How to distinguish between neglect and deprivation abuse

Resident: Adam J. Bottrill
Date: 23AAPR10
Region: Providence
Article title: How to distinguish between neglect and deprivation abuse
Author(s): Golden, M. H. et al.
Journal: Archives of Disease in Childhood
Page #s: pp. 105-107
Year: 2003; 88
Major topic: Neglect and deprivation abuse
Minor topic(s): NA
Type of Article: Discussion paper

Main Purpose: Assist the practitioner in clearly distinguishing between cases of neglect and deprivation abuse.
Overview of method of research: N/A

Key points in the article discussion:

I. General:
A. The authors reject completely the idea that these two situations are linked.
B. Neglect: is a non-deliberate failure to supply needs of the child.
C. Deprivation: is the deliberate or malicious failure to supply the needs of a child.
1. forced isolation (imprisonment), food deprivation (starvation), witholding love (emotional abuse)

II. Special features of neglect:
A. Only the person responsible for the child’s needs can be neglectful.... but ANYONE can be abusive.
B. Neglect can only be determined based on the needs of a “normal child”
C. Each level of society may have a different interpretation of what constitutes neglect.
D. Neglect is much more common and is directly related to knowledge and awareness of caretaker.
E. There is universally some degree of neglect by ALL caretakers.
F. Independent person can not be neglected.
G. Severe neglect warrants intervention but is usually due to impoverished circumstances.
H. Can also be a result of the failure of a child to signal his needs.
I. Typical for a malnourished child to have a passive flat affect. Cry is an important part of a “normal child.’
1. This passivity can lead to even further neglect because of lack of signaling “need.”

III. Wider picture:
A. Not only individuals have the ability to neglect.
1. Society, government, organizations
2. The conundrum of circumcision

IV. What to do:
A. Education of both “carers” and society.

Assessment of article: Informative but not really “Scientific.”