Thursday, October 15, 2009
Post 6
(a) Thinking about maltreatment with limited funds, I would probably target my money towards secondary prevention. These funds would help those who were at the highest risk for abuse. Secondary treatment would eliminate the problem at the place it occurs. These funds would not be wasted on children who may not be at risk for maltreatment at all. Although Primary prevention would eliminate the risk for abuse initially, it should not be required for all children, especially those at the lowest risk. Secondary prevention would help the situation immediately and would help the specific groups in preventing further abuse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. The children at the most immediate risk need to be helped first. Our society is changing, becoming more violent and we constantly having to deal with new risks to keep our children safe.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to focus on primary prevention as well, but I believe there is no way to competely get rid of child maltreatment. Because of this it is important to focus on the aftermath for the children so the cyle can be ended.
ReplyDelete