3.3.3.4 Historical and Modern Parallels

Because this Chapter is about proposing Universal Theories that might be applicable when supporting people in deep distress, I’d like, just as an exercise, to explore parallels between what happened in the past, described in 3.3.3.2 and 3.3.3.3, and what is happening now.

I am doing this here because I often wonder if the high walls of the mental asylums and other institutions have been replaced by the equally high but less visible and more benign psychological walls of our modern bureaucratic institutions.

In the context of children who need protection, who exhibit behaviour that is unmanageable for parents and teachers, and going down the path of crime and ultimately imprisonment, I think deeply about the outcomes that result from such children being assessed, and found to have some condition that interferes with or retards their normal development.

As you read the next post I’d like you to remember that when a child doesn’t fit in, or develop normally, or learn quickly enough, or exhibits unacceptable or destructive behaviour, the system will almost always assume that the fault lies within the child, not the institution.

Now I am not going to draw conclusions here on the efficacy or otherwise of such assessments, diagnoses or prescriptions, I am merely doing this to encourage you to think about it a bit – as I do!

Parents, grandparents, teachers, and others genuinely concerned about a child who is in distress – but particularly parents – experience pain, anxiety and often frustration. A quick-fix is a very seductive option to take away their suffering. I gave examples of two such options in a previous post that would have been common in decades past in Ireland.

Now there are so many parallels between the historical quick fix solutions to emotional distress and the current quick fix solutions, that I find it impossible to ignore them.

For example:

~ Children’s circumstances caused by possible State or institutional neglect such as homelessness, poor accommodation, inadequate schooling, inadequate healthcare etc. are rarely if ever subject to urgent action. They may be enquired into and some meaningless surveys and reports may be produced. But action? No!

~ The State or the medical establishment don’t see anything wrong with medicating children to get them to behave better.  (Or if they do – I don’t hear them saying it). Sometimes parents may be entitled to some sort of monetary gain if their child has some condition or other.

~ Because practitioners are short of time and resources they may be unwilling to journey with parents. As a result they may unwittingly discourage dialogue about how they might be true and trusted partners in their children’s healing with necessary supports to do that.

~ Practitioners’ consciences are salved as they conclude that we’ve done all we can.

~ The intention is that the suffering of the child, the parents and, perhaps, other members of the family will be eased without (or with minimal) exploration of what is going on within the family, in particular the parents’ behaviour, circumstances and/or the parental relationship. (Sometimes the parent(s) might be crying out for help themselves but their cries are not heard).

~ Ultimately, if a child’s behaviour is so troubled that he cannot remain in the family home any longer, parents may hand over the healing of their child to an institution such as a children’s home, with the full agreement of the state.  Sometimes this might alleviate the suffering of the child, and, indeed, contribute significantly to his healing. However, in many scenarios, the suffering of the child may be higher because the institution, with the best will in the world, is almost always a poor substitute to a secure home [1].

Are the above points familiar to anyone?

Do you agree or disagree?

Is this the best we can do?

[1]. I have known many vulnerable children from families that struggled to cope, and for whom the care home was the first institution on the road that ultimately led to imprisonment. 

There is now substantial evidence that the Mother and Baby Homes and Industrial Schools were driven partly by commercial interests.  While they brought savings to the State at the time they have cost the State a lot of money in later years.

This brings me to a parallel between decades past and what happens nowadays that, once again, is too obvious to ignore.

The reality is that the current tendency to medicate children makes profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Of course, there is no evidence (that I know of anyway) to say that there is a direct link between the profit that the industry makes and the time-saving convenience of placing the solution outside the family.

Rather, I believe, we tend to sleep-walk down the path of least resistance, believing the myth that it is less expensive to buy medicine and medicate, than hire and train workers to engage in genuine long term enquiry and support with all the family, in a holistic way, and struggle for a solution that will be truly win-win for all.

People like me have built careers in the helping profession so I know from experience how tempting it is for practitioners to go along with the mainstream and look externally for solutions to acute behavioural and emotional problems, (and even poor performance in school or other areas) rather than build a relationship over a long time so that dialogue can be entered into to tease out the problem systemically.

But – and to conclude these posts on Historical and Modern Parallels – the question I ask is, like the Mother and Baby Homes and Industrial Schools, while pharmacological solutions appear a lot less expensive now, will they be far more expensive in the long term?