Thank you Jane, for providing access to Finkelhor's article and thank you Martha for your very adept reply! I really understood Finkelhor's points about generalizing the screening of patients in a medical setting for ACEs. He is looking at it through a clinical lens, wanting it to be connected with outcomes that are going to help patients, and filters that are going to screen out those who would not benefit from the information. I look at ACEs screening totally differently, because I am a mental health care provider. When someone comes in who has been traumatized or shows symptoms that may be connected with trauma, I want to figure that out. I don't want to symptomize (I know...new word) trauma by diagnosing someone who is acting out of a traumatic experience with very normal and natural reactions, with a DSM label! There's too many kids who have experienced trauma who are now labeled with ADHD or worse. In using genograms, which are family-based diagrams showing family dysfunction, cutoffs, triangulation, divorce, abuse, neglect, and other trauma, we are actually mapping out ACEs for the children of those who experienced or are currently struggling with trauma. For those who don't have kids yet, we can build up the adult's understanding of how trauma affects the brain, affects chiildren, and impacts a life's trajectory (without resilience building). We can educate about how to build resilience, empower someone who is newly traumatized, and we can help someone who comes from a dysfunctional abusive family understand the "normalization" that occurs -- so that doesn't get passed down. I don't have an issue with Finkelhor's paper. I know that medical professionals have an entirely different set of guidelines, rules, and ethics to work with. I'll just be glad when we, as a country, move to unite the medical with the mental health professionals and treat the whole person (which is what ACEs research and education is all about!).