your last paragraph that revealed your closed mind. "What would you do? Condemn all heroin addicts as sinners unworthy of your charity?
Interpretation: I am right that supplying clean needles saves lives, ergo anyone who disagrees with me is a condemner who is acting from ill will toward people who are "sinners....hisssss...."
Dang. Where did you get such an attitude? Analyze it. It not only is grossly unfair, it leads those who disagree with you (and mind you, I am merely skeptical at this point) to despair that their intellectual opponents will ever be able to dialogue through their prejudices instead of straight from them.
Here is your answer Nouwena. I do not know for sure, but I hope I would behave toward any addict the way I would toward my own beloved children. Because I don't define people as sinner: they are someone's beloved children. I hope that I would avoid an easy answer, which I personally believe MIGHT be clean needles, and take the harder route: self-sacrificial love: stay by them to the end, even if they choose destructive behavior and never, never, never give up the fight: which is to rid them of this life-destroying disease. Even if it costs me money, time, effort, disappointment, and endless sacrifice.
kc | 07.20.06 - 9:41 pm | #

Pansy -
Of course I understand that even the Catholic priesthood does not march in intellectual lockstep. And I do know that Jesuits often put forth controversial positions. I did not cite and quote the Fuller article as an appeal to authority, but instead as an instance of an intellectual, trained in the Catholic intellectual tradition, presenting an argument within that tradition that eloquently addresses objections people have made in this thread.

I admit I know very little about Catholic theology, and perhaps your theological objections are devastating -- but only to those who share your theological assumptions. If you have an objection that does not depend on those assumptions, I'd be happy to read it and respond.

kc -
Reading your earlier comment again, I recognize now that my response was inappropriately antagonistic. It's clear that you feel a sense of compassion and social responsibility that is not shared by others in this thread. However, my 'attitude' is not based on prejudice -- if you have the time (I certainly know first-hand how crazy a mom's life can be), peruse some of the comments I've responded to. I think you may see the perspective I caricatured on display in some of them, though I won't single anyone out now.

Self-sacrificial love is a noble sentiment, but how does it translate into particular actions and public policy? Could not working with addicts in free, voluntary clinics and clean needle programs count?

Everyone -
I believe much of the argumentation in this thread has been premised on two gross errors that have not been pointed out so far. First, that clean needle programs are meant to combat addiction. This is clearly not the case: while they may be tied into programs designed to do that, clean needle programs per se are about preventing the spread of disease. Second, that clean needle programs are incompatible with programs meant to combat addiction directly. That is, that if we fund clean needle programs, we are somehow prevented from funding, eg, methadone clinics. This is also clearly not the case -- while federal and state budgets are finite, the cost of these programs is so minimal that I expect they could be funded more than adequately simply by eliminating efficiencies in the larger branches of the government, such as the Pentagon.
Noumena | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 11:12 pm | #

Noumena -

Speaking only as laity, I'd have to disagree with the good Jesuit's assessment.

Second test, for example - giving out the clean needles does condone the drug use. For one thing, what else are those needles for? The cat? For another, the express purpose of the program is to prevent disease among IV drug abusers. The only way it does what it's designed to do is if the junkies actually use the needles you've given them - unless, of course, the junkie quits entirely, which is the better of the two options and doesn't require enabling his gradual self-destruction.

As a result, I also think this flunks his fourth test, that our acts be distanced as much as possible from the resulting misdeed. Again, prevention and detox are active options that achieve a better goal.

Fifth test - grave matter. He's right, but in this case I think again that the abuse is just so dangerous in itself. The diseases are worse, but it's not like choosing between a fatal stabbing and a stubbed toe - more like the stabbing and a savage beating with clubs. Giving them a helmet and shin pads isn't really a solution.

I've got a soft side for the idea that the perfect cannot become the enemy of the good; I think your best point comes at the end, that this isn't a substitute for a full-out detox and maintenance program. I agree. My major concern is that this program gives an out to a group of people whose wills are already impaired by addiction - it can fool them into thinking that it IS a substitute, and what's more, a substitute that doesn't ask them to actually change anything they're doing. They're just postponing the day when they finally realize their plight.

Some people are put off by the hard sell, but some people absolutely require it. I think the big thing is for volunteers and counselors to figure out the best way to reach each addict, and then use that approach to get them permanent help.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 12:09 am | #

Back in my ultra-liberal days, during my brief stint in the seminary, my philosophy professors hinted, (diplomatically but unambiguously), that I would be "happier" with the Jesuits.

This anecdote might shed some light on the Jesuit's analysis up there in the comments. I can definitely see myself having made a similar argument when I was young and thought I knew everything.

Don't get me wrong, I love, love, love the Jesuits. Just don't look to them for orthodoxy. They're the guys that push the envelope, and God bless them for it.
doctor J | 07.21.06 - 7:44 am | #

Noumena- You said: "I believe much of the argumentation in this thread has been premised on two gross errors that have not been pointed out so far. First, that clean needle programs are meant to combat addiction. This is clearly not the case: while they may be tied into programs designed to do that, clean needle programs per se are about preventing the spread of disease."

I don't doubt that well-meaning people think that. The truth is, however, that the needle-exchange program is absolutely futile, when we have, on the other hand HIPAA regulations, i.e., privacy regs, that allow people to keep their HIV status private. Unlike with TB victims, HIV-positive persons are allowed to keep their status a secret, work in food handling and preparation (where they can easily and frequently cut themselves and bleed around food), work in hair and nail salons (same thing), etc. I would want the government and government-sponsored
programs to "prevent the spread of disease" to be consistent. Contagious and lethal diseases should be contained.
Rachel Rose | 07.21.06 - 9:06 am | #

Incidentally, Noumena, in answer to your question as to what we would support as a program to save the lives of addicts: just Google the Market Street Mission in Morristown, New Jersey, where we have volunteered for the past 11 years. A "faith-based" program, they receive no money from the Federal government, but, if PP does, then Market Street should receive more so. MSM's success rate is "astronomical", compared to non-faith-based programs. They have been in the business of rehabilitation of alcoholics and addicts for over 100 years. We have a day-by-day knowledge of their unmatched and God-given success!
Rachel Rose | 07.21.06 - 9:11 am | #

Rachel Rose, are there any recorded instances of HIV being passed through blood in commercially-prepared food? Any at all? Any evidence that this is a significant risk, the avoidance of which is worth trampling on the rights of quite a few people?
Ledasmom | 07.21.06 - 11:10 am | #

Nightfly -
My major concern is that this program gives an out to a group of people whose wills are already impaired by addiction - it can fool them into thinking that it IS a substitute, and what's more, a substitute that doesn't ask them to actually change anything they're doing.

I acknowledged that this concern was legitimate when someone else (sorry, I forget who now) brought it up again. I pointed out at that point that the links Jerry gave us way up near the top of the thread -- before you even voiced this concern for the first time, I believe -- seem to indicate that these programs do not have these effects. The best way to make your case at this point would, I think, be to offer up studies that criticise those studies, not just repeat your concern again almost verbatim.

Some people are put off by the hard sell, but some people absolutely require it. I think the big thing is for volunteers and counselors to figure out the best way to reach each addict, and then use that approach to get them permanent help.

Agreed. But, at the same time, some addicts will refuse help that comes with a lecture. The PP program that sparked this discussion seems like it could be a way to reach them. It seems to me that what's best is not to have only hard sell programs, but a variety of programs, to deal with the variety of addicts.

Rachel -
the needle-exchange program is absolutely futile, when we have ... privacy regs

I don't see what privacy regulations have to do with heroin addicts spreading disease by sharing needles, unless you propose requiring addicts to tell those they share needles with about their HIV-positive status (and other diseases transmitted in the same way). This law seems absolutely uneforceable.

where they can easily and frequently cut themselves and bleed around food

I don't know about hair and nail salons, but I would imagine human blood in food, whether HIV positive or not, would be a serious violation of health codes. I've been lucky enough only to work in fast food for a single summer, but I remember distinctly that when I had a paper cut one day I was required to wear a bandaid, finger cot, and plastic food prep glove.

I can certainly agree that health and safety codes should include reasonable plans to isolate bodily fluids and prevent disease transmission in case of an accident. But I do not see how HIV notification schemes or disallowing HIV-positive individuals from working in these venues is necessary to this end, or would even be helpful -- uniform policies of isolation and thorough sanitation would seem to be sufficient. And this is to say nothing of the negative stigma and inordinate fear often directed at HIV-positive persons. Perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning here?

Finally, if I might ask just one question about your Mission: What is its policy on the use of heroin by addicts who want to break their addiction, but have not yet done so, ie, are still physically addicted? I didn't see this information in my brief glance at the site. (I ask because it's relevant to the discussion, not to single out your Mission for special criticism; it does seem that you folks to do valuable and noble work.)
Noumena | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 11:30 am | #

I pointed out at that point that the links Jerry gave us way up near the top of the thread -- before you even voiced this concern for the first time, I believe -- seem to indicate that these programs do not have these effects.

Whoop. You're right. I missed that. Sorry! As for the rest, I think we're at least understanding each other's view.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 11:41 am | #

I think we're at least understanding each other's view.

And that, when I'm in a more pessimistic and Nietzschean mood, is the best I think we can do in a good philosophical discussion. :-)
Noumena | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 11:43 am | #

"It's clear that you feel a sense of compassion and social responsibility that is not shared by others in this thread."

Noumena -

Allowing an addict or others engaged in self-destructive behaviour to fall is compassionate and socially responsible. Moreover, it's the best way to love as we are loved.

Self-destructiveness is free will gone terribly awry. It is a form of self idolatry that insists, I belong to myself, I control my own life, and I can even destroy my life if I want. It denies our interrelatedness, it denies love.

For those of us who seek to love as we are loved (and I think you'd discover many here who fit that description), the automatic thing to do is 'help'. We desperately want to save others, to protect them, to heal. But we can't. Oh, there are moments when it's necessary and right to admonish and even get angry with those who are destroying themselves. But when people choose self-destruction, love requires us to accept their free choice even though it is heartbreaking to watch someone killing him/herself.

Do you have any idea what it is to pray and hope and be continually ready to welcome someone back? Can you imagine how much trust is required? How badly it hurts? How horrible it is to watch someone you love become a stranger wallowing in the "pleasures" of alcohol or drugs or sex or rage or any other drug of choice? Only love makes it possible to do so.

I understand the desire to prevent the spread of disease and it's futile. Addict's continually dance with death. And those who love them are left with the painful job of letting them dance themselves into exhaustion and fall in the hope that they will cry out for help and be raised up. We have the job of being like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son - always ready to welcome back those who decide to return to life.
Drusilla | 07.21.06 - 11:49 am | #

Do you have any idea what it is to ... hope and be continually ready to welcome someone back? Can you imagine how much trust is required? How badly it hurts? How horrible it is to watch someone you love become a stranger wallowing in the "pleasures" of alcohol or drugs or sex or rage or any other drug of choice? Only love makes it possible to do so.

Yes.

Addict's continually dance with death.

So instead of pulling our loved ones and those in danger back from the edge a foot, we should sit passively and wait until they either fall off the cliff or are ready to be pulled back five yards?
Noumena | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 12:18 pm | #

I question whether it is necessary for an addict to contract hepatitis B, HIV or other potentially lethal bloodborne disease for that addict to hit bottom and decide to stop using drugs. I note that plenty of people try to quit cigarettes - and some succeed - even when they haven't yet acquired lung cancer or emphysema.
Ledasmom | 07.21.06 - 12:39 pm | #

Drusilla,
I do not glimpse the reality of addiction behind your graceful metaphors of the exhausted dancers/helping hands and apparently unambiguous cries for help.

In addition, the pain of those who stand and watch (and hope) should not be weighed against the suffering of the disastrously addicted. It's an unfair competition.
jody tresidder | 07.21.06 - 1:47 pm | #

Ledasmom- HIV carriers and full-fledged virus sufferers can pass on other diseases to which they are prone. Food handlers can pass Hepatitis, diarrhea, and other diseases. If I have an immune deficiency disease and know that I am susceptible to all kinds of transmissible diseases, I should not work in places where there is a high possibility of transmission. Privacy regulations prevent employers from knowing who is most susceptible. Although we all, in the food handling business and health professions, are supposed to take a course in how to wash our hands, in practice workers are highly deficient in this. Check out the Department of Health site reviews for confirmation of this fact.
No Spin | 07.21.06 - 3:33 pm | #

Noumena,

As I learned from my Jesuit training at Xavier University, Jesuits get a heck of a lot of schooling.

One of my professors Fr. Briggeman (probably passed away now) taught the famous Fr. Andrew Greeley or infamous as they say.

Anyway, there are quite a few social justice activists that are priests I think one of them still probably is my schoolmate Fr. Greg Goolsby who for many years has been a priest with a law degree in Georgia.

Soon, I hope to e-mail him and see what he thinks of all these things.

He was very much into social justice when he was with me at Xavier.
P. Edward Murray | 07.21.06 - 3:44 pm | #

No Spin, are there numbers showing that people who are HIV-positive pose any greater risk to those who eat food they prepared than those who are HIV-negative?
Ledasmom | 07.21.06 - 4:28 pm | #

In my previous post, I wrote in response to the accusation that others on this site do not share "a sense of compassion and social responsibility." There is no competition, only many experiences that happen at the same time. I cannot write from an addict's perspective though much of what I say comes from working with and knowing and loving addicts. It also comes from studying and working in the fields of pastoral counseling and psychology.

A great deal of work has been done on addiction and its treatment. We know that addicts try to avoid life: the pain of life, the joys of life, the reality of life with all life’s undulations and uncertainties. They seek anesthesia, to escape from suffering, from experiencing life. We also know that we can be most compassionate, most socially responsible, can best serve them by telling them the truth in word and deed. And that includes suppressing our very strong desire to run ahead and remove obstacles from their paths be they strangers and/or friends and family (and for many on this site, including me, those we love consists of both groups). So, when an addict engages in behaviour that will expose her/himself to HIV/AIDS as well as the myriad other horrors that those who dance with death will inevitably encounter, then the most compassionate and socially responsible response is not to interfere at all. It isn’t a passive response. It’s a positive, loving, active one that consists of keeping a tight reign on our feelings. It’s a response that has often been effective both for addicts and those who love and/or care for them.

An addict is exercising his/her free will to be destructive and that choice is not abstract, it has real consequences. Free needles try to circumvent some of those consequences and in the case of addressing addiction, consequences must not be removed. Free needles are more like giving clean cups to alcoholics so as to limit the spread of germs. Or giving me a sterilized scalpel if I’m cutting my wrists with a rusty blade so I won’t contract tetanus.

Compassion does not necessarily make me feel better. Compassion doesn’t mean I can fix anything. Compassion means I suffer along with the addict, and to suffer is always to accept the reality we have actually been given. In the case of addiction, unless the addict is legally a danger to him/herself or others, the reality we have been given is accepting that we can do nothing except pray and wait and hope. I, and so many others who have suffered addiction or been involved in the treatment and care of addicts, know it is not possible to "pull[] our loved ones and those in danger back from the edge a foot" with clean needles or clean glasses or sterile scalpels. Addiction is always much worse than we can possibly know and nothing we can do will make it better. It may well be one of the demons Jesus refers to that requires fasting and prayer.
Drusilla | 07.21.06 - 5:42 pm | #

Drusilla,

You write: "It’s a positive, loving, active [response] that consists of keeping a tight reign on our feelings>"

Thus the target of your response is yourself?

Because there is - I am struggling to understand - some willed inevitability to the death dance of the addict who refuses to cry for help?

Because you base part of your philosphy on the story of the Prodigal Son who was able to find his way home?

What about the sons and daughters who can't find the start of that path?

No, I cannot accept a theory of compassion where the strong refuse to reach out to the weak UNTIL the weak prove they have the strength to reach out themselves.
jody tresidder | 07.21.06 - 6:32 pm | #

You sure KFOX didn't accidentally pick up a spoof from The Onion???
Margaret | 07.21.06 - 7:36 pm | #

Could ya'll please discuss this food-preparation topic offline? Thank you kindly.
Dawn Eden | 07.21.06 - 8:33 pm | #

PP's behavior towards addics in this case is an enabling one. So..for those who have a lot of expertise in this area....al-anon, AA, etc., what have you learned? Does enabling help, hurt, or is it neutral? What do they tell the enabler in these groups?
kc | 07.21.06 - 8:34 pm | #

Noumena,
My response was too emotional. I think perusing your comments more carefully is a fair request. In all seriousness, I have to go get the dog food out of the baby's mouth, so I won't be able to at the moment, Emotions aside, all I was getting at is this: if a behavior is wrong, (and I think we can agree doing drugs is wrong), it is my own experience that helping wrong behavior even with good intentions backfires. Does this case have exceptions? I am reluctant to make exceptions, but it is only fair to think about and look carefully at the arguements/studies. I just don't know when I can, so I am curious what the experience of people with addicts is... does enabling ever help?
kc | 07.21.06 - 8:41 pm | #

Dog food duty done. To answer Nouwena's question: What is this self-sacrificial love? The kind addicts need? I do not have a straightforward-here-is-for-everyone-in-all- relationships-answer. In my own limited experience, I have a neighbor who is an addict. It is an on-going battle still, with some success as of now. But it has put their family in tough financial straits. My other neighbors think I'm enabling by watching their children frequently so they can save on child-care. This isn't a pat-on-my-back. Sometimes it is all I can do to grit my teeth, be kind to these children when I really have my own to take care of and can hardly meet their needs too. Maybe I am an enabler. I try to set boundaries, but it is a hard call.
Still, if he were not winning the battle, I would call him on it. I would never turn my back on the children, but I would work to take them away if I weren't seeing progress. If I thought my help was keeping the behavior going instead of allowing him to kick the habit, it would change things.
And it would cost me dearly to work to take the children away; to let an addict sink would be a proactive, difficult thing. Drusilla explained it well.
But do you see the difference? It isn't about getting him to do drugs more safely, it is about doing what costs me to help him get beyond it. If it were to help him do it safely, he may be saved from disease, but he won't be moving toward protecting the people he is connected to. And does any addict exist in a vacuum?

One last thing, Nouwena, you may want to reconsider your comment about listening only if things are not based in Catholic theology, since you are not Catholic.
Catholic theology is simply about truth. If you are interested in that, you are interested in what Catholics have to say. We are not discussing merely matters of faith here. Catholic theology is based on truth. Who is man? What is he/she made for? What is the natural law? How does it pertain to man and how he/she will thrive best in community? If you are as intelligent as your posts indicate, don't dismiss the Catholic position as being for other people. You just have to keep wrestling with what is true. You may be pleasantly surprised at what Catholics have to contribute.
kc | 07.21.06 - 11:16 pm | #

And that, when I'm in a more pessimistic and Nietzschean mood, is the best I think we can do in a good philosophical discussion. :-)

Noumena - part of this is my freely-admitted handicap: I've never formally studied philosophy, save for one college class in which it seemed the goal was to learn that knowledge and existence are impossible. Strictly speaking, none of my other professors suscribed to this viewpoint, and were quite unwilling to broaden their horizons come exam time.

I try to keep up with a lot of reading and just work on things from there. Folks are patient with explanations, and that helps as well.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.22.06 - 2:55 am | #

"Contagious and lethal diseases should be contained."

What does this mean, exactly? What would "containing" all HIV-positive people look like?
Jill | Homepage | 07.24.06 - 10:26 am | #