PDA

View Full Version : Study: Children Who Suffer Abuse or Trauma Likely To Get Chronic Health Problems



Pages : [1] 2

PeterG
08-15-2011, 08:11 PM
From a local newspaper:


Children who suffer abuse, hardship or childhood trauma are more likely to get chronic health problems as adults, a new study found.

Interesting. I had always figured that the tougher the childhood, the stronger it makes infants, so that they would have a perfect life in adulthood. /sarcasm :rolleyes:

Right after that informative tidbit is this:


A U.S. report shows that 61% of women plan on having fewer children and are waiting longer to start a family due to economic instability.

So one out of two women figure they should wait to bring a new life into the world until they can afford to do so? How utterly enlightening! I just figured all you chicks didn't really put much thought into things such as producing offspring, it was just something you're meant to do to keep the planet populated. But you gals actually think about stuff? I've learned something new from another informative survey!! /rant+sarcasm :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The real reason I'm posting about these stupid surveys is that I read about them all the time, and the results are always something so obvious. How many people worked on this project? How much money went into it? Are the people involved not aware that a billion people on the planet don't have access to clean drinking water (http://www.charitywater.org/)? Or that up to 15 million children starve to death every year (http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm)? Another site says 6 million...which is still 6 million too many!!

Such inane studies infuriate me sometimes!!! :soapbox:

rjblue
08-15-2011, 10:17 PM
Such inane studies infuriate me sometimes!!! :soapbox:Sorry Peter, I have to disagree with you on this one. Often times the common sense knowledge that people use is actually false, and it is so ingrained that it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Sometimes these seemingly senseless studies actually lead us to a better understanding of the subject.

There are many things that the medical profession, for example, does that once they've been studied empirically prove to be the wrong thing.

The scientists who first studied vaccum, blood circulation, meterorites, were all ridiculed at the time.

We don't know what is inane until we study it.

PeterG
08-15-2011, 10:47 PM
Sorry Peter, I have to disagree with you on this one. Often times the common sense knowledge that people use is actually false, and it is so ingrained that it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Sometimes these seemingly senseless studies actually lead us to a better understanding of the subject.

There are many things that the medical profession, for example, does that once they've been studied empirically prove to be the wrong thing.

The scientists who first studied vaccum, blood circulation, meterorites, were all ridiculed at the time.

We don't know what is inane until we study it.

Then please do add yourself to the billion people without clean, healthy drinking water.

KatieC
08-15-2011, 11:11 PM
All the studies I ever worked on had their stupid moments. I was completely shocked by one man's assertion that we were asking him how often he and his wife had sex! (It was a child health/lifestyle study that asked some questions of parents/guardians.) I was totally bewildered because I couldn't find any question relating to sex in the damn form. Then a colleague suggested he may have been talking about the question that asked, "How often do you and your spouse/partner do things together for enjoyment?" It went on to list things like bowling, dancing, sports and other. :eek:

Personally, I always thought we should do a study on people that refuse to answer studies. But alas, it wouldn't work. They probably have a lot of things in common. :lol:

PeterG
08-16-2011, 12:04 AM
I meant for the thread to be about priorities. If we're such an intelligent species, how can we let so many people suffer while we intellectualize studies that have little significance compared to the well-being of other humans?

I was wondering if some animals are more caring to other animals than humans are to each other. Which led me to think about porpoises and how they have saved human lives. Maybe instead of studies about children who have rough lives who end up with chronic health problems we should study on how children end up who do not have healthy drinking water. But we know the answer to that! (I just wish all the money going into these "studies" were put towards basic needs that keep people alive.)

gkelly
08-16-2011, 01:12 AM
How much does it cost to fund a study of a few hundred or thousand children who do not have healthy drinking water?

How much does it cost to provide healthy drinking water to a billion?

What would be the best way to provide that healthy water? Maybe it would help to have some studies first to determine which of those billion children are most at risk for what problems, and what alternative water supplies can best prevent those problems.

MacMadame
08-16-2011, 02:00 AM
I think you are way off-base, Peter. It is not a given that someone who suffers from abuse would have chronic health problems. Mental problems? Sure. That seems logical. But for it to take a physical form and a chronic one at that is not a given. Particularly as a lot of abuse is not physical in nature but emotional.

It's important to know these things so doctors can successfully treat people.

It's also not a choice between doing a study on the long-term effects of abuse vs. building a water supply for a foreign country. If this study didn't get the money, then it would have gone to a different study.

But I love the "what about the children!" defense. Because who is against children? Unless they are abused children who grow up to have chronic health problems. Then I guess it's a waste of money to study them. ;)

rjblue
08-16-2011, 02:04 AM
(I just wish all the money going into these "studies" were put towards basic needs that keep people alive.)So I have to argue once again. I just don't agree that academic studies should be the thing that we eliminate in order to fund things that reduce human suffering. I'd rather take money away from prisons, or military, or business subsidies, or raise taxes, than take funding away from research. And I don't want to tell the researchers that they can only study what I find worthwhile.

If we only put funds towards ending basic suffering, we would have no cure for infectious diseases. We wouldn't even be supplying clean water, because it took generations of "laughable" research before doctors began to accept that water could be a source of disease.

PeterG
08-16-2011, 06:12 AM
It's also not a choice between doing a study on the long-term effects of abuse vs. building a water supply for a foreign country. If this study didn't get the money, then it would have gone to a different study.

Everything humans do is a choice. Currently, one of the choices is to do varying studies over providing basic needs to others so that they do not die.


It is not a given that someone who suffers from abuse would have chronic health problems.

I think most people would agree that abused people will have difficulties. Studies can detail how, but it won’t shock anybody to find out that health problems arise from those who have experienced abusive backgrounds. (I am one of those people by the way. I was physically beaten on a somewhat regular basis throughout my childhood starting from the age of two. When that stopped, I was bullied throughout high school, right up to my senior year, with more than a few of the bullies being teachers.)

I started this thread because I felt that basic needs for all humans has a greater importance over detailed studies for those who already have all their basic needs met.


But I love the "what about the children!" defense. Because who is against children?

Good point about the children. There are certain types of children (and adults) whose needs are deemed less important than others. It looks to me like those people have darker skin than I do.


Unless they are abused children who grow up to have chronic health problems. Then I guess it's a waste of money to study them. ;)

It’s extremely important to study about how abuse affects children. But those children are alive. They have food, water and shelter. I feel that basic needs should be of a higher priority than these kinds of studies.


I just don't agree that academic studies should be the thing that we eliminate in order to fund things that reduce human suffering.

I’m not saying that we should ban important medical research. Instead, we should carefully decide which studies have more importance than providing basic needs so that others do not die.


If we only put funds towards ending basic suffering, we would have no cure for infectious diseases.

What was said that made you think I felt that we shouldn’t try to find cures for infectious diseases?


We wouldn't even be supplying clean water, because it took generations of "laughable" research before doctors began to accept that water could be a source of disease.

I do not think it would be good to undo this valuable research from years gone by. But here and now…why do we choose to study advanced issues that might (or might not) better lives over digging wells, providing food and building shelter so that others can simply remain alive?

gkelly
08-16-2011, 01:04 PM
Everything humans do is a choice. Currently, one of the choices is to do varying studies over providing basic needs to others so that they do not die.

Why do you see this as either/or?

Humans do a lot of things. Some are more geared toward basic needs than others. Some take more resources (physical, financial, time) than others.

Why single out research as the one thing that takes away from providing basic needs to other?

Why not ask why people figure skate, or watch figure skating, or post on message boards, instead of providing basic needs to others?

Why not ask why governments provide libraries or licensing bureaus or yearly Easter Egg rolls to their constituents or build state-of-the-art military weapons instead of providing food and water to those in need?

Prancer
08-16-2011, 01:18 PM
I do not think it would be good to undo this valuable research from years gone by. But here and now…why do we choose to study advanced issues that might (or might not) better lives over digging wells, providing food and building shelter so that others can simply remain alive?

I teach English, which does absolutely nothing to provide basic needs for people. Does what I do have more or less value than research studies into things you don't consider important?

Does anyone here dig wells, provide food or build shelters so that others may remain alive? I am well aware that some of us or even most of us donate money, but in practical terms, I don't think we're doing anything more vital to the survival of people who are suffering than are the researchers--some of whom undoubtedly also donate money to the suffering, which they are able to do because they have jobs doing research.

Are you digging wells in a developing country right now? And if you aren't, what are you doing that is more valuable?

Hannahclear
08-16-2011, 03:22 PM
What an inane post. I'm not even sure what your point is. Should I not have more children because some children don't have access to clean water?

Really
08-16-2011, 03:56 PM
I get what Peter is saying. Some studies are just plain stoopid. Money spent on those types of stoopid studies would be better spent trying to find ways to help alleviate some of the abysmal conditions people live in in various parts of the world.

Well, duh... (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/30/dumb-studies-2008-a-year-of-confirming-the-incredibly-obvious.aspx)

Say what? (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2008/08/09/how-dangerous-is-sword-swallowing-and-other-stupid-research-86908-20690273/)

You can't tell me (or Peter) that the money spent on some of these off-the-wall studies couldn't have been better spent elsewhere...like this (http://thewaterproject.org/)...

Of course, YMMV...

rjblue
08-16-2011, 04:43 PM
Of course money is spent providing proof of things that seem like common sense. The point I am making is that it was once common sense that people became ill because of their evil behavior, and that it was a ridicuous idea that something that couldn't be seen would cause an illness. It was a silly waste of time and effort that could have been used to cure them of their evil spirits.

Everyone knew that stressfull behavior caused ulcers, and it was impossible for bacteria to live in the stomach.

Everyone knew that bathing was dangerous and should be avoided.

All neurologists knew that brain damage was caused by swelling brains and fluids should be restricted for those who had head injuries (it took a law to be passed to make them use a different protocol).

Do you really think we know so much about everything that we should only investigate the things that common sense doesn't tell us?

PeterG
08-16-2011, 04:57 PM
entire post

Thank you! You get it exactly, those links are wonderful (yet :eek: ) examples of what this thread is all about. :40beers:


Why single out research as the one thing that takes away from providing basic needs to other?
I’m definitely not singling out research. I’m singling out studies such as “Tired people make mistakes” and “Neuroscientists in Barcelona found rats can't understand Dutch or Japanese sentences played to them backwards.” (Thanks again for those links, Really! :D)

Why not ask why people figure skate, or watch figure skating, or post on message boards, instead of providing basic needs to others?

Why not ask why governments provide libraries or licensing bureaus or yearly Easter Egg rolls to their constituents or build state-of-the-art military weapons instead of providing food and water to those in need?

Because things that inspire people to live better lives, encourage physical fitness and the arts, promote communication and understanding, provide learning opportunities and community-building are all good things. Hopefully they will be with us forever. :) I do agree with you that work needs to be done around weaponry, however.


I teach English, which does absolutely nothing to provide basic needs for people. Does what I do have more or less value than research studies into things you don't consider important?

Being able to communicate effectively with others in my opinion is a basic need. Without it, people would not have been able to do the research rjblue mentioned earlier about learning that water could be a source of disease. Thank you (and all teachers!) for your incredible contributions to us all. :respec:


Does anyone here dig wells, provide food or build shelters so that others may remain alive? I am well aware that some of us or even most of us donate money, but in practical terms, I don't think we're doing anything more vital to the survival of people who are suffering than are the researchers--some of whom undoubtedly also donate money to the suffering, which they are able to do because they have jobs doing research.

Are you digging wells in a developing country right now? And if you aren't, what are you doing that is more valuable?

I am unclear why you are asking if any of us are doing these types of work when this thread is about studies which are either silly or provide information that some might consider obvious.


What an inane post. I'm not even sure what your point is.

My point is that human life is more important than studies such as “why does a piece of dry spaghetti break into three rather than two pieces” and “Getting fired is disappointing”.


Should I not have more children because some children don't have access to clean water?

What was said that made you think that you should not have more children?