If getting 30 days shaved off your sentence is such an appealing offer that an optional bargain involving sterilization is considered coercion, surely it's putting people in prison that's inhumane here?
In the case of drug crimes, I agree with you. Appeal of the logic starts to break down when you scale it out for violent offenders. In fact, I find the lax sentencing in Scandanavian countries appalling.
Some women have a severe adverse reaction to "hormonal" birth control. These products actually use hormone analogues that disrupt the steroid pathways.
As best I can figure, my friend had her first psychotic break after 9 months of chemical castration with time released medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo Provera). This drug is a very good mimic of Progesterone USP (what the body makes for itself), but the body cannot transform it into the steroids downstream from Progesterone USP.
Most of the other endocrine disruptors used as birth control aren't nearly as bad as Provera, but all have potential for adverse reactions.
> Equating temporary and removable birth control with "castration" is ludicrous.
The 'chemical castration' comment was about Depo Provera specifically. The injection is NOT removable: you're basically stuck with the effects for 3+ months, unless you know to use the antidote (which is not covered in doctors' curriculum for using this class of drugs on their patients).
The article mentions that they're using Nexplanon, which, though it's a hormonal method as you say, is absolutely not comparable to chemical castration. It's recommended for use by Planned Parenthood among other organisations, as it's convenient and has a low failure rate.
All the "chemical castration" and "severe adverse reaction" seems to do here is introduce unwarranted FUD. As far as I'm able to find, the number of complications due to the implant are insignificant. It's like those disclaimers in drugs commercials where they mention a headache relief medicine might give you a heart attack. Sure it's possible, no it's not something many people need to worry about.
Some people defend the current contraceptive status-quo by reasoning "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
> is absolutely not comparable to chemical castration.
Yes, the article is about Nexplanon, and DMPA (Depo Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) is what's used to chemically castrate men, and to render women temporarily infertile. But nexplanon's active ingredient suppresses the HPG axis [1] too.
My friend is that one-in-10000 who was especially vulnerable to pseudo-hormones. Her doctor didn't appreciate the significance of the main negative symptom she complained about (bleeding continuously for months), and injected her twice more anyways. She would be an inmate at the state's psychiatric hospital, or dead, if I hadn't taken an interest in her struggles.
> As far as I'm able to find, the number of complications due to the implant are insignificant.
Except to the people who have them. Here's a report from a random redditor:
It's my understanding that the hormone-releasing implants for the women are birth control - remove it and you can get pregnant again in a month or two. I see this is an arm implant, not an IUD as a couple of friends have used (and subsequently removed and had a beautiful healthy daughter), so I may be incorrect.
But yes, the vasectomy offered to the men is far more permanent than "birth control".
India pioneered a "reversible vasectomy" [1]. Basically they gum up the ducts from the testes. It does not have to be irreversible.
The thing to watch is whether knowing they have become, at least temporarily, infertile, will lead them to unsafe sex practices resulting in more venereal disease.
"A Tennessee judge has rescinded his controversial program that sought to encourage drug-dependent female and male inmates to cut their jail time by voluntarily agreeing to undergo birth control procedures.
White County General Sessions Court Judge Sam Benningfield of Sparta filed the order on Wednesday, a day before two state lawmakers asked Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery to render a legal opinion on the controversial program's constitutionality."
(Can't edit my comment anymore, unfortunately. To clarify the context, before it was edited, the grandparent comment I replied to said something like: "This article is very old." The author has since removed that sentence.)
Specificity of change, scale of impact, and passive-vs-active management.
Genesplicing can be highly targeted, whereas this isn't necessarily even targeting the source of the traits. For example, the (theoretical) inability of gay men to breed doesn't decrease the gene prevalence if also passed through their sisters. We could (hypothetically) see something similar here, where propensity for criminality is passed on by relatives and no amount of sterilizing criminals removes it because there's eg, a benefit to mothers having highly aggressive sons/brothers.
Genesplicing only impacts the children, while sterilization has a large impact on the sterilized individual's hormones.
Finally, genesplicing in/out traits and competing for fitness is bottom-up selection, rather than top-down (as trying to supress traits via mass sterilization would be), and thus more stable/likely to work, better respects personal freedoms, etc.
Depends on the nature of the genomic editing and the circumstances under which it occurs, doesn't it?
For example: "We'll give you time off your sentence if you let us edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits." That trade is similarly coercive, and doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children.
Readit News
Race and income are the highest predictors of whether a person would end up in prison.
Both of these speak loudly about us as a society and about our true values.
Dead Comment
This diagram shows how cholesterol is turned into the steroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid#/media/File:Steroidoge...
As best I can figure, my friend had her first psychotic break after 9 months of chemical castration with time released medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo Provera). This drug is a very good mimic of Progesterone USP (what the body makes for itself), but the body cannot transform it into the steroids downstream from Progesterone USP.
Most of the other endocrine disruptors used as birth control aren't nearly as bad as Provera, but all have potential for adverse reactions.
edit: wording
The 'chemical castration' comment was about Depo Provera specifically. The injection is NOT removable: you're basically stuck with the effects for 3+ months, unless you know to use the antidote (which is not covered in doctors' curriculum for using this class of drugs on their patients).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#United_Sta...
All the "chemical castration" and "severe adverse reaction" seems to do here is introduce unwarranted FUD. As far as I'm able to find, the number of complications due to the implant are insignificant. It's like those disclaimers in drugs commercials where they mention a headache relief medicine might give you a heart attack. Sure it's possible, no it's not something many people need to worry about.
> is absolutely not comparable to chemical castration.
Yes, the article is about Nexplanon, and DMPA (Depo Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) is what's used to chemically castrate men, and to render women temporarily infertile. But nexplanon's active ingredient suppresses the HPG axis [1] too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamic%E2%80%93pituitary...
My friend is that one-in-10000 who was especially vulnerable to pseudo-hormones. Her doctor didn't appreciate the significance of the main negative symptom she complained about (bleeding continuously for months), and injected her twice more anyways. She would be an inmate at the state's psychiatric hospital, or dead, if I hadn't taken an interest in her struggles.
> As far as I'm able to find, the number of complications due to the implant are insignificant.
Except to the people who have them. Here's a report from a random redditor:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/4mofxf/the...
But yes, the vasectomy offered to the men is far more permanent than "birth control".
The thing to watch is whether knowing they have become, at least temporarily, infertile, will lead them to unsafe sex practices resulting in more venereal disease.
[1]http://newatlas.com/risug-male-contraception/18824/
Edit: http://www.ohjoysextoy.com/implant/ -0.05% failure rate on implants, 0.5% on sterilisation. Impressive.
White County General Sessions Court Judge Sam Benningfield of Sparta filed the order on Wednesday, a day before two state lawmakers asked Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery to render a legal opinion on the controversial program's constitutionality."
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2017/j...
Source: http://wkrn.com/2017/07/27/white-county-judge-stops-trading-...
I'm not arguing for one or none of the above. Simply curious.
Genesplicing can be highly targeted, whereas this isn't necessarily even targeting the source of the traits. For example, the (theoretical) inability of gay men to breed doesn't decrease the gene prevalence if also passed through their sisters. We could (hypothetically) see something similar here, where propensity for criminality is passed on by relatives and no amount of sterilizing criminals removes it because there's eg, a benefit to mothers having highly aggressive sons/brothers.
Genesplicing only impacts the children, while sterilization has a large impact on the sterilized individual's hormones.
Finally, genesplicing in/out traits and competing for fitness is bottom-up selection, rather than top-down (as trying to supress traits via mass sterilization would be), and thus more stable/likely to work, better respects personal freedoms, etc.
For example: "We'll give you time off your sentence if you let us edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits." That trade is similarly coercive, and doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children.
(Plus, they're not permanent.)
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/sterilized-for-being-poor
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment