Who has seen/read the article "Annals of Children's Welfare", "Baby Doe A political history of tragedy", written by Jill Lepore?
Page 55/56 specifically talks about the ACE Study, stating "The murky science of risk assessment relies on attempts to quantify 'trauma' and 'adversity,' which, on the one hand, are meaningful clinical concepts but, on the other hand, are proxy terms for poverty." And then the article reports "...there is good reason to worry that the ACE score is the new I.Q., a deterministic label that is being used to sort children into those who can be helped and those who can't. And, for all the knowledge gained, the medicalization of misery is yet another way to avoid talking about impoverishment, destitution, and inequality." "Adverse outcomes?" Spears asks. Adverse outcomes are what happen to poor kids."
Wow! I take exception to these statements. They poorly portray the ACE study, adversity and trauma, and resilience, as well as who experiences trauma and how it plays out in an individual's lifetime!
To read the entire article (I don't have time with grad school to pick through the entire thing), go to: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/01/baby-doe -- I am interested in everyone's take on this article! Usually The New Yorker is well known for checking its facts and presenting a balanced view. This article appears to be doing none of that!
Brenda Gregory Yuen