If I could only afford to support one prevention program regarding maltreatment I would choose primary prevention. Primary prevention make injuries less likely by promoting conditions that reduce everyone’s chance of injury. This prevention program would end up costing less money in the long run because it has been proven that reactive healthcare cost far more then proactive healthcare. In addition, primary prevention reduces everyone’s chance of injury, not just people of a certain SES or people with healthcare, which would benefit far more people.
I would target my money in parental education programs, especially for parents who have high risk factors for becoming an abusive parent. With this education program parents could learn positive parenting skills, as well as obtain alterative punishment strategies in hopes to prevent maltreatment before it starts. I believe that education is the one great equalizer, uneducated parents raise their children the only way they know how, which is typically how they were raised. If we can stop this perpetuating cycle a great deal of abuses could be prevented.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I like your thoughts. You have good reasoning and strong statements to support it. It will be interesting to see how one would target parents who have high risk factors for becomming abusive without offending anyone.
I agree with you also. and you do have some strong thoughts and reasoning to back you up. I think with primary being more focused on it would be a lot better and how the parnets would go about all the abusive and what they would think.
I really liked how you pointed out that reactive healthcare cost is more costly than proactive. I believe parental edu. programs were a good choice because parents are the original primary prevention program of thier children.
I agree that the cycle of abuse needs to be broken. Not only will it benefit future generations, but those formerly abused will benefit by dealing with their past and what they went through.
Post a Comment