Please respond to the following:
If you had limited funds and could only afford to support a primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention program regarding maltreatment (chapter 8), where would you target your money? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I hate being like everybody else, but I too would invest my limited funds into primary prevention programs. The reason being is that I always want my money to have the largest impact as possible. If I invested my money into second or tertiary prevention programs, my money would help a few people at best. However, if I invested my funds into primary prevention programs I would be getting the most out of my money, and to me helping fifty people makes me feel better than helping five (whatever the numbers the point is the same). This of course leads to the question, what about those do not get helped by the primary prevention and need more help. This question can only be satisfied by throwing more money at the situation. So, if one has an unlimited amount of money they wish to donate we can solve this problem. If not, we need to focus our resources in the most productive manor, that is, pursue the course of action that yields the best cost-benefit analysis. Most likely the best course of action (in my opinion) is most of our money needs to go to primary prevention with some going to secondary and a little to tertiary. However, while answering the question which would I support if I could only support one, it would be primary. Another reason I like primary prevention is that it is the only one of the three that looks toward the future, and that is how real progress is made.
Post a Comment