Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Post 6
(a) If I had only limited funds I would support a primary prevention program. This is because a primary program provides for the overall situation is structured to make injuries less likely. Primary prevention works to reduce every child's chance of injury. So if I only had limited funds I would want to work at the source of child maltreatment by trying to prevent it before it even happens. I also feel like primary prevention would help all children, rather than just specific cases like secondary and tertiary prevention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you said. Try to stop it before it even begins. Like you said above the other is specific cases and by placing more in primary it could hopefully prevent the cases.
ReplyDeleteI would love to stop it before it happens but wouldn't alot of money be spent on people that clearly do not need a primary program? Also, how do you create stable neighborhoods, family cohesion, and income equality, while eliminating financial instability, family isolation, and teenage pregnancy, which according to the text, are all componants of a primary prevention plan?
ReplyDeleteI agree that I would support primary prevention because if it is done successfully then there would be a lot less need for secondary or even tertiary prevention. If you stop more of the problems at the source then you don't have as many becom more serious.
ReplyDelete