The fact that “crack babies” to me are not real is just mind
blowing. I remember this being a huge phenomenon and something that is still
referenced to very frequently. I am not sure if it was just because the media
got their hands no this story or what. What I do know is that this portrays
media in a very nice light at the very least.
According to an article written by Claire Coles, she writes
on the fact that the topic of research had very little backbone on it yet. The
research done was practically the only research done at the time. Looking
further into that research Claire Coles also saw that the research was completely
biased. It suggested that any negative attributes seen in these developing
children were attributed only to the crack that the mother used. Disregarding
the fact that babies are born with defects on a daily bases that had mothers
that did not used the substance. The majority of the mothers who were
originally tests also were under the influence of other drugs through the
course of their pregnancy. It is very rare to find a mother that has just
encountered one illicit substance without ever touching another. Which is one
of the many valid points brought up by Claire Coles.
Her last point I would like to briskly highlight is the
researchers themselves. Usually we, as consumers, consider our source to be
totally and completely subjective. If someone creates a project who is to say
it is not aloud to be published?
Coles, C. (2003).
Saying “goodbye” to the “crack baby”. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 15(5), 290-292. Doi: 10.1016/0892-0362(93)90024-I
No comments:
Post a Comment