So I was in my anatomy class last night, and my teacher was talking about a study done in London before ethics laws and such, at an orphanage. Half the babies were put in a control group who got held while feeding, loved, touched, nuzzled, etc. And the other half were left mostly unattended. Bottles propped for feeding, no eye contact, no speaking, no cuddling, nuzzling. She said most of those babies died from failure to thrive. I can't find the actual study, but I found this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/how-orphanages-kill-babie_b_549608.html that is similar to what she was saying. My question is, are all failure to thrive cases caused by "lack of love" from parents? I'm assuming they're not, but it is strange.
They have recreated it a bunch with chimps, and found the same results.
Failure to thrive is not always due to a " refrigerator mother" or whatever the 70's term was.. There are always cases of out liars
My question is why the hell would they do a study like that if the babies could die?
<blockquote><b>Quoting 1st1ontheway:</b>" My question is why the hell would they do a study like that if the babies could die?"</blockquote>
The first sentence is it was done before ethic boards existed
Im sorry but WTF. I can't get over them doing that. Poor babies.
I can see it. I mean, I think it was 60% of people who died during surgery were given bad news moments before they entered surgery.
Quoting 1inpink2inblue:" Im sorry but WTF. I can't get over them doing that. Poor babies."
I agree, and I'm sure this is one of the reasons ethics boards now exist..
Didn't they do that durring the holocaust too?
Quoting Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot.:" Didn't they do that durring the holocaust too?"
I don't know, I'm sure they did. I really wish I could find that study though. I'll ask one of the girls in my class because she said she had read it, and I'll try and find it and post it later tonight.
Yes, I can see that being true....but not all children will die/fail to thrive, it just they far more likely to.
Just like if a baby is kept in the complete dark during their 1st year, that child will never be able to see.
No, I don't think it's true.
Well, I mean that ALL cases are caused by that. Can it cause that? Totally. But not all.
Failure to thrive just means they are not growing as they should. Some catch up on their own, some are found to have intolerance's or vitamin deficiencies. There are SO many reasons it could occur, and sometimes it can just be the way a child grows too.
I feel like saying they're all caused by that is silly. Death also occurred in many of the cases, not not all cases of death are caused by lack of parental love. Incompetent cervix causes preterm labor, but not all preterm labor is caused by incompetent cervix. Know what I mean?
<blockquote><b>Quoting Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot.:</b>" Didn't they do that durring the holocaust too?"</blockquote>
Probably. They did a lot of really, really fucked up "research".
I'm certain that "failure to thrive" is not always caused by lack of love....
Neglecting a child though will actually stunt brain growth and cause mental disability. I find that quite fascinating.... Very sad too of course.... But its interesting how much depends on the quality of care and the love we receive as infants and toddlers.
Quoting Baby Mutilator Barbie
Quoting Zbornak:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot.:</b>" Didn't they do that durring the ... [snip!] ... too of course.... But its interesting how much depends on the quality of care and the love we receive as infants and toddlers."
I agree with this.