341–350 of 639 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be, but communication issues could also be at play, plus overeager doctors/social workers. In Romania they go at great lengths not to pull children out of family environments, in Denmark and other more developed countries it could be the opposite.
Implying ripping children out of their families willy-nilly is "more developed."
"What happened is that during my literature review, I disturbingly realized that what I had been told at the hospital, namely that subdural and retinal hemorrhage in infants are almost always caused by violent shaking even in the absence of external evidence of trauma, was an assertion based on very weak scientific foundations. And yet, this “shaking hypothesis” (sometimes referred to as the theory of the “triad”, si…
If they are experts. The problem lies in distinguishing those who actually do have expertise in the field in question from those who merely think that they do and can persuade others that they do.
In many medical contexts there is no such thing as an expert because the data simply doesn't exist, they are sometimes simply more capable than the general public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scale of incarceration is still unprecedented. A reduction by 27 percent doesn't change that. Imprisonment was an extremely rare phenomenon for much of history (as was police, for that matter). Today's incarceration rates would have to be reduced by 99+% in order to reach pre-modern levels, where large cities often had only a handful of cells in total, and rural areas had none at all.
To be fair, for much of history there weren't enough resources for everyone, much less for keeping people fed for free in a prison for decades. For serious crimes you just got executed as soon as possible.
Thousands upon thousands. By some estimates upwards of 10% of incarcerated individuals. The situation is just accepted. The general consensus is always that locking up too many people is better than than too few. It is on defense attorneys to check on the system.
Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’! It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some…
The fact of the matter is, the article here is a brief overview describing none of the actual scientific literature at a level that should be convincing to a medical practitioner. But you read it and are apparently convinced of the author's point. So, a layperson (I assume, in your case) is presented with some well-written evidence from an authoritative perspective, alongside broad contours of the actual medical evidence but no details, and is convinced that it's true. Is it so hard to believe that a child welfare worker would be equally convinced under the same circumstances when talking to a doctor, neurologist, trauma surgeon, etc. who believes the opposite as this author?
When I was 14 or so I fell off my dirt bike and broke my arm, both bones in my forearm.
Went to the hospital. About 5 people asked me how it happened taking about an hour, while I was WRITHING in pain.
Finally, I complained to the right nurse and she got me something for the pain. It was just enough to stop crying, not enough to stop feeling it.
I later found out that the intake nurse was concerned about abuse.
I was dressed head to toe in dirtbike gear. I was a 150lb 14 yr old. my mother was 110 lbs.
They delayed treatment so multiple people, nurses, doctors, and hospital staff could all ask me what happened and compare if I told them the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’! This is just speculation, but I bet those groups (or their members) aren't always calmly and coolly trying to find the best policies protect the welfare of children. Instead they feel themselves on a k…
I work in child welfare in Australia. Not sure how it compares to the models in other countries, but we desperately try not to remove child from their families. There is very little evidence to support it improves outcomes for those children, and the removing itself is highly horrific for everyone involved. Even in the instances we remove children, we actively attempt to work with the parents to address the issue. We…
When I was getting ready to turn dad for the first time, I read a few books on pregnancy, children and parenting. My trust on medicine dropped substantially when I discovered that doctors have poor notion of statistics, so they take for granted improper studies results. I remember one classic one is the "no coffee when pregnant", the study says this causes problems, the test was performed on rats and by feeding them…
Has SIDS been linked to co-sleeping? I thought the risks of co-sleeping were more around accidentally rolling on or suffocating the baby.
That’s why the SIDS reduction measures are mostly ‘sleep on the back, in an empty crib, with nothing soft around’.
But it’s much easier to tell a grieving parent that there’s nothing they could have done, than that their baby got unlucky and suffocated to death.
https://3dc.org.uk/press-release-preliminary-study-of-uk-sha...
Louise Woodward was the nanny involved and the court case was televised. Was huge at the time I remember.