All due respect, but just because "most" testify to something does not make it true or reflective of the research into this area. If you carefully read "studies" by psychiatrists, they mostly contain interview data from the offender or inmate who alleges childhood abuse. This is hardly a sterling process.
Also, psychiatrists are not psychologists. Psychiatrists testify about their understanding of psychiatry, but they have no research evidence that abuse in childhood actually has causality in terms of prediction of later dysfunction. There are plenty of people who were abused who never abused anyone else. The science is squishy on this issue. Now, psychologists may testify that psychological research can describe behavior in this area in the reverse, i.e., there is an overabundance of data suggesting that people who are now abusers were abused in their childhood. But, that does not mean we can use this data to predict the future. The Ted Bundy example is just one of many and should not be discounted. Many very bad people came from intact homes. Many bad people had good parents. So this whole childhood abuse thing is very weak, very weak. The point is that there is no predictive power between these two variables. Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 Lakewood, CO 80232 (303) 934-2828 Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 This email is the intellectual property of the author. Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining the express permission of the author. ----- Original Message ----- From: hamilto...@aol.com To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:34:48 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships? Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself anecdotally. Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to ignore those possibilities. With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. Marci
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
