Rapid Responses to:

EDITORIALS: David Hall and Margaret A Lynch Violence begins at home BMJ 1998; 316: 1551-1560 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Women bear the brunt of domestic violence

Jo Richardson   (24 May 1998)

A broad violence definition, caution please.

Robert Cordia   (25 May 1998)

Women bear the brunt of domestic violence 24 May 1998
Jo Richardson, General practitioner/research fellow East London/Department of General Practice, St Bartholomew`s and the Royal London (not enough space) Send response to journal: Re: Women bear the brunt of domestic violence	Hall and Lynch`s editorial concerning violence in the home is an important reminder of the seriousness of this problem and it`s impact on health. However, to discuss the effects of repeated violence on "adult" victims in this context is misleading. Domestic violence ( usually broadly defined as abuse of a partner or ex-partner ) is not a gender neutral issue. Most victims of domestic violence are women, who experience abuse from male partners or ex-partners, which increases in frequency and severity over time. (1,2). It is women ( and not men) who endure the psychological, social and physical consequences of domestic violence while trying to care for their children as best they can. Similarly, children witnessing domestic violence are injured trying to protect their mother and not a "parent". 1. Mirrlees-Black C, Mayhew P, Percy A. The 1996 British Crime Survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1996;19 2. Alpert EJ. Violence in intimate relationships and the practicing internist. New "disease" or new agenda? Ann Int Med1995;123:774-781
A broad violence definition, caution please. 25 May 1998
Robert Cordia, Teacher of Science(Physics) Faculty of Social Sciences, Sydney Institute of Technology,Ultimo, Australia Send response to journal: Re: A broad violence definition, caution please.	The broad definition of violence, which mirrors the health professional's perspective in the Hall and Lynch editorial, concerns me. While the Family Law varies between countries, many legal concepts still derive in Australia from the UK experience and the consequences of the work of health professionals are ubiquitous in relation to abuse in the Family, particularly with regard to children via government established child protection agencies. The consequences of the broad definition of violence can lead to a situation whereby the legal framework is able to institute a death sentence to a family. Because of the institution of the category to either partner in a family of being of "an unacceptable risk". The documentation of this is ubiquitous and specific instances could be cited, however this topic inhabits an area of forbidden knowledge, because of legal prohibition of details by the Family Court of Australia. A cautionary alarm should be made to ring each time there is a possible misuse of the term violence, because the health professional is making this easier for their legal counterpart. In making "violence" an all inclusive definition it makes it easier in the legal environment for a single of specific violent behaviour to be smeared the full spectrum. This is not a possible conclusion in a scientific or medical diagnosis based on factual evidence and on frequency of occurence. The health worker may not be aware of the long term consequences. A family partner, gender non-specific, but predominantly the father, is then denied any right of contact with the children for the "life of the child" but nonetheless still maintains full financial child support. The mutual alienation of the child from its natural parent is thus achieved by a mischievous use of notification of child at risk. The long term psychological effects of denied contact for the parties are subject to adult and community health problems and to the meaning of the term family in a future society. The above problem is a ubiquitous and counselled legal strategy, albeit only one on many, that is a tragedy that in all likelihood raises the label of "abuser" and "unacceptable risk" in a legal framework of balance of probabilities where unsubstantiated allegations and beliefs are paramount. A final result may be the actual death of a family along with any further specific health problems that ensue for the living ghosts of that dead family. My comment may be viewed as a cautionary tale for all health workers summarised as an new adage. Misuse of the term violence risks both the parent and the child being thrown out with the bathwater.