Recently, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, a strong supporter of Canada’s public health care system, decided to undergo heart surgery in the United States. When asked why he did not get treatment in Canada, he responded that he wanted to “get the best possible health care,” and “wanted to get in, get out fast, [and] get back to work in a short period of time.” These are damning words, and yet the Premier still claims to have “utmost confidence” in our health care system.
This mentality is symptomatic of a national derangement: we love our health care until we are sick and actually need it. At that point, we face the reality that the Canadian system is deeply flawed and inferior to American-style private health care.
Sick Canadians are confronted by a largely irresponsive, and at times inaccessible, bureaucratic health care monster. Simply finding a family doctor can take months, if not years, and wait times and wait lists for important surgeries are notoriously long. Premier Williams himself implied that getting quick treatment means “jumping a line.” It’s a testament to the failure of the system that many Canadians flee to America’s private health care system. In some cases, the government even sends patients to private hospitals in the United States. The Hamilton Spectator reports that Ontario alone paid for 12,000 of its residents’ medical cases in the United States in 2009 (with a projected cost of $164.3 million in 2010)!
Many Canadians imperviously respond that at least our health care is “free.” Nothing in life is free. We pay every day in exorbitantly high taxes. Example: my single mother makes about $48,000 a year, and the state plunders her for roughly $12,000 through federal, provincial, municipal, and property taxes. For what? To support social leeches like substance abusers and the homeless? That money could be used to buy cheaper and more effective private insurance, and at least those with unhealthy habits do not have to explain themselves to other taxpayers.
There are problems inherent to the public system because it produces a perverse incentive structure. First, doctors are in such high demand and receive such relatively low per-patient funding, that instead of competing for patients, they rather try to maximize the number of patients they see, but the quality of care does not improve. Second, patients want to get as much out of the system as possible. Under a public system, the state and taxpayers inevitably consider special needs children, the elderly, and the chronically sick as socially undesirable burdens on the system. Finally, fiscal constraints degenerate into a pretext for the government to stick its nose into how much I drink, eat, and smoke.
But it gets even worse: the health care system is morally indefensible. Conscientious objectors to abortion, for example, are not only forced to tolerate the practice, but are also coerced into paying for these $800 procedures through taxes. Health care in many provinces also funds such “life-saving” procedures as sex-change operations for a mere $20-30,000.
The entire health care system is predicated on confiscating resources from the reasonably healthy population, rendering them dependent on the state for medical treatment, and then screwing them over when they get seriously sick.
Some opponents of private health care allege that the poor die on the streets. The reality is that any private system is de facto a two-tiered system, because hospitals cannot refuse someone in need. If hippies and timid professors are so afraid of the private system, they should band together and form their own, social-justice-equality-peace-and-love health insurance. Oh wait, that would be like an evil insurance company maaan!
The raison d’être of the Canadian health care system is to redistribute money and wealth, which, in practice, restricts freedom and reduces efficiency and quality of care. Canadians simply cannot afford their “free” health care because it is predicated on ideology instead of the value of their health.
Comments
When accused of supporting a two-tier health care system, Preston Manning replied that there are already three tiers: those who can use personal connections in the health system to jump lines, those who can afford to go to the US for treatment, and the rest of us.
While there are problems with the current system, shutting it down is not the way to go. The critical shortage of doctors in Ontario is not the result of intrinsic problems with public health, but of our economy being plundered by equalization to fund better health care in other provinces (coughQuebec and Nova Scotiacough) and the stranglehold of the Ministry of Education on how many doctors our med schools can put out each year. Letting universities open up unsubsidized you-pay-the-whole-cost spaces in med schools would hurt accessibility, but at least we'd get some freaking doctors.
Many of the inefficiencies of our current system are due to a lack of disincentives for abuse. People who make frivolous visits to doctors or hospitals should be fined.
The bottom line is that, as the Supreme Court has already ruled, access to a waiting list isn't access to health care, and access to health care is a right. Whatever we do to fix the current system, people ought to be able to buy whatever health care services they desire on their own dime.
Mar 15, 2010 at 09:02 PM
As an American living in Canada, I can only assume that the author of this article has no actual idea about the cost of privatized health care in the US. The average cost for a family, as reported in an article in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm) pegs the yearly price of health insurance at $13,375. This is outside of state and federal income taxes. Also, the simple fact is that health care in the United States is still mostly government funded. Medicare and Medicaid together ensure around one half of Americans with health insurance (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html).
Mar 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM
And what happens if your single mother loses her $48,000/year job, Daniel? That's right, she becomes a 'social leech' just like me. And I guess that's good enough reason for her not to be able to see a doctor, right?
Brilliant article, send my regards to your classist, sexist, trans-phobic conscience.
Mar 16, 2010 at 01:14 AM
Well, if she didn't have to pay over 25% of her income in taxes, she would have been able to save some money in case of an emergency like that.
Plus, did you forget about Medicaid? Daniel is not arguing for an exclusively private health care, just a happy medium that doesn't screw over the average person.
P.S. Passionately hateful attacks are so last year, don't you think?
Mar 16, 2010 at 01:49 AM
No way dude.
As an American living in Canada I can tell you, the American system only works for the people who can afford it, and that is an increasingly smaller group of people every year. The Canadian system may not be perfect (no system is), but at least everyone knows that they can afford quality care, they won't die from a preventable death.
In the U.S. it is very different... our system falls further into disrepair every year. We already have the highest infant mortality rate of any country in the industrialized world. Add to that the incredible costs... after I graduated from my grad school, I had a few month period before I could start my next job (in Europe). The cost of extending my coverage from grad school was totally unaffordable to me as a middle class American. Instead I had to take out a cheap "disaster" plan... basically, they don't pay anything unless you get cancer or nearly die in a car crash or something like that. Any check-ups, basic medical care, any of that stuff is out-of-pocket, even WITH coverage in this case. Of course that's not what I wanted to do, but there are very few options in the U.S. system because the insurance companies all have monopolies or near-monopolies... and ironically, in the U.S. the government still ends up paying for about half the medical bills in the country.
Basically private insurance is a joke. It only works if your wealthy or have very reliable employment. Outside of that, you're not gonna get serious coverage unless the gov't picks you up on medicaid or (if you're lucky) medicare.
All this totally leaves aside the nightmare scenarios... you pay all your life for coverage, and then, when you really need your insurance company to pay for chemotherapy, major illness, something like that... they will scour your medical history, and they will drop if they can find any consistency on your forms, even if it is just a typo. They really do that. Why wouldn't they? If they drop you at that point, they make more money. And their primary function is not to provide healthcare... it is to make money.
Mar 16, 2010 at 03:37 AM
To echo Savannah's last point --
Daniel, you say that, in Canada, 'patients want to get as much out of the system as possible.'
I'd rather that, over a system that wants to get as much (money) out of patients as possible.
Mar 16, 2010 at 11:20 AM
To the American living in Canada, you said, "The Canadian system may not be perfect (no system is), but at least everyone knows that they can afford quality care, they won't die from a preventable death." and follow up by saying, "Instead I had to take out a cheap "disaster" plan [in the U.S.]... basically, they don't pay anything unless you get cancer or nearly die in a car crash or something like that.". That is you could afford quality care in the U.S. and under your plan won't die from a "preventable death". Obviously, in all kindness, you seem to be fundentally confused by your own words. You promote an aspect of Canadian healthcare, and, maybe accidentally, provide that it's the same in the U.S.
A large reason why the American private healthcare system costs what it does, in a single visit, is because you don't have to wait weeks, months, or years to address, according to your definition ,a minor health issue. Personally, I'd rather pay the extra money and get treatment, in most cases in the U.S., the same day. I would also like to ask you to provide data for your following claims, "but there are very few options in the U.S. system because the insurance companies all have monopolies or near-monopolies... and ironically, in the U.S. the government still ends up paying for about half the medical bills in the country.".
"And their primary function is not to provide healthcare... it is to make money.". Now, to help you understand, providing healthcare is a business. And, the last time I checked, operating a business is largely about making money. In free enterprise capitalism, people can't just GIVE your business money, you must EARN it. In private practice this is earned by offering qualified care, accessibility, quick treatment, etc. Most seem to forget in the U.S. our BUSINESS' must compete for our money, inherently creating reasonable costs to compete, difference in choice of ethical practices, and an opportunity to decide for yourself who you think has EARNED the right to be your family doctor.
I live in the U.S., make less than $20,000 a year, and still afford great coverage that I am incredibly pleased with. The fundamental issue with Americans is that most don't treat their investment into their own health with much conviction. Many would rather spend money on video games, movies, hair, nails, car accessories, etc. Which is absolutely fine in our free republic, but is not advised. That is the beauty of America however, we are empowered to lead our own destiny, and choose for ourselves. If you would like universal healthcare, which is inherently a socialist view, then it seems to me you'd rather have socialism over democracy, in which case you should be spending your time on changing that, not concern yourself with claiming we need to provide socialst idealogy in a democratic government, I'm sure you see the conundrum.
Mar 16, 2010 at 12:19 PM
First, I have no idea what Shaun's on about. Socialism and democracy are perfectly compatible...that's why it's called "social democracy".
I'd like to respond to this article in two ways: First, with a pragmatic argument and then with a moral one.
From a pragmatic point of view, it simply doesn't make sense to describe America's healthcare system as better. First, let's compare the effectivness of the two healthcare systems in actually providing care (that is, I believe the primary purpose of a healthcare system?). Canada's life expectancy (80.4) is more than two years longer than America's (77.4). Infant mortality in the US is 6.37 compared to 5.4 in Canada. Still not convinced?
In terms of cost, our system (which provides 100% care to EVERYONE regardless of socio-economic status) costs 10% of our GDP whereas the American system, in which tens of millions of people have absolutely NO coverage, costs a whopping 16 percent of GDP. It would be far more accurate to describe America's system as a big, inefficient bureacuracy as you've done with ours. So that's a pragmatic argument in favour of our system: we live longer, for less money.
Second is a moral argument. When people argue for the "freedom" to pay for healthcare, they're actually arguing for the freedom to get superior healthcare for those who can afford to pay. This flies south of the border because of the predatory nature of American capitalism with its rampant individualism and libertarianism but I see it as fundamentally incompatible with a caring and just society. The argument that some people should have the ability to get better care than others simply because they have more money creates a system in which only a select few receive good care, from the best doctors who are at the top of the tier because that's where the money is. That isn't the kind of society I want to live in.
I think it's important not to confuse economic freedom with democracy...they're fundamentally different things.
And lastly, as a sidenote, it has been made public that Danny Williams could easily have gotten the same treatment, in the same timeframe, in Canada. So there's your superior American healthcare system.
Mar 16, 2010 at 02:38 PM
I am quoting Shaun in the following paragraph:
To the American living in Canada, you said, "The Canadian system may not be perfect (no system is), but at least everyone knows that they can afford quality care, they won't die from a preventable death." and follow up by saying, "Instead I had to take out a cheap "disaster" plan [in the U.S.]... basically, they don't pay anything unless you get cancer or nearly die in a car crash or something like that.". That is you could afford quality care in the U.S. and under your plan won't die from a "preventable death". Obviously, in all kindness, you seem to be fundentally confused by your own words. You promote an aspect of Canadian healthcare, and, maybe accidentally, provide that it's the same in the U.S.
Uh, what you wrote made no sense at all. What I said was that in my individual case I was able to take a kind of "disaster" plan that covers little other than extreme cases. Again, that only applied to my individual case in Texas. It could very well be that a lower income person would not even be able to afford this cheap option, nothing I said precludes that. Also, someone in a similar situation but in a state where the insurance is higher (parts of new England for example) it might well be that even a middle income person between jobs could not afford just the cheap disaster plan. In any case, if someone has trouble getting the rent money together, it's understand they probably wouldn't bother with coverage at all... the only affordable coverage is useless in 99.9% of cases for a young healthy person. And since the risk pool decreases by not having healthy people in the system, it drives up the costs for everyone else. Canada avoids this problem by just covering everyone.
Of course, all this leaves aside the nightmare scenario that I mentioned in my last paragraph above... you pay your premiums all your life, then when you get cancer or something your insurance company can drop you for something as arbitrary as a type (again this REALLY happens in the U.S.). Then you either die or go into bankruptcy if you at least have some cash saved up.
So your statement:
That is you could afford quality care in the U.S. and under your plan won't die from a "preventable death".
is totally false and it seems you just ignored my last paragraph in order to make it.
I'll further point out that during this time between jobs I had an MRI done on my leg at one point... this is fairly expensive and even though I was paying insurance premiums, with the high deductible it was still cheaper for me to pay for the MRI out-of-pocket. Again I was covered but it was totally useless. I basically paid twice. Not to mention when I left Texas the plan was no good, so if I had had a car wreck or something on the interstate, once again, I wasn't covered.
The rest of what you wrote is just ideology with no practical value so I won't bother to respond to it. Ideology bores me. Go ahead and call me a socialist just because I won't agree with every word you say. yawn
Mar 16, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Ugh, apologies for the mismatched fonts...
Mar 16, 2010 at 11:01 PM
To the original author who is apparently both transphobic and against a woman's right to choose, I'll point out that a sex change operation does not nearly cost $20-30,000... more like $7,000. Trans people are a small part of the population so the cost to the average taxpayer is almost completely negligible. And, despite your condescending use of quotes, it is indeed a life-saving operation for many individuals who are essentially torn between what their mind says and what their body says about who they are. Sorry if you're uncomfortable with this but, I dunno, grow up?
As for the abortion issue, well, I don't think anyone is enthusiastic about this procedure but again it is sometimes necessary to save the woman's life. In the further case of the elective procedure, I believe in a woman's right to make the best choice for herself.
Mar 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Also, I reject the assumption that the quality of health care is directly proportional to the cost. There is a myth floating around Canada that Americans get better health care because they pay much more for it.
Evidence suggests that there is, in fact, no direct correlation between quality an cost of health care. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/health/14insure.html)
Therefore, the argument that Americans that do have insurance (and there is about 10% of the population that is uninsured, not to mention the chronically under-insured) pay more for much better health care than that which is available in Canada is false.
Mar 17, 2010 at 09:57 AM
Just to briefly respond to some comments:
-The real choice is not between public v. private, but between public v. two-tier. A possible model is Switzerland, where health insurance is mandatory, but there are public, private, and hybrid plans. This would permit Canadians a more affordable option than traveling to the United States, reducing wait times, increasing freedom of choice, and save lives!
-Even if you dislike the private system, the public system needs, as Rishi mentions, disincentives for abuse. Again, Switzerland may be a model; patients pay part of their treatment when they see the doctor I believe.
-Arguments on policy and ideology are interesting, but name-calling brings down the discussion. I don't see how the argument is sexist, 'classist', and 'transphobic' (I didn't even know those last two were words!).
If someone wants to get a sex-change operation it should be none of my business; but once it is paid for by taxpayers, its public funding is fair game for debate.
Furthermore, I pointed out that some Canadians object to abortion and I personally consider it morally wrong to force them to financially support such a practice. That is sexist? What about pro-life women, do you consider them sexist? A pro-life person would argue that they support the rights of an innocent child who cannot speak for him or herself. Does that make you (presuming you are pro-abortion), anti-child?
Mar 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM
As an American living in Canada, I can only say that y'all don't know what you have.
This is by far the stupidest article I've ever read in The Varsity. "Social leeches"? Give me a break.
Mar 17, 2010 at 02:29 PM
I agree, Jonathan. That terminology constitutes hate speech and is not a form of argumentation. I am very disappointed that it was allowed to go to print.
Mar 17, 2010 at 03:26 PM
Daniel:
To respond to a few of your responses:
"-Arguments on policy and ideology are interesting, but name-calling brings down the discussion. I don't see how the argument is sexist, 'classist', and 'transphobic' (I didn't even know those last two were words!)."
I believe that you were called sexist for purporting to deny women the fundamental right to make choices concerning their bodies. I don't agree that this is necessarily sexism, most often it is well-intentioned but misinformed moral outrage. Describing one who espouses this position as 'sexist' is not 'name calling', however - it is a valid opinion of the position.
The term 'classist' is not a name - as in name calling. Classism is the discrimination against a certain economic stratum. Your article openly discriminates against the poor - positing that they should not be given medical care - thus accusation of classism.
As far as I can see you did not make any derogatory comments about transexuals, but simply intimated that sex-change operations are not life-saving, and should not be paid for by tax-dollars. This view is debatable, but I do not find it to be explicitly indicative of 'transphobia.'
"Furthermore, I pointed out that some Canadians object to abortion and I personally consider it morally wrong to force them to financially support such a practice"
Again, I don't believe that this is an inherently sexist view, and many Canadians do indeed object to abortion. Women's rights to their bodies are not something that can be taken away, however. What would be morally wrong would be to refuse women a fundamental right because of the views of anti-abortionists.
I will point out, finally, that calling the homeless and drug addicts 'social leeches' is certainly and uncontroversially 'name calling' - and, as you correctly observe, 'brings down the discussion.'
Mar 17, 2010 at 03:58 PM
For the record I don't necessarily consider it to be a transphobic view to say that the tax pool is not the appropriate revenue base for sex change operations, although I do disagree with the argument.
What I do consider to be transphobic is the use of the word life-saving in quotation marks, as if the question is a joke and such people are not to be taken seriously. I think one can state the opinion about taxpayers not funding the operation in a different manner. And I think some people might take the author's argument more seriously in that case.
And yes the word transphobia is a real word, even if you're spellchecker doesn't pick it up... homophobia would have fallen into the same category at one time in the past. It is a real issue; transwomen in particular are one of the groups most vulnerable to discrimination and violence in North America, and I have personally seen evidence of that here in Toronto.
Mar 17, 2010 at 07:14 PM
If only the conversation could be this civilized south of the border.
Mar 17, 2010 at 08:55 PM
'The real choice is not between public v. private, but between public v. two-tier. A possible model is Switzerland, where health insurance is mandatory, but there are public, private, and hybrid plans.'
Such models only work when disparities between the wealthy and the poor are small. (Like in Switzerland, where the the large majority have virtually equal access to private/hybrid insurance schemes.)
In Canada, vast disparities in income necessarily produce differential access to health coverage, in particular the 'private' variety.
I can't believe we're still having these discussions.
sigh
Mar 17, 2010 at 11:40 PM
As an American and Canadian health professional, who has worked in both countries (I was a clinic director in New Orleans), this Op Ed is very naive.
Americans have a very unequal health care system – if you got the cash, or live in a state with good welfare, it can be great. BUT, if you are like many Americans with so-so health insurance or no health insurance, or are a senior on Medicare but can’t find a specialist who accepts Medicare patients, good luck! Getting adequate health care for a serious medical condition then is an extreme sport!
In Canada, we have suffered from health care funding cutbacks. The government has under-funded health care – resulting in shortages of staff. The waiting lines for some (but not most) treatments can be too long. But I would strongly disagree that the staff and the service is less than quality compared to the U.S.. Friends and family members that have recently gone through cancer and surgical treatments in the hospitals here have remarked how well they were cared for.
In Canada, the system is so simple. Everyone is insured, therefore treatment is available, and no doctor or hospital needs to fear not getting paid for treating someone. Billing is very simple. Malpractice is limited, therefore there are less unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments.
In the US, treatment is conditional on your insurance, and from the providers’ perspective, many people coming through the door will not be compensated for the actual costs of the treatment because they don’t have adequate insurance, or the health bureaucracy is underpaying compensation. Billing is complex and costly. Malpractice is out of control, and not only does that drive up costs, but patients suffer tests and procedures only because if the doctor ends up in court, they can prove they “did everything”. Laws prevent people from buying cheaper drugs from Canada, and prevent states bargaining the prices of drugs like Canadian provinces regularly do.
U.S. healthcare is the most expensive in the world – yet Americans have worse mortality and morbidity than Canadians and Europeans. How is that?
Mar 18, 2010 at 09:49 PM
"For what? To support social leeches like substance abusers and the homeless?"
Daniel, the above quote was quite diassapointing to me.
I assumed (incorrectly) that being raised by a single mother would have made you more compassionate and open towards the lesser fortunate. I would recommend actually speaking with a homeless person, or someone with a substance abuse disorder before making statements such as the one above.
What you may not know is that during the 20th century many single mothers were frequently looked upon as "social leeches" and many were institutionalized in "Insane Asylums" in Canada.
Check out the wonderful piece below for more details of Canada's murky past.
"As a result, significant numbers of women, from the 1930s onwards, were institutionalized at Cobourg and elsewhere for exhibiting what was viewed as deviant sexual behaviour, i.e. engaging in prostitution, having pre-marital sex or giving birth to children out of wedlock." (Lykke de la Cour, Health and Place. Vol. 3, No. 2. Pp. 131-141. 1997)
We have a public healthcare system so that people like your single mother do not have to become homeless because of healthcare expenses. We understand now that substance abuse is a real organic disease with many genetic predisposing factors, and that many homeless people are afflicted by mental health disorders. Fortunately, being a single mother is not a disease any more.
Please be careful next time you label a vulnerable, often times very sick person, with a horrific and degrading title like "social leech".
Mar 18, 2010 at 11:25 PM
The article was written to stimulate constructive debate on how to improve our healthcare system. There are serious problems and reform is necessary. Instead of denial and defensiveness, how about ideas?
I did not anticipate some readers being so sensitive. Just because something you read offends you, does not make it 'hate speech.'
Fortunately, in Canada we have freedom of speech. That means you might read opinions you disagree with in a newspaper and not everything you hear will be politically correct. Some people, like myself, argue for more personal responsibility, less government intrusion into our lives, and more freedom of choice. Although there are comments I disagree with, I respect other opinions and enjoy reading the comments.
Mar 19, 2010 at 01:26 AM
*Forgot to put my name
Mar 19, 2010 at 01:27 AM
Tarek, the article you cite does not refer to single divorced mothers and, therefore, has no application to Daniel's example. I think there is a communication problem here. By 'social leeches', Daniel is referring to the able-bodied individuals who choose to not work and spend welfare checks on drugs and alcohol, thus abusing tax-payers' money.
Mar 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Daniel,
Hate speech is a that which discriminates against a group of people based upon some mutual characteristic - race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, class, political views, etc...
We do have freedom of speech in Canada. We also have freedom from hate-speech. Your slandering of the homeless and drug addicts not only incites hatred, but goes one step further when you argue for the revocation of one of their basic rights - the right to necessary medical care regardless of economic means.
Actually advocating that the rights of a group of people should be taken away (in this case resulting in many deaths) qualifies as hate speech under the most lax definition of the term.
If you argue for more personal responsibility then you will take responsibility for your hateful writing, and apologize in the next issue.
If you believe in less government intrusion into our lives than you must believe that we have a rather sizeable democratic deficit (in a functioning democracy the government is not a thing apart from the people, and thus cannot intrude upon them) - I agree, but what is needed is greater popular participation in governance, not handing healthcare over to corporations. Corporations, unlike government, cannot be voted out of office, and are far more given to intrusions into our lives. What is more, the Idea that profit-making entities can provide cheaper service than popularly-accountable, non-profit making health providers (like governments) is fundamentally flawed. It also raises the question "why should we let corporations (or anyone) make profit providing us healthcare when we can do it ourselves, through the mechanism of government, without paying extra to make profits for a third-party?"
If you believe in freedom of choice then you shouldn't consider it immoral for women to have rights over their bodies.
I respect other opinions as well. I cannot in good conscience, however, respect or legitimate hate-speech and advocacy for the repealing of fundamental rights.
Mar 19, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Enid, A woman who gives birth to a child out of wedlock is a single mother. The fact that they weren't divorced, doesn't change the fact that they are a single mother.
I was using an example to show how the definition what our society defines as a "social leech" is dynamic and changes over time. I hope one day that the homeless people in Canada are treated with the same amount of respect that single mothers are accorded today.
I have been fortunate enough to work with homeless individuals, as well as people suffering from addiction. I'll end this comment with this following common scenario I have heard countless times (too many times) from "social leeches".
If you grew up in a home where you were sexually abused, beaten, had very little income, and lived in a violent neighbourhood. You may have witnessed your mother beaten, or a friend violently murdered. Had no one to talk with or to support you, and the only way you knew how to escape your horrible life was to use drugs. You should not be blamed. It's called empathy.
If you or I were placed in that same situation, using drugs to escape the emotional and psychological pain doesn't sound so absurd. Denying this fact in my opinion is merely a false sense of superiority. Not everyone who endures horrific trauma or a terrible childhood becomes homeless or an addict, but I am certainly not surprised and don't blame them if they do.
I would be happy to pass along research on the linkage between abuse, trauma and subsequent addiction in adulthood. There are 1000s of wonderful studies illustrating this correlation that are easy to find.
Mar 19, 2010 at 07:50 PM
Tarek,
Excellent post. I think it would be very beneficial to this discussion for you to post some of the links you mentioned. I would be very interested and I think Daniel would too.
Mar 19, 2010 at 09:08 PM
This one is from Ontario, large study with 1000's of patients, summary of abstract below. Study was also conducted at U of T! Provides tonnes of references. Good place to start.
Title: Childhood abuse and lifetime psychopathology in a community sample.
MacMillan HL. Fleming JE. Streiner DL. Lin E. Boyle MH. Jamieson E. Duku EK. Walsh CA. Wong MY. Beardslee WR. American Journal of Psychiatry. 158(11):1878-83, 2001 Nov. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] UI: 11691695
"OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed lifetime psychopathology in a general population sample and compared the rates of five psychiatric disorder categories between those who reported a childhood history of either physical or sexual abuse and those who did not. . . CONCLUSIONS: A history of abuse in childhood increases the likelihood of lifetime psychopathology; this association appears stronger for women than men. "
Mar 19, 2010 at 09:28 PM
@Luke Savage: Amen!
Mar 23, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Post a Comment