[The phenomenon of "scapegoating" within the family].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Relatively little research has considered the risk to siblings within maltreating families. The sample in the present study consisted of the 795 siblings from a cohort of 400 "index" children who had been referred to police child protection units in England for abuse and/or neglect. In 44% of families (valid cases), the index child was scapegoated, in 37% maltreatment was nonspecific to all siblings, and in 20% maltreatment was specifically directed at some but not all siblings. Scapegoated children were more likely to be older and to experience physical or sexual abuse, whereas younger children and index child referrals for neglect, emotional abuse, or mixed abuse were associated with risk to some or all siblings. Parental difficulties and family stressors increased the risk of maltreatment to all siblings. There was no evidence of increased risk to stepsiblings or children with difficulties, suggesting that the special victim model has limited application.
The harm reduction movement formed during a period in which social movements of the working class and the excluded were weak, neo-liberalism ideologically triumphant, and potential opposition movements were viewed as offering "tinkering" with the system rather than a total social alternative. This climate shaped and limited the perspectives, strategies, and tactics of harm reductionists almost everywhere. In many countries, this period was also marked by a "political economy of scapegoating" that often targeted drug users as the cause of social woes. This scapegoating took the form of "divide and rule" political initiatives by business and political leaderships to prevent social unrest in a long period of worldwide economic trends toward lowered profit rates and toward increasing income inequality. However, times have changed. Mass strikes and other labor struggles, opposition to the World Trade Organisation and other agencies of neo-liberalism, community-based protests against belt-tightening, and other forms of social unrest have been increasing in many countries. This opens up the possibility of new allies for the harm reduction movement, but also poses difficult problems for which we need to develop answers. On-the-ground experience in alliance formation needs to be combined with careful discussion of and research about what approaches work to convince other movements to work for and with harm reduction, and which approaches do not. Class differences within the harm reduction movement are likely to become more salient in terms of (a) creating internal tensions, (b) increasingly, opening up new ways in which working class harm reductionists can organize within their own communities and workplaces, and (c) producing different strategic orientations that will need to be discussed and debated. As a movement, we will need to find ways to accommodate and discuss differing perspectives, needs, and assessments of opportunities and threats without paralyzing harm reduction activities.
Some long-term, large-scale socio-economic changes may affect the politics of HIV and other emerging viruses such as hepatitis C. It is useful to ask why the potential peace dividend of the early 1990s failed to provide adequate resources for HIV-related social and medical service delivery in developed or developing nations. This failure can be understood by looking at long-term global economic trends and the pressures they put on governments and corporations. They have produced a period in which fundamental issues of political and economic structure are at stake and, often, the response is a divide-and-rule politics to promote stability. National politics differ in terms of the extent to which such a 'politics of scapegoating' is institutionalized and in terms of which groups are scapegoated. Groups such as drug injectors, gay and bisexual men and sex traders are particularly likely to be targeted both by the scapegoaters and by HIV. Given this framework, how should public health professionals and activists engaged in HIV-related issues respond? Under what circumstances should we orient efforts upwards towards corporate, political or bureaucratic leaders? Under what circumstances, and how, should we orient towards popular forces? Relatedly, we need to consider an issue we often ignore: What do we have to offer potential allies? That is, in terms of their goals, philosophies and needs, why should they ally with us?
This study explored psychologists' perceptions of confidentiality violations. One hundred ninety-five psychologists answered questionnaires about a vignette regarding a male therapist accused of violating the confidentiality of a female client. The vignette varied on the following variables: (a) Confidential information was conveyed to either an insurance company or another client, (b) the therapist's account of the violation included either an excuse or a justification, and (c) scapegoating was included or not included in the account. The insurance condition and excuse condition produced more lenient judgements of the violations. However, excuses elicited more negative judgments of the therapist. Scapegoating generally elicited more negative judgments. Differences in the recipient of confidential information and the accounts given for violations have an impact on psychologists' perceptions of confidentiality violations.