Peaches Geldof

Anyway, I'm off to do some work now, feeling somewhat pleased that at least my comment provoked some discussion.

Which was the whole idea.

I'm talking about treating people, annieb, not killing them. Don't be ridiculous.

Not perpetuated by finding a way of altering the outcome of the gene's activity. Some genes act as "switches" where, in certain conditions, a switch will activate what causes an illness. Not perpetuated by deactivating harmful genes. As I see it, this is just another step in our battle against disease, following on from vaccination and treatments like chemotherapy.

Not perpepetuated? How? Abortion? Sterilisation? Possible solutions which might be considered

A pertinent quote from that article: "Professor Timothy Bates, of the University of Edinburgh's School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, said that the genetic influence was strongest on a person's sense of self-control."

I should think self-control is quite an important factor in deciding whether a person becomes addicted to a drug. That doesn't mean one blames addicts. It's just a recognition of a need for more knowledge in that area.

I understand what you mean, anniebach.
It has been tried before and we look back in horror at such attempts.

I am sure Peaches was a troubled soul but I understood she tried to work hard and provide for her family as Sir Bob Geldof would not provide financial support. One wonders how much emotional support those girls have received as well. She was obviously looking for love and a family life and thought she had found it. I wonder if the media pressure of trying to be thin contributed as well.
Another victim of the media perhaps.

I do fear for Tiger Lily, our Australian friends wonder how Sir B. ever got custody.

So so sad.

Thanks for the link, ffinn. Off to read it.

ALL children need to be looked after carefully. Millions aren't, often because of poverty rather than because no-one wants to.

If addicts can never break free, then surely it would be a good thing if whatever causes addiction (genetic or otherwise) could be found and dealt with, in the same way as it would be a good thing if whatever causes, say, cystic fribrosis could be found and dealt with – removed, cured, altered so it doesn't cause a problem. Take your pick. I fail to see what is offensive about this idea. Isn't it what medical research is partly about?

An interesting article about how genes may be seen to impact upon character traits.
An interesting article about how genes may be seen to impact upon character traits

Addicts regardless of their addiction can never break free. At any time some small thing could de-rail.

Sorry thatbags but on this subject there really is no need to wind everyone up. POGS had made a similar, thought provoking point and in a far more tasteful way. There is no doubt that babies can be born addicts as many wonderful foster carers could testify. Therefore, following my original comment, they cannot totally 'break free' from their addiction.

Peaches' children need to be cared for carefully throughout their lives and I hope their father is capable of taking on the task.

No, nightowl no such thing as a saint, and Bob Geldof is as fallible as all of us, but I thank him for his efforts in 1985 and subsequently as he influenced multitudes to show compassion across the globe. So did others - I thank them, too!

I am not saying that Peaches' children should not be alive. Anyone who thinks so is wilfully misunderstanding what I said.

Yes, anniebach, but no-one is talking about "removing" damaged genes, only about suggesting it might be better if they were not perpetuated. Please note the word might.

I'm discussing a thought not a plan of action.

Re a genetic element, I have seen stuff about addiction being part of a personality in that there is thought to be something called an "addictive personality". This presumably means that some people are supposed to be more likely to develop addictions than others. I don't know more about this, but it just sounds as if genes might play a part.

Removing damaged genes is certainly a final solution

Yes, I'll feel sorry for her husband even if he is/was also a drug user or knew about her habit (if it was a habit). He's still the one left grieving and I feel sorry for anyone who is grieving because grief is hard. Harder than being dead.

Interesting when. I hadn't read anything about her husband being her alleged supplier, but was merely speculating.

I'm not sure sir bob is quite the saint he's made out to be (and Paula Yates hinted that he was very difficult to live with) but I'm sure he has some pretty decent genes.

I suppose it depends why someone becomes and addict, nightowl. And then, once they are in the grip of addiction, I'm presuming (being ignorant of such things) that it dominates their life. I see recreational drug addiction as an affliction, just like any other sickness of mind or body. What I'm thinking is that doing without the drug makes life unbearable then, yes, I do think being dead is preferable because that means the agony is over. To me that's just a straightforward thought, exactly the same as putting a suffering pet dog out of its misery, which, though sad, is done all the time out of sympathy, not cruelty.

Which does not mean that I don't think drug addicts should be helped to overcome their addiction and to enjoy life again.

gknot, I use 'soul' in the same way I'd use 'body'.'Soul' has the advantage of including the ethereal part of a person, their personality, whereas I feel the word 'body' is much more detached. I do not believe in eternal souls except insofar as I think we are all star dust anyway.

Also, I think there are many things that are important to the health of the species. My view is that compassion is perhaps the most important quality of all, and we should nurture it in ourselves and others. I would never believe a 25 year old would be better off dead. People grow up and change, thankfully but Peaches will never have the chance.

I feel very sorry for her family, but will we still feel sorry for her widower if it's discovered that he knew more about her drug taking than we yet know? Or was involved himself? We don't actually know anything yet.

Having watched, over the course of thirty years, a succession of babies withdrawing from the effects of heroin after birth, and then observed them as they developed and thrived in the care of foster parents before either being adopted or returning to family, I don't go along with the notion of certain people not having their genes replicated in future generations.

Much is being made of Peaches' heroin use (allegedly supplied by her 'widower' husband), which appears to have not been so devastating as to prevent her fulfilling her responsibilities for work, TV appearances, looking after her children, but occasional use of late, which would affect her tolerance. It wasn't evident that drug use caused her death till toxicology results, so probably not injecting but smoking. And probably not the single cause of her death, from what I have read so far. It sounds like she may have used it the night before and got up in the morning feeling ill, as people did try to contact her before the alarm was raised by lunchtime.

As for genes, I imagine that her children carrying the genes of a grandfather who did something momentous for the world would be something we wouldn't want to die out.

I'm not sure whether there is a genetic element thatbags, after knowing many drug users over many years. I believe Paula Yates was not a long term habitual drug user, and that the coroner at her inquest commented to the effect that as someone without a long term history (ie before she met Michael Hutchence) she had no tolerance to heroin, and hence it killed her. Either way, for those of us closely connected to drug users (not just in a working capacity) it feels very harsh to suggest they might be better off dead. At 25? Is there never to be a hope of change?

I have also been feeling sorry for that 23 year old widower and young father. And for his parents.

I'm interested to see you using the term "soul" Bags.

The compulsion for an addict to use will always trump other considerations, no matter how much she loved her children. Very sad, some young people think they are invincible and can dabble. And then they discover they've crossed a line.

Quite likely, nightowl. I thought someone (several someones) would think the thought cruel, but it followed from the comments by others about Peaches' own mother suffering similarly. I would not wish the suffering they experienced on anyone, so if there is a genetic element it seems better, to me, that those genes are not passed on.

This is me thinking purely biologically about the health of the species. If some people think such thinking is cruel, so be it, but I know I'm not a cruel person.

Perhaps by that reasoning a few of us on here would have been better removing our genes from the gene pool as well thatbags. What a horrible, cruel thing to say. But thanks for the thought.