If anyone is interested, The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence carries a
fact sheet entitled "Family Violence and Substance Abuse". It is available
online at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/subabuseeng.html.

Take care,

Lianna Ferran
Program Officer
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence
Health Canada




"Murphy, Lawrence" <[log in to unmask]> on 99/07/12 04:11:21 PM

Please respond to Health Promotion on the Internet <[log in to unmask]>

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Lianna Ferran)

Subject:  Re: FAS and social problems




As someone who spent 5 years on Canada's west coast as a psychotherapist in
alcohol and drug services I do think that FAS is a huge and significant
problem. I can also report that in those five years of dealing with severely
addicted people, I met no more than one or two who were not abused in
childhood. In particular, those who were sexually abused as children tended
to face the most significant challenges in recovery.

If I were given a single shot at focussing on "society's persistent
problems" I'd pick child abuse. But this is simplistic of course since
poverty and a host of other factors work their way into the mix. So the
challenge then becomes how we deal with everything that co-causes our
persistent problems. Faced with the vastness of the "persistent problems",
we fall back on "persistent beliefs". And so the hand turns, and the finger
points at mother.

I would certainly support a constructively critical letter Christine. Let me
know if I can help.

Lawrence Murphy



<snip>
>I thought we had moved beyond this kind of witch hunt.
>
>I am interested in the opinions of others on this issue.

<snip>

well said Christine.  all to often we tend to focus on the first tangible
thing that blame can be hung on.  in the case of FAS, it's the mother.  it's
easier to blame than it is to look at and do something about the underlying
factors.  if society were to spend more energy looking at value, rather than
cost we might be able to do more to help and save money in the long run.
the problem as i see it, is that anything that takes more than four years to
show positive results won't get the votes needed to win the next election.

regards

tom batstone