|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Public and environmental health
→ More articles on Paediatrics
To the Editor: The recent editorial by Ring and Wenitong1 about interventions to prevent child abuse in the Northern Territory highlights the importance of treating the causes as well as the symptoms. This is true not only for children in remote Aboriginal communities, but for all children across Australia.
Child abuse and neglect is not a “new” national emergency. In 1966, Bialestock2 wrote in the Journal:
This situation should be considered as a national emergency as lethal to the lives of potential Australians as is a war. Immediate allocations of revenue to prevent this situation should be made if the[se children] . . . are to be allowed to grow into adults able to live in dignity and to work to contribute to our economy. We must not sentence these children to a lifelong need for State support.
There are no reliable prevalence data, but Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data indicate that there were 266 745 notifications of suspected child abuse and neglect in Australia last year, double the number 6 years ago. About one in five of these notifications were “substantiated”. Over 25 000 children are in state care at any one time, an 82% increase in the past decade.3 Our child protection systems are at risk of imploding under the strain. These systems are also potentially dangerous, with high levels of multiple placements contributing to the very high prevalence of mental health problems among children in care.4
The contributory factors are well known. Children with disabilities, chronic health problems, difficult temperaments and externalising behaviours, families where there is domestic violence and parental mental health or substance misuse, and communities characterised by poverty, unemployment, higher residential mobility, and a low adult to child ratio are at much greater risk.
We must close the gap between what we know and what we do. A public health approach is needed to reduce the risk factors, using population-based measures of child abuse and neglect, and tapping the potential of universal health, welfare and education services as platforms for primary and secondary prevention.
In relation to health services, the adequate provision of universal maternal and child health services, including sustained nurse home-visiting programs, is vital. General practitioners and mental health and drug treatment services using child-sensitive and family-centred approaches also have a major role to play. These interventions have also been shown to improve overall outcomes for children in education, health, and social and economic participation. Hence, economists have suggested that they are the most cost-effective intervention for a nation.5
Now is the time to ask whether governments are really serious about preventing child abuse and neglect.
1 Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
2 Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA.
melissaoATichr.uwa.edu.au
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2007 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377