Oh No, Not again - the 'addicted' babies

A contributor writes :'In January the Mail ran the headline " Drug addict babies: Three born every day are already hooked on heroin and cocaine"

'Since it is a fact these babies are born with an involuntary reliance on drugs and instant withdrawal from the drugs produces severe adverse withdrawal symptons and even death, (fulfilling the definition of addiction) hence the need to wean them off, surely it is true to say that these babies are addicts. They do not have the freedom to choose so addiction is forced upon them. If the condition of these babies is not one of addiction, then what else can this physical dependance be called? In other words, if I assert that these babies are addicts, what is the counter argument?'

 

Let's take this garbage bit by bit:

'Since it is a fact these babies are born with an involuntary reliance...'

 

***Fact? Reliance...? This word is a multiple prejudgement. Their criminal mothers have callously taken dangerous and illegal drugs while pregnant, thus harming their babies. But the babies do not 'rely' on the drug. The reverse is the case. They are endangered by it. They would not choose to take it if they were able to choose.  Since babies in utero and for many years afterwards lack any power of choice, they are not 'reliant' on anything. They are the innocent victims of what is in my view a criminal assault. They have been poisoned and need medical help to recover from the poisoning.  That help is based solely on the need to save their lives and health. I have no idea what the best treatment may be for this condition, but I doubt very much whether it consists of a lifelong supply of either heroin or methadone, or of a procession of 'counsellors' making excuses for their stupid, criminal mothers and urging them to follow their criminal mothers' disgusting examples,  because they cannot be expected to exercise the will to do otherwise.Oh and 'involuntary'. How could a baby be given drugs of any kind, except involuntarily? Itb is astonishing that the users of this argument do not grasp the the significance, for their own case, of the profound difference between the capacities of babies and of adults

 

 

'.. on drugs and instant withdrawal from the drugs produces severe adverse withdrawal symptoms and even death, (fulfilling the definition of addiction)'

*** Really?   How many such deaths take place in otherwise healthy babies?  If they do, then they are the consequence of the mother's criminal irresponsibility, not of the non-existent voluntary actions of an innocent abused child, nor of the actions of those who struggle to alleviate the so-called 'withdrawal symptoms'.

 

As for 'withdrawal symptoms', which I believe can generally be overcome, the language(as in so much of this argument) is once again prejudicial.

The use of the word 'symptoms' suggests that 'withdrawal' is a disease or disorder, when in fact it is simply the human body naturally reaccustoming itself to the normal absence of an unwanted, damaging poison in its organs.  Babies are human, but not adult. They lack the power of choice (see above). They did not choose to take the heroin. They were, in effect, forced to do so. If consulted, , indeed if consultable, they would no doubt have wished not to take it, and likewise would wish to cease to take it. If they were *not* babies, but were adults who had been kidnapped by criminals and repeatedly forcibly injected , they could decide for themselves to cease to take the drug, and easily do so (as Theodore Dalrymple has pointed out, it's really not that hard - if you want to. French Connection 2 is not a documentary). Or I suppose they could moan that they were 'addicted' because they preferred to carry on being drugged, though I doubt this would happen, as the sort of person who needed to be forced to take the drug would not be likely to become a habitual user of it.

 

Because they are babies, and are therefore highly vulnerable, there are no doubt greater risks in abrupt cessation than there would be in an adult. But since the crucial element of supposed  'addiction', the point of voluntary choice at which the 'addict' supposedly became 'addicted',  is absent (as is the point of voluntary choice to stop), how can these tragic cases of abuse possibly be advanced as an argument for 'addiction'?  These babies had no choice. They have no language, no will and no strength to assert it. These are the principal differences between babies and adults, and in this case they are *the* most significant differences. What precisely is the 'definition of addiction' which is 'fulfilled' by the poisoning of defenceless  babies in utero by criminal adults, and their subsequent rescue by doctors and nurses? How many adult heroin abusers were held down by persons twenty times their size and repeatedly  involuntarily injected with heroin?

 

...hence the need to wean them off, surely it is true to say that these babies are addicts.

 

***Why is it 'surely' 'true' to say this? What does he mean by 'addiction'? How can powerless babies, pumped full of poison against their will,  be adduced as evidence for the idea that sentient rational adults with free will have no choice but to pump poison into *themselves*, and to continue to do so indefinitely, and should be sympathised with for doing so? Does he not see the simple logical flaw?Babies don't choose. Grown humans do. Heroin is bad for you. What is done *to* powerless infants offer no guidance to adults in matters of moral choice about what we should do *to* ourselves. Yet even adults can stop taking the filth, if helped by responsible adults.

 

He states ' They do not have the freedom to choose, so addiction is forced upon them.'

 

** This sentence is an outrage against logic. As so-called 'addiction' is alleged to be an adult inability to choose to stop taking a drug which the user chose to *start* taking,  there is no comparison whatever between the position of these assaulted babies and the adult drug abuser.

It gets worse. So-called 'Addiction' is *not* forced on them(because it does not exist, except as an excuse for failing to stop taking the drug, in the adult mind). Only adults, with the power to choose, claim 'addiction' as their excuse for continuing to choose the drug. Babies, paradoxically, have more sense.

 

The thing that is forced upon them is the drug. Aided by doctors, who rightly regard their condition as intolerable, they swiftly cease to have the drug in their bodies (they cannot be said to 'take' it, or to 'cease to take' it as they have no part in the process).

There is no physical reason why they should ever have it in their bodies again, let alone desire this. Were they adults in a comparable position, forcibly injected with heroin by criminals, there is no reason to believe they would want to continue to take it, or that they would be unable to cease to do so.

'If the condition of these babies is not one of addiction, then what else can this physical dependance be called? In other words, if I assert that these babies are addicts, what is the counter argument?'

 

**It can be called 'criminal poisoning of a defenceless infant'. It bears no relation whatsoever the continuing voluntary use of a dangerous and illegal drug by a sentient, rational adult. I hope never to hear this disgusting argument again. I have not bothered to address it before because it seemed to me both contemptible and moronic. It is only because it is so persistently advanced by drug apologists that I have decided to deal with it.

 

As usual, the author is free to reply at length.