|
|
|
|
|
|
by JulianMorrison
4711 days ago
|
|
|
fnordfnordfnord is right. I'll add: the article strongly implies that you were working with babies born into poverty, misdiagnosed and stigmatised as crack/alcohol babies. You saw the outcome; you failed to adequately question the etiology. Those babies now have a mental label in your memory, "crack babies", which you use to reason from. But the label itself is incorrect. |
|
|
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has some very recognizable symptoms that have nothing to do with being born into poverty. A very specific skull shape for the worst cases, for one.
Crack babies not included in this study, the ones that are premature (20 something percent of crack user births fall into this category compared to 3-4% of births in general), also have very characteristic physical problems.
It is not poverty or malnutrition or stress that comes from poverty causing these very specific families of disorders. The crack kids are not coming from poor rural areas. They are coming from the inner city from crack using mothers.