Inscriptions of violence: Societal and medical neglect of child abuse – impact on life and health

2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Luise Kirkengen
Keyword(s):  
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-652
Author(s):  
NANCY S. JECKER

In a recent statement, the American Academy of peatrics' Committee on Bioethics maintained that "all child abuse, neglect, and medical neglect statutes should be applied without potential or actual exemption from religious beliefs." The AAP recommendation should be hailed. But sufficient attention should also be paid to the justification for it in philosophical and moral argument. This will ensure that the recommendation is followed in the long run, by providing physicians and others with a compelling reason to challenge present statutes that oppose it.


1986 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-205
Author(s):  
Dixie Snow Huefner

AbstractIn recent years the federal government has attempted to intervene in certain family-medical decisions to withhold treatment from seriously handicapped newborns with life-threatening conditions. Invoking section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against “otherwise qualified handicapped” individuals, the Reagan Administration promulgated regulations allowing federal government investigations of such decisions. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions invalidating these “Baby Doe” regulations. The federal government's fall-back position is reflected in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments of 1984, requiring states accepting funds under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to establish and maintain procedures to assure that cases of medical neglect of handicapped infants are investigated by the states. Although the primary oversight of parental decision-making has been returned to the states where it has traditionally belonged, the federal government's definition of medical neglect of handicapped infants with life-threatening conditions is an ethically inadequate response to the complex needs of the handicapped child, the family, the medical profession, and society as a whole. After examining the relevance of Kantian, utilitarian, and Rawlsian ethical positions, the author contends that an effective governmental policy, capable of enforcement and acceptance by the public, must utilize the strengths of each philosophy and reflect the pragmatism of American society.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 674-674
Author(s):  
NORMAN C. FOST

In Reply.— I agree with all of Dr. Fletcher's cautions about the hazards of state intrusion, especially when treatment is of uncertain benefit. It is not accidental that the statement cites only "easy" cases: it is precisely the clear cases that are outrageous and which require state protection. His concern that "an arrogant physician" may dangerously impose uncertain treatment is the reason we have legal procedures for resolving such disputes. By reporting cases of medical neglect, the physician acknowledges that he or she should not be imposing judgment on parents of children but that a process should be initiated that allows representation of the interested parties, consideration of the relevant facts, and adjudication by a dispassionate, disinterested person.


1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman Ross ◽  
Timothy J. Aspinwall

In February 1997, the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) updated its position on religious exemptions to medical care. In its earlier statement, the committee noted that forty-four states have religious exemptions to the child abuse and neglect statutes, and they argued for the repeal of these exemptions. The committee did not indude in its statement a position on religious exemptions to childhood immunization requirements that exist in forty-eight states, although this issue was discussed in committee meetings. In its revised statement, the committee concluded that “The AAP does not support the stringent application of medical neglect laws when children do not receive recommended immunizations.” In this paper, we consider whether failure to immunize one's child is a form of medical neglect and, if so, whether states should repeal their religious exemptions to the immunization statutes. We argue that failure to vaccinate a child properly is medical neglect.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Jenny ◽  
James B. Metz

2009 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
Penny Lewis†

Abstract. From my training with Marian Chace came much of the roots of my employment of dance therapy in my work. The use of empathic movement reflection assisted me in the development of the technique of somatic countertransference ( Lewis, 1984 , 1988 , 1992 ) and in the choreography of the symbiotic phase in object relations ( Lewis, 1983 , 1987a , 1988 , 1990 , 1992 ). Marian provided the foundation for assistance in separation and individuation through the use of techniques which stimulated skin (body) and external (kinespheric) boundary formation. Reciprocal embodied response and the use of thematic imaginal improvisations provided the foundation for the embodied personification of intrapsychic phenomena such as the internalized patterns, inner survival mechanisms, addictions, and the inner child. Chace’s model assisted in the development of structures for the remembering, re-experiencing, and healing of child abuse as well as the rechoreography of object relations. Finally, Marian Chace’s use of synchronistic group postural rhythmic body action provided access to the transformative power of ritual in higher stages of individuation and spiritual consciousness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document