:: wikimiki.org ::

Adopted

Adopted

Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birth parents. Adoption results in the severing of the parental responsibilities and rights of the biological parents and the placing of those responsibilities and rights onto the adoptive parents. After the finalization of an adoption, there is little or no legal difference between biological and adopted children. Different jurisdictions have varying laws on adoption and post-adoption. Some practice confidential or closed adoption, preventing further contact between the adopted person and the biological parents, while others have varying degrees of open adoption, which may allow such contact. An underreported fact is that open adoptions are not legally enforceable agreements in many jurisdictions[http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/cooperative.cfm]. I.e., an open adoption may be closed at any time for any reason.

Reasons for adoption

Adoptions occur for many reasons. Many children are placed for adoption as a result of the biological parents' decision that they are unable to adequately care for a child. In some countries, where single motherhood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants. In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted. Some biological parents involuntarily lose their parental rights. This usually occurs when the children are placed in foster care because they were abused, neglected or abandoned. Eventually, if the parents cannot resolve the problems that caused or contributed to the harm caused to their children (such as alcohol or drug abuse), a court may terminate their parental rights and the children may then be adopted. Only a small percentage of adopted children are those orphaned because of the death of their biological parents. In some cases, parents' rights have been terminated when their ethnic or cultural group has been deemed unfit by the controlling government. Aboriginal Peoples in Australia were affected by such policies, as were Native Americans in the United States and Canada. Moreover, unwed mothers in many countries still are often pressured or forced by families, religious bodies or governments into relinquishing their children for adoption. These practices of the past have become emotionally-charged social and political issues in recent years. The main reason for adopting varies from one country to the next, depending largely on social and legal structures. The inability to reproduce biologically is a common reason. The most prevalent obstacle to producing a biological child is infertility. Another obstacle is the lack of a partner of the opposite sex or a lack of desire to use a surrogate or sperm donor. Single people and same-sex couples often adopt for this reason. In many Western countries, step-parent adoption is the most common form of adoption as people choose to cement a new family following divorce or death of one parent. Some couples or individuals adopt children even though they are fertile. Some may choose to do this in order to avoid contributing to perceived overpopulation, or out of the belief that it is more responsible to care for otherwise parent-less children than to reproduce. Others may do so to avoid passing on heritable diseases (e.g., Tay-Sachs disease), or out of health concerns relating to pregnancy and childbirth. Others believe that it is an equally valid form of family building, neither better than nor worse than biology.

Applying to adopt

Tay-Sachs diseaseMethods of becoming an adoptive parent also vary from one country to another, and sometimes within a country, depending on region. Many jurisdictions have varying eligibility criteria, and may specify such things as minimum and maximum age limits, whether a single person or only a couple can apply, or whether it is possible or not for a same sex couple to apply. In some countries, applications must be made to a state agency or agencies responsible for adoption. There may also be private, licensed adoption agencies, who may operate either on a commercial or non-profit basis. Agencies may operate only domestically, or may offer international adoptions, or may facilitate both. Some jurisdictions allow lawyers to arrange private adoptions, and some allow private facilitators to operate. On applying to adopt, the potential adoptive parent(s) will generally be assessed for suitability. This can take the form of a home study, interviews, and financial, medical and criminal record checks. In some jurisdictions, such studies must be carried out by an independent or state authority, while in others, they can be carried out by the adoption agency itself. A pre-adoption course may also be required. Infants are more commonly sought than toddlers or older children, and many adoptive parents seek to adopt children of the same race. As a result, governments, as well as agencies, actively seek families who are interested in adopting older children and children with special needs.

Cost of adoption

Adoption costs & assistance vary between countries. In many countries, it is illegal to charge for an adoption, while in others, adoptions must be facilitated on a non-profit basis. On the other hand many adoption programmes will give financial assistance to adopters, especially with their expenses. Some jurisdictions offer tax credits to offset the cost of adoption. Where there are charges for adoption there is often controversy, even in the case of non-profit agencies. Regulations may also specify to whom payments may or may not be made, e.g., in some jurisdictions, no money may be paid to a birth mother above her medical expenses. International adoptions tend to be more expensive and often incur additional costs, as the adoptive parent(s) may be required to travel to the source country. Translation fees will also apply to legal documents.

Adoption numbers

This is a list of adoptions recorded (alphabetical, by country) in recent years.

Issues surrounding adoption

The number of children available for adoption inside Western nations has dropped considerably in recent years, partly because of the legalization of abortions, and partly because of the increased acceptance of single parenthood. Preserving an adopted child's heritage has become a central issue in adoption over the last fifteen years. It is often assumed that adopting babies at a very young age (1-2 months) bears no emotional consequences for the child. In the past, many adoption professionals believed that because most people have no recollection of their own birth, an adopted baby would not have a childhood any different than if he or she were raised by natural parents. However, while some adoptees do not feel that adoption has raised any special problems or difficulties for them, others report that adoption has posed certain challenges. Some adoptees report that that they were made to feel - consciously or not - as if they should forever 'be grateful' to have been 'chosen'. Others report that they were told they were "special," but soon came to realize that people are not motivated to adopt by any perception that adopted children are preferable to biological children. Still others report being told that "your mother gave you to us because she loved you", but soon became aware that in closed adoptions, the adoptive parents and the legal system both assume that the birth parents no longer wish to see the child. This leads some adopted people to wonder whether their biological parents ever loved them, or whether their adoptive parents can be trusted to tell the truth. This kind of ambiguity in adoption, along with the strongly emotionally charged nature of the subject, can make it difficult for adoptees to feel free to discuss their own issues honestly, for fear of being ungrateful, hurting their adoptive parents' feelings, raising subjects they sense are taboo (such as the adoptive parents' true reasons for adopting, especially if this involves infertility) or incurring rejection. Recent work on openness in adoption has attempted to address these issues. Researchers such as Joyce Maguire Pavao and others have advised all three sides of the adoption triad (birthparents, adoptive parents, and adoptees) on how to establish healthy relationships, and make it easier for adopted people to discuss their feelings and maintain meaningful contact with both genetic and adoptive families. These efforts are relatively recent, and full openness, while on the upswing, is still not the norm in adoption. International adoptees face additional challenges. It has been argued that children adopted through international adoptions are best served when adoptive families commit to integrating the child's birth nation cultures, traditions, stories, languages and relationships. Some countries now require adoptive parents to keep the birth names of their adoptive children, and many adoptive parents choose to do this as it makes sense in helping their child develop a strong sense of self. This can be very difficult to do in a meaningful way, especially for adoptive families who are not themselves experienced cross-culturally. Another issue for prospective adoptive parents to be aware of is reactive attachment disorder (RAD). Many children, especially those beyond infancy in system care (e.g. foster, orphanage), domestic or foreign, develop this disorder due to the early trauma of loss, and/or lack of a primary caregiver. For all adopted people in adoptions where information about the family of origin is withheld, secrecy may disrupt the process of forming an identity. Family concerns regarding genealogy can be a source of confusion [http://www.bastards.org/activism/support.htm]. Adoption is problematic for some birthparents. When a parent chooses to place the child with adoptive parents, the process of separation can be difficult for all parties. Those emotional difficulties may carry on for many years past the date of the adoption, with families of origin missing and longing for the children they have placed. Adoption may also pose lifelong difficulties for adoptive parents. Charting a course among the various schools of thought about openness, maintaining a child's connection to his or her family of origin, answering a child's difficult questions, and helping a child deal with birthparents who may not maintain regular contact are all issues that adoptive families may struggle with. For anyone involved in adoption--birthparent, adoptive parent or adoptee--there are no hard and fast rules about how to build appropriate relationships that are in the child's best interest.

Adoption in the schools

Adoption rights organizations have long focused on issues such as the adoptee’s right to access his or her birth information, including names of birth parents and birth family medical information. They also focus on [http://www.adoptionfilm.com/video.html improving classroom sensitivity] to adoption issues. Familiar lessons like "draw your family tree" or "trace your eye color back through your parents and grandparents to see where your genes come from" can be hurtful to children who are adopted and do not know this biological information. New lesson plans can be substituted easily, that focus on "family orchards" or steer away from personal medical histories. Discussions about these sensitive topics, advocates argue, are the same as those we’ve conducted around issues of disability, race, and gender, and foster respect for differences in the same way as these earlier national conversations.

Adoption in the media

Adoption experts complain that too much of the media coverage of adoption goes to one extreme or the other. Much of the coverage of adoption presents stories of failed adoptions and troubled children, adoption scandals, even "baby buying"; on the other side are saccharine stories of “perfect” children and families. Only a very few programs have treated the subject in a serious way and in its full breadth. Even when stories are balanced, ignorance about adoption leads to [http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/polface.html negative presentations] including the widespread representation of children in foster care as being so troubled that it would be impossible to adopt them and create “normal” families. The result is that many children who would thrive in a loving family instead wait years in foster care, and even “age out” of the system at 18 without a family. A 2004 report from the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care has shown that the number of children waiting in foster care doubled since the 1980s and now remains steady at about a half-million a year."[http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=41]

Adoption in the wake of disasters

While adoption is often the best way to provide stable, loving families for children in need, adoption in the immediate aftermath of trauma or upheaval may not be the best option. Disasters like hurricanes, tsunamis, and wars teach us the importance of knowledge about adoption. In these situations there is often an outpouring of offers to adoption agencies from adults who want to give homes to the children left in need. However, [http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications/policybriefs.html new research] suggests that once we understand the needs of children and families we look at adoption in the wake of disaster differently. Traumatized children need time to adjust, in the most familiar environments available, before they should be placed. Moving them too quickly into new adoptive homes among strangers may be a mistake: with time, it may turn out that the parents have survived but simply been unable to find the children, or there may be a relative or neighbor who can offer shelter and homes. Safety and emotional support may be better provided in those situations than relocation to a new adoptive family.

Adoption reform

It has not been until recently that various concepts relating to adoption have been put into question. New theories of attachment and bonding, which explain the process through which an infant becomes integrated into a family and develops emotional stability, have challenged previous ideas of the child as an adaptable "blank slate." Other theories, including those related to trauma and the developing brain, have also challenged the way society thinks about the necessity or desirability of adoption. Two important influences on the reform of voluntary infant adoption have been Nancy Verrier and Florence Fischer. [http://www.bastards.org/bb/4.Reform.html]. Verrier describes the "primal wound" as the "devastation which the infant feels because of separation from its natural mother. It is the deep and consequential feeling of abandonment which the baby adoptee feels after the adoption and which continues for the rest of his life. [http://primal-page.com/verrier.htm]" In some cases, however, the separation of the parent/child bond is necessary to protect the child. For children who have been neglected or abused, adoption is often necessary to ensure stability and the opportunity to bond with a new family in an emotionally healthy way. Where, in the past, neglected or abused children were often kept in foster care for many years while birthparents attempted to resolve issues of addition, domestic violence, or mental illness, new theories of social work now encourage government agencies to move quickly to free such children for adoption and to find them new, permanent homes. This new philosophy is enshrined in the United States in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, a law aimed at preventing foster care drift. By keeping children from bouncing from foster home to foster home, state agencies now hope to preserve children's abilities to trust and attach, and hence to maintain and improve their mental health.

Reunion

Many adopted people and natural parents who were separated by adoption have a desire to reunite. In countries which practice confidential adoption, this desire has led to efforts to open sealed records. In the United States, for example, there are organisations such as the Adoption reunion registry and Bastard Nation, which seeks to establish the right of adoptees to access their sealed records.

Adoptism

Adoptism is a prejudice against adoption defined by several beliefs:
- The belief that adoption is not a legitimate way to build a family
- The belief that birthing children is always preferable to adopting
- The belief that making an adoption plan is never a preferable option for birth mothers who are unable or choose not to raise their children

The Language of Adoption

The language used in adoption is changing and evolving, and has become something of a controversial issue. Two distinct styles of language have arisen, commonly known as "Positive Adoption Language"[http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22Positive+Adoption+Language%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] and "Honest Adoption Language."[http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22Honest+Adoption+Language%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] The controversy arises over the use of terms which, while designed to be more appealing or less offensive to one "side" of the adoption triad of adopted person, birth/bioligical/first/natural parent, and adoptive parent, may simultaneously cause offense or insult to one of the other sides. Postive Adoptive Language (PAL) The reasons for its use: In many cultures, adoptive families face adoptism. Adoptism is made evident in English speaking cultures by the prominent use of negative or inaccurate language describing adoption. To combat adoptism, many adoptive families encourage positive adoption language. The reasons against its use: Many natural parents see "positive adoption language" as language which glosses over painful facts they face as they go into the indefinite post-adoption period of their lives. Some natural parents feel PAL has become a way to present adoption in the friendliest light possible, in order to obtain even more infants for adoption; ie, a marketing tool. These people refer to PAL as "Adoption Friendly Language" or AFL. Honest Adoption Language (HAL) The reasons for its use: Some first parents prefer that we use "Honest Adoption Language" (HAL), as they believe these terms more accurately reflect the hidden and/or ignored realities of adoption as it applies to them. The reasons against its use: The term "Honest" implies that all other language used in adoption is dishonest. Terms used in Positive Adoption Language:

Non-preferred:	Preferred:	Reason for preference:
your own child	birth child	Saying a birth child is your own child or one of your own children implies that an adopted child is not.
child is adopted	child was adopted	Some adoptees believe that their adoption is not their identity, but is an event that happened to them. ("Adopted" becomes a participle rather than an adjective.) Others contend that "is adopted" makes adoption sound like a disability to be overcome.
give up for adoption	place for adoption or make an adoption plan	"Give up" implies a lack of value. The preferred terms are more emotionally neutral.
real mother/father/parent	birth, biological or genetic mother/father/parent	The use of the term "real" implies that the adoptive family is artificial, and is not as descriptive.
your adopted child	your child	The use of the adjective 'adopted' signals that the relationship is qualitatively different from that of parents to birth children.

Terms used in Honest Adoption Language:

Common Term:	Honest Term:	Reason for preference:
birth mother	original, or natural mother or parent OR mother OR parent. UPDATED: First Mother or Life Mother	The term "birth" mother limits a woman's role in her child's life to the birth, casting her in the role of incubator or breeder. With reunion now an everyday event women are finding themselves involved in the lives of their children in many ways,on a spectrum that runs from casual contact through friendship all the way to reintegrating their children into their original families. A powerful view, especially held by those in Ireland who cared for their children before being forced to relinquish them to adoption, is that the term 'birth' mother implies that they only served as a brood mare when in fact they often raised and cared for their children for up to two years.[http://www.adoptionloss.ie/history.htm] The "b" word is a dehumanizing term. It also implies that the relationship between mother and child has been severed permanently, which is no longer a given, especially since the advent of open adoption. UPDATE: Many modern "birth" mothers in open adoptions have suggested the use of First Mother or Life Mother as a replacement to the non-descriptive term of Birth Mother.
give up for adoption	surrender for adoption	"Give up" implies a lack of value, whereas the truth is that most women wish to raise their own child. HAL acknowledges that past adoption practice facilitated the taking of children for adoption, often against their mother's expressed wishes. Many women who have gone through the process and who lost children to adoption believe that social work techniques used to prepare single mothers to sign Termination Of Parental Rights papers closely resembles a psychological war against motherhood as nature has mandated it; hence the term "surrender." [http://www.originsusa.org/articles/index.html] HAL agrees that "Make a plan" and "Place" are more emotionally neutral, but fundamentally dishonest terms which marginalize or deny the wrenching emotional event of separation on the mother/child dyad.
real mother/father/parent	mother/father/parent	Possible modifiers for the parental role include: real, legal, adoptive, first, original, natural. No modifiers are needed for the individual who gives birth; this person has been referred to as "mother" since time immemorial.
adopted child	adopted person or person who was adopted	The use of the adjective 'adopted' signals that the relationship is qualitatively different from that of parents to birth children. The use of the word "child" is accurate up until the end of childhood. After that the continued use of the word "child" is infantalizing.

Variations in adoption

Adoption need not always entail assuming the title of "mother" and/or "father" to an orphaned child. Traditionally in Arab cultures if a child is adopted he or she does not become a “son” or “daughter,” but rather a ward of the adopting caretaker(s). The child’s family name is not changed to that of the adopting parent(s) and his or her “guardians” are publicly known as such. Legally, this is close to other nations' foster caring but often with closer parental feelings. In Korean culture, adoption almost always occurs when another family member (sibling or cousin) gives a male child to the first-born male heir of the family. Adoptions outside the family are rare. This is also true to varying degrees in other Asian societies. On the other hand, in many African cultures, children are regularly exchanged among families for the purpose of adoption. By placing a child in another family's home, the birth family seeks to create enduring ties with the family that is now rearing the child. The placing family may receive another child from that family, or from another. Like the reciprocal transfer of brides from one family to another, these adoptive placements are meant to create enduring connections and social solidarity among families and lineages.

External links

Australia

- [http://www.angelfire.com/or/originsnsw/intro.html Origins]
- [http://www.angelfire.com/de/lilyorigins/ Origins Queensland]
- [http://www.angelfire.com/or3/originssa/ Origins South Australia]

Canada

- [http://www.adoption.ca/links.htm Adoption Links] (Adoption Council of Canada)
- [http://nebula.on.ca/canbmothers/ Canadian Council of Natural Mothers]
- [http://www.originscanada.org/ Origins Canada]

Ireland

- [http://www.adoptionboard.ie The Adoption Board]
- [http://www.adoptionireland.com AdoptionIreland: The Adopted People's Association]
- [http://www.adoptionloss.ie/ The Natural Parents' Network of Ireland]

United Kingdom

- [http://www.afteradoption.org.uk/ After Adoption]
- [http://www.baaf.org.uk/ British Association for Adoption & Fostering]
- [http://www.uktrackers.co.uk/ Trackers International]

United States

- [http://www.internationaladoptionstories.com/ International Adoption Stories]
- [http://www.adoptionfilm.org/ Adoption: An American Revolution]
- [http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/ Adoption Crossroads USA]
- [http://www.exiledmothers.com/ Mothers Exploited by Adoption]
- [http://www.adoptinglife.com/ Adopting Life Adoption Forum]
- [http://www.originsusa.org/ Origins USA]
- [http://www.suziekidnap.com/fog/ Out Of The Fog: Mothers Speak About Adoption] ! Category:Family law ja:養子縁組

Parent

:"Parent" redirects here. For other meanings, see Parent (disambiguation). Parenting is the process of raising a child from birth until they reach adulthood. This task is usually done by the biological parents, but if the parents are unable or unwilling to provide care, the task is usually deferred to adoptive parents, foster parents, close relatives (including older siblings), godparents, or institutions (such as group homes or orphanages). An integral part of parenting is education of the child. (For further details on the education of children, see Education)

Aspects of parenting

- Physical care:
- Reliably providing shelter, education, medical care, physical safety and nourishment.
- Social development and emotional support:
- Love, entertainment and physical touch.
- Social skills and etiquette.
- Ethics and value systems.
- Moral and spiritual development.
- Norms and contributions to the child's religion and ethnic customs.
- Financial support:
- Money provided by non-custodial parents, following a divorce.
- Insurance coverage and payments for education.

Parenting Methods and Practices

Parenting may involve praise, but it also involves punishment. Some parents no longer consider spanking a necessary punishment. The term "child training" implies a specific type of parenting that focuses on holistic understanding of the child. The "Taking Children Seriously" philosophy sees both praise and punishment as manipulative and harmful to the child and seeks other way to reach agreement with them. The term "attachment parenting" seeks to create strong emotional bonds and avoid physical punishment, with discipline being accommodated by interactions with a child's emotional needs.
- Discipline:
- Time-out
- Spanking
- Taking Children Seriously (TCS) philosophy
- Parental supervision
- Parenting Fundamentals:
- Structure
- Accountability
- Consistency
- Motivation

Pregnancy and the early years

During pregnancy the unborn child is affected by many decisions his or her parents make, particularly choices linked to their lifestyle. The health and diet decisions of the mother can have either a positive or negative impact on the child.

During infancy

Specific care includes:
- Providing food and drink, and in the case of younger children, the process of feeding or helping with that.
- Providing a toilet and facilities for washing, and in the case of younger children, the washing itself or helping with that, and providing diapers or helping using the toilet (Potty Training).
- providing clothing, and in the case of small children, putting the clothes on and taking them off or helping with that;
- Infant care:
- Breastfeeding
- Baby bottle

School years

- Education:
- preschool education
- arranging for a school to provide formal education,
- finishing school

Assistance

Parents may receive assistance from a variety of individuals and organizations. Employers may offer specific benefits or programs for parents.
- Parental leave

Observers

Benjamin Spock was an authority on parenting to a generation of North American parents. A current authority is T. Berry Brazelton, the founder of the Child Development Unit at Children's Hospital, Boston, and Professor of Pediatrics Emeritus at Harvard Medical School. Also see James Dobson

Parenting assessment

There are several parent self-report measures that have been developed for use by clinicians and researchers to assess parenting, such as the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1995) and Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI; Bavolek, 1984). Parenting measures can also be observational, such as the Parent-Child Interaction Assessment-II (PCIA-II; Holigrocki, Kaminski, & Frieswyk, 1999). See:
- Abidin, R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index: Professional Manual. 3rd Ed. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
- Bavolek, S. J. (1984). Handbook for the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory. Eau Claire, Wisconsin: Family Development Associates, Inc.
- Holigrocki, R. J, Kaminski, P. L., & Frieswyk, S. H. (1999). Introduction to the Parent-Child Interaction Assessment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 63(3), 413–428.

External links

- [http://www.babyandkidsonline.com/ Parenting Information] Articles and news about parenting
- [http://www.pregnancybirthandbaby.co.uk/wiki Parenting wiki] Detailed parenting wiki
- [http://www.kirkusreviews.com/kirkusreviews/reports/parenting_archive.jsp Parenting book reviews] powered by Kirkus Reports
- [http://www.babynamebox.com Baby Names Box] – a site developed with families and parents in mind
- [http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/ BBC's parenting website]
- [http://www.apparenting.com/ Attachment parenting blog]
- [http://parenting-weblog.com/ Parenting-Weblog]
- [http://www.newmommysally.blogspot.com/ New Mommy blog]
- [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/C21 BBC h2g2 Guide to Life, the Universe and Everything: Families]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/parenting.htm Parenting Style and Its Correlates]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-1/career.html Parenting and Career Development]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-1/face.htm The Changing Face of Parenting Education]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-2/fail.htm If an Adolescent Begins To Fail in School, What Can Parents and Teachers Do?]
- [http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~rholigrocki/pcia.htm Parent Child Interaction Assessment-II (PCIA-II)]
- [http://www.sharedparentingworks.org/ Shared Parenting Works]
- Category:Children ja:覚王山駅

Closed adoption

Closed Adoption (sometimes called "secret adoption") is the process by where an infant is adopted by another family, and the record of the natural (birth) parent(s) is kept sealed. (Often, the natural father was not recorded -- even on the original birth certificate.) An adoption of an older child who already knows his or her natural parent(s) cannot be made closed or secret. This formerly was the most traditional and popular type of adoption. It still exists today, but it's use is rapidly declining in favor of open adoption. The sealed records effectively prevent the adoptee and the natural parents from finding each other (especially in the days before the internet.) Prior to adoption, oftentimes the infant would be placed in temporary foster care for a few weeks until the adoption was approved. This would also help insure that he or she was healthy, and nothing was overlooked at the time of birth. Nowadays, this practice is discouraged, as it prevents immediate bonding between the mother and child. With the high demand to adopt an infant, there is usually no reason the adoption cannot be initiated prior to birth. Under the closed adoption procedures, the infant is issued a second, amended birth certificate that states the adopting parents as the actual parents (as if they were the child's biological parents). The hospital may be omitted, especially if it was intended to serve only unwed mothers, such as the Salvation Army hospitals. (Many were named after its founder William Booth). By the end of the 1970's, all of these hospitals in the USA had closed due to high costs and the reduced need for secrecy. It was no longer considered shameful to have a child out of wedlock in America. More and more mothers were either raising their child as a single parent (often with the help of the newly created institution of government welfare), or having an abortion (which was legal everywhere in the USA by 1973). Closed adoption has been increasingly criticized in recent years as being unfair to both the adoptee and his or her natural parents. Some people believe making a child's parents quite literally a state secret is a gross violation of human rights -- even to be analogous to slavery. (Many African Americans have rejected the concept of adoption on this basis.) On the other hand, the natural mother may have desired the secrecy because of a premarital affair. In pre-1960's America, this was considered taboo, and she would have been shunned from society if found out. Some studies report that healthy children adopted as infants have a much higher risk of becoming emotionally disturbed, and that adoptive parents are more likely to be abusive than in more traditional families. Though all parents make mistakes, adoptive parents may be less likely to consider the possibility that they are doing something wrong, and blame it on the child's heredity instead. Other problems include the lack of a genetic medical history which could be important in disease prevention. Sometimes the adoptee's relationship with his or her adoptive parents goes bad, and it's forbidden to find their birth parents. The natural mother might often think of the child she had given away, but could not contact him or her -- even if they had passed the age of majority (usually 18). Only a court order would allow the adoption records to be unsealed. However, this was extremely rare until the early 1990's, as were all reunions prior to that time. Nowadays, there are internet sites and physical registries (by postal mail) designed so adoptees and their natural parents can locate one another at little or no cost. (Many require the adoptee to be at least 18 years old.) Of course, both must have registered in order for there to be a match. Should these types of registries fail, recent laws in many states of the USA have made it possible for one party to contact the other via a confidential intermediary. This person petitions the court to view the sealed adoption records, then conducts a search similar to that of a private investigator. In case the other party indicates that it does not want to be contacted, by law the information would not be given out. In practice, however, this seldom happens and most often the natural mother and the adoptee are very happy to finally know one another. It is uncommon to find both the natural mother and father at the same time, and often a separate search can be done afterwards for the father. Since males seldom change their surname, and the mother might have additional information, it is usually easier than the initial search for the natural mother. In many cases, adoptees are able to do this second search for their natural father by themselves (or at least try, before paying for assistance). The cost for a confidential intermediary and related court fees is somewhat expensive, costing around US$500, but this varies by state and agency. If the adoptee is unable to locate (or would prefer to use a third person) to find his or her natural father, often the same confidential intermediary can be used for an additional fee. For many years in New York State, adoptees had to obtain their adoptive parents permission (unless deceased) to be included in a state-sponsored reunion registry regardless of the age of the adoptee. In some cases, older adults or even senior citizens felt like they were being treated like children, and required to obtain their parent's signature on the form. In a broader sense, they felt it could be inferred that adopted children are always children, and thus second-class citizens subject to discrimination. The law has since been changed. Starting in the late 1980's, many adoptees and their parents first learned about the possibility of reunion on the NBC (later CBS) television program Unsolved Mysteries. As of 2005, reruns of the program are still being aired on the Lifetime Television cable network around noontime. Females have statistically been somewhat more likely than males to search for their birth parents, and far more likely to search for their adopted children. Category:Adoption

Open adoption

Open adoption is a term generally used to describe a variety of arrangements allowing for ongoing contact between the natural/birth/biological parent(s), and a child placed for adoption. Open adoption is a relatively new phenomenon, and differs from closed adoptions, where no contact is generally facilitated, unless and until one party attempts to search for the other, or both parties register with one of the many adoption contact registers. An underreported fact is that open adoptions are not legally enforceable agreements in many jurisdictions[http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/cooperative.cfm]. I.e., an open adoption may be closed at any time for any reason. The definition of what exactly constitutes an open adoption is open to question. In it's most restricted form, in some adoptions, the mother of the child being placed for adoption may select the adoptive parent(s) from several options presented to her by an adoption agency. Some adoption agencies may describe this as an open adoption. However, the term is usually understood to mean an adoption where there is some level of ongoing contact. This can range from as little as an annual exchange of cards or letters and photographs (often also described as a semi-open adoption), to arrangements which provide for regular meetings and visits between the natural/birth/biological parent(s) and the adoptive family. Proponents of open adoption maintain that such adoptions are better for the child and represent best child-centred practice.

External links

- [http://www.openadoptioninsight.org/ Open Adoption Resources and Support]
- [http://open.adoption.com/ Adoption.com pages on open adoption]

Orphanage

:This article is about the institutions for orphans. For the band, see Orphanage (band). An orphanage is an institution dedicated to caring for orphans (children without living parents). Orphanages often attempt to find homes for children in their care. They may be privately or publicly funded. The term is sometimes also used to denote institutions where children reside without cohabiting parents, irrespective of the life status of the latter. In many works of fiction (notable Oliver Twist and Annie) the administrators of orphanages are depicted as cruel monsters. The largest existing orphanage in the United States is the Bethesda Orphanage, founded in 1740 by George Whitefield. Another famous American orphanage is Girls and Boys Town, located outside Omaha, Nebraska. The term "orphanage" has been largely replaced by "group home" in modern times. Many orphanages are run by religious organisations.

Alcohol

In general usage, alcohol (from Arabic al-ghawl الغول) refers almost always to ethanol, also known as grain alcohol, and often to any beverage that contains ethanol (see alcoholic beverage). This sense underlies the term alcoholism (addiction to alcohol). Other forms of alcohol are usually described with a clarifying adjective, as in isopropyl alcohol or by the suffix -ol, as in isopropanol. In chemistry, alcohol is a more general term, applied to any organic compound in which a hydroxyl group (-O H) is bound to a carbon atom, which in turn is bound to other hydrogen and/or carbon atoms. The general formula for a simple acyclic alcohol is C_nH_2n+1OH. As a drug, common alcohol (ethanol) is known to have a depressing effect that decreases the responses of the central nervous system.

Structure

central nervous system The functional group of an alcohol is a hydroxyl group bonded to an sp³ hybridized carbon. It can therefore be regarded as a derivative of water, with an alkyl group replacing one of the hydrogens. If an aryl group is present rather than an alkyl, the compound is generally called a phenol rather than an alcohol. The oxygen in an alcohol has a bond angle of around 109° (c.f. 104.5° in water), and two nonbonded electron pairs. The O-H bond in methanol (CH₃OH) is around 96 picometres long.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary alcohols

There are three major subsets of alcohols- 'primary' (1°), 'secondary' (2°) and 'tertiary' (3°), based upon the number of carbons the C-OH carbon (shown in red) is bonded to. Methanol is the simplest 'primary' alcohol. The simplest secondary alcohol is isopropanol (propan-2-ol), and a simple tertiary alcohol is tert-butanol (2-methylpropan-2-ol). butanol

Methanol & ethanol

The simplest and most commonly used alcohols are methanol and ethanol (common names methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol, respectively), which have the structures shown above. Methanol was formerly obtained by the distillation of wood, and was called "wood alcohol". It is now a cheap commodity chemical produced by the high pressure reaction of carbon monoxide with hydrogen. In common usage, "alcohol" often refers simply to ethanol or "grain alcohol". Methylated spirits ("Meths"), also called "surgical spirits", is a form of ethanol rendered undrinkable by the addition of methanol. Aside from its major use in alcoholic beverages, ethanol is also used (though highly controlled) as an industrial solvent and raw material.

Uses

Alcohols are in wide use in industry and science as reagents, solvents, and fuels. Ethanol and methanol can be made to burn more cleanly than gasoline or diesel. Because of its low toxicity and ability to dissolve non-polar substances, ethanol is often used as a solvent in medical drugs, perfumes, and vegetable essences such as vanilla. In organic synthesis, alcohols frequently serve as versatile intermediates. Ethanol is also commonly used in beverages after fermentation to promote flavor or induce a euphoric intoxication commonly known as "drunkenness" or "being drunk". The use of ethanol for this purpose is illegal in some jurisdictions.

Sources

Many alcohols can be created by fermentation of fruits or grains with yeast, but only ethanol is commercially produced this way, chiefly for fuel and drink. Other alcohols are generally produced by synthetic routes from natural gas, petroleum, or coal feed stocks, for example via acid catalyzed hydration of alkenes. For more details see Chemistry of alcohols

Nomenclature

Systematic names

In the IUPAC system, the name of the alkane chain loses the terminal "e" and adds "ol", e.g. "methanol" and "ethanol". When necessary, the position of the hydroxyl group is indicated by a number between the alkane name and the "ol": propan-1-ol for CH₃CH₂CH₂OH, propan-2-ol for CH₃CH(OH)CH₃. Sometimes, the position number is written before the IUPAC name: 1-propanol and 2-propanol. If a higher priority group is present (such as an aldehyde, ketone or carboxylic acid), then it is necessary to use the prefix "hydroxy", for example: 1-hydroxy-2-propanol (CH₃COCH₂OH). Some examples of simple alcohols and how to name them: carboxylic acid Common names for alcohols usually take the name of the corresponding alkyl group and add the word "alcohol", e.g. methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol or tert-butyl alcohol. Propyl alcohol may be n-propyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol depending on whether the hydroxyl group is bonded to the 1st or 2nd carbon on the propane chain. Isopropyl alcohol is also occasionally called sec-propyl alcohol. As mentioned above alcohols are classified as primary (1°), secondary (2°) or tertiary (3°), and common names often indicate this in the alkyl group prefix. For example (CH₃)₃COH is a tertiary alcohol is commonly known as tert-butyl alcohol. This would be named 2-methylpropan-2-ol under IUPAC rules, indicating a propane chain with methyl and hydroxyl groups both attached to the middle (#2) carbon. An alcohol with two hydroxyl groups is commonly called a "glycol", e.g. HO-CH₂-CH₂-OH is ethylene glycol. The IUPAC name is ethane-1,2-diol, "diol" indicating two hydroxyl groups, and 1,2 indicating their bonding positions. Geminal glycols (with the two hydroxyls on the same carbon atom), such as ethane-1,1-diol, are generally unstable. For three or four groups, "triol" and "tetraol" are used.

Etymology

The word "alcohol" almost certainly comes from the Arabic language (the "al-" prefix being the Arabic definite article); however, the precise origin is unclear. It was introduced into Europe, together with the art of distillation and the substance itself, around the 12th century by various European authors who translated and popularized the discoveries of Islamic alchemists. A popular theory, found in many dictionaries, is that it comes from الكحل = ALKHL = al-kuhul, originally the name of very finely powdered antimony sulfide Sb₂S₃ used as an antiseptic and eyeliner. The powder is prepared by sublimation of the natural mineral stibnite in a closed vessel. According to this theory, the meaning of alkuhul would have been first extended to distilled substances in general, and then narrowed to ethanol. This conjectured etymology has been circulating in England since 1672 at least (OED). However, this derivation is suspicious since the current Arabic name for alcohol, الكحول = ALKHWL = al???, does not derive from al-kuhul. The Qur'an in verse 37:47 uses the word الغول = ALGhWL = al-ghawl — properly meaning "spirit" ("spiritual being") or "demon" — with the sense "the thing that gives the wine its headiness". The word al-ghawl also originated the English word "ghoul", and the name of the star Algol. This derivation would, of course, be consistent with the use of "spirit" or "spirit of wine" as synonymous of "alcohol" in most Western languages. (Incidentally, the etymology "alcohol" = "the devil" was used in the 1930s by the U.S. Temperance Movement for propaganda purposes.) According to the second theory, the popular etymology and the spelling "alcohol" would not be due to generalization of the meaning of ALKHL, but rather to Western alchemists and authors confusing the two words ALKHL and ALGhWL, which have indeed been transliterated in many different and overlapping ways.

Physical and chemical properties

The hydroxyl group generally makes the alcohol molecule polar. Those groups can form hydrogen bonds to one another and to other compounds. Two opposing solubility trends in alcohols are: the tendency of the polar OH to promote solubility in water, and of the carbon chain to resist it. Thus, methanol, ethanol, and propanol are miscible in water because the hydroxyl group wins out over the short carbon chain. Butanol, with a four-carbon chain, is moderately soluble because of a balance between the two trends. Alcohols of five or more carbons (Pentanol and higher) are effectively insoluble because of the hydrocarbon chain's dominance. Because of hydrogen bonding, alcohols tend to have higher boiling points than comparable hydrocarbons and ethers. All simple alcohols are miscible in organic solvents. This hydrogen bonding means that alcohols can be used as protic solvents. The lone pairs of electrons on the oxygen of the hydroxyl group also makes alcohols nucleophiles. Alcohols, like water, can show either acidic or basic properties at the O-H group. With a pK_a of around 16-19 they are generally slightly weaker acids than water, but they are still able to react with strong bases such as sodium hydride or reactive metals such as sodium. The salts that result are called alkoxides, with the general formula RO^- M⁺. Meanwhile the oxygen atom has lone pairs of nonbonded electrons that render it weakly basic in the presence of strong acids such as sulfuric acid. For example, with methanol: sulfuric acid Alcohols can also undergo oxidation to give aldehydes, ketones or carboxylic acids, or they can be dehydrated to alkenes. They can react to form ester compounds, and they can (if activated first) undergo nucleophilic substitution reactions. For more details see the #Chemistry of alcohols section below.

Toxicity

Alcohols often have an odor described as 'biting' that 'hangs' in the nasal passages. Ethanol in the form of alcoholic beverages has been consumed by humans since pre-historic times, for a variety of hygienic, dietary, medicinal, religious, and recreational reasons. While infrequent consumption of ethanol in small quantities may be harmless or even beneficial, larger doses result in a state known as drunkenness or intoxication and, depending on the dose and regularity of use, can cause acute respiratory failure or death and with chronic use has medical repercussions. Other alcohols are substantially more poisonous than ethanol, partly because they take much longer to be metabolized, and often their metabolism produces even more toxic substances. Methanol, or wood alcohol, for instance, is oxidized by alcohol dehydrogenase enzymes in the liver to the poisonous formaldehyde, which can cause blindness or death. Interestingly, an effective treatment to prevent formaldehyde toxicity after methanol ingestion is to administer ethanol. This will bind to alcohol dehydrogenase, preventing methanol from binding and thus acting as a substrate. Any formaldehyde will be converted to formic acid and excreted before it causes damage.

Chemistry of alcohols

Preparation

Laboratory

There are three common methods:
- From alkyl halides: react with aqueous NaOH or KOH (mainly 1° alcohols). :R-Br + KOH → R-OH + KBr
- From aldehydes or ketones: reduction with sodium borohydride or lithium aluminium hydride. :R-CHO - [O] → R-OH
- From alkenes: an acid catalysed hydration reaction using concentrated sulfuric acid as a catalyst (gives usually 2° or 3° alcohols). :C₂H₄ + H₂SO₄ (l) → C₂H₅-HSO₄ :C₂H₅-HSO₄ + H₂O → C₂H₅OH + H₂SO₄ The formation of a secondary alcohol via the last two methods is shown: sulfuric acid

Industrial

- Fermentation: using glucose produced from sugar from the hydrolysis of starch, in the presence of yeast and temperature of <37°C to produce ethanol. :C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ → C₆H₁₂O₆ + C₆H₁₂O₆ :Invertase → glucose + fructose :C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O → C₂H₅OH + CO₂ :Glucose → zymase + ethanol
- Direct hydration: using ethene or other alkenes from cracking of fractions of distilled crude oil. Uses a catalyst of phosphoric acid under high temperature and pressure.
- Methanol from water gas: It is manufactured from synthesis gas, where CO + 2 H₂ are combined to produce methanol using a Cu, ZnO and Al₂O₃ catalyst at 250°C and a pressure of 50-100 atm. :[CO + H₂] + H₂O (g) → CH₃OH

Reactions

See the physical and chemical properties section above for a general overview.

Deprotonation

Alcohols can behave as weak acids, undergoing deprotonation. The deprotonation reaction to produce an alkoxide salt is either performed with a strong base such as sodium hydride or n-butyllithium, or with sodium or potassium metal. : 2 R-OH + 2 NaH → 2 R-O^-Na⁺ + H₂↑ : 2 R-OH + 2Na → 2R-O⁻Na⁺ : e.g. 2 CH₃CH₂-OH + 2 Na → 2 CH₃-CH₂-O⁻Na⁺ Water is similar in pK_a to many alcohols, so with sodium hydroxide there is an equilibrium set up which usually lies to the left: : R-OH + NaOH <=> R-O^-Na⁺ + H₂O (equilibrium to the left)

Nucleophilic substitution

The OH group is not a good leaving group in nucleophilic substitution reactions, so neutral alcohols do not react in such reactions. However if the oxygen is first protonated to give R−OH₂⁺, the leaving group (water) is much more stable, and nucleophilic substitution can take place. For instance, tertiary alcohols react with hydrochloric acid to produce tertiary alkyl halides, where the hydroxyl group is replaced by a chlorine atom. If primary or secondary alcohols are to be reacted with hydrochloric acid, an activator such as zinc chloride is needed. Alternatively the conversion may be performed directly using thionyl chloride.^[1] thionyl chloride Alcohols may likewise be converted to alkyl bromides using hydrobromic acid or phosphorus tribromide, for example: : 3 R-OH + PBr₃ → 3 RBr + H₃PO₃ In the Barton-McCombie deoxygenation an alcohol is deoxygenated to an alkane with tributyltin hydride or a trimethylborane-water complex in a radical substitution reaction.

Dehydration

Alcohols are themselves nucleophilic, so R−OH₂⁺ can react with ROH to produce ethers and water, although this reaction is rarely used except in the manufacture of diethyl ether. More useful is the E1 elimination reaction of alcohols to produce alkenes. The reaction generally obeys Zaitsev's Rule, which states that the most stable (usually the most substituted) alkene is formed. Tertiary alcohols eliminate easily at just above room temperature, but primary alcohols requre a higher temperature. This is a diagram of acid catalysed dehydration of ethanol to produce ethene: 550px

Esterification

To form an ester from an alcohol and a carboxylic acid the reaction, known as "Fischer esterification", is usually performed at reflux with a catalyst of concentrated sulfuric acid: : R-OH + R'-COOH

\Leftrightarrow

R'-COOR + H₂O In order to drive the equilibrium to the right and produce a good yield of ester, water is usually removed, either by an excess of H₂SO₄ or by using a Dean-Stark apparatus. Esters may also be prepared by reaction of the alcohol with an acid chloride in the presence of a base such as pyridine. Other types of ester are prepared similarly- for example p-toluenesulfonate (tosylate) esters are made by reaction of the alcohol with p-toluenesulfonyl chloride in pyridine.

Oxidation

Primary alcohols generally give aldehydes or carboxylic acids upon oxidation, while secondary alcohols give ketones. Traditionally strong oxidants such as the dichromate ion or potassium permanganate are used, under acidic conditions, for example: :3 CH₃-CH(-OH)-CH₃ + K₂Cr₂O₇ + 4 H₂SO₄ → 3 CH₃-C(=O)-CH₃ + Cr₂(SO₄)₃ + K₂SO₄ + 7 H₂O Frequently in aldehyde preparations these reagents cause a problem of over-oxidation to the carboxylic acid. To avoid this, other reagents such as PCC, Dess-Martin periodinane, IBX acid, TPAP or methods such as Swern oxidation are now preferred. Alcohols with a methyl group attached to the alcohol carbon can also undergo a haloform reaction (such as the iodoform reaction) in the presence of the halogen and a base such as sodium hydroxide. Tertiary alcohols resist oxidation, but can be oxidised by reagents such as 2,3-dichloro-5,6-dicyano-1,4-benzoquinone.

External links

- [http://www.french-paradox.net/fpbksb1.html What Is Alcohol, Anyway?] Interesting information about alcohols.
- Category:Drugs Category:Antiseptics Category:Arabic words Category:functional groups ja:アルコール simple:Alcohol

Drug abuse

Drug abuse has a wide range of definitions, all of them relating to the use, misuse or overuse of a drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Some of the most commonly abused drugs include alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates, caffeine, cannabis, cocaine, methaqualone, nicotine, opium alkaloids, and minor tranquilizers. Use of these drugs may lead to criminal penalty in addition to physical, social, and pyschologic harm. Other definitions of drug abuse fall into four main categories:

Definitions

Public health definitions

In recent decades, public health practicitioners have attempted to look at drug abuse from a broader perspective than the individual, emphasising the role of society, culture and availability. Rather than alcohol or drug "abuse" many public health professionals have adopted the terms "alcohol and drug problems" or "harmful/problematic use" of drugs.

Mass communication and vernacular usage

The term may be used in newspapers, television, etc. in a ambiguous, catch-all sense rather than as a medical or legal term, sometimes disapprovingly to refer to any drug use at all, particularly of illicit drugs.

Medical definitions

In the modern medical profession, the two most used diagnostic tools in the world, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), no longer recognise 'drug abuse' as a current medical diagnosis. Instead, they have adopted substance abuse as a blanket term to include drug abuse and other things. However, other definitions differ; they may entail psychological or physical dependence, and may focus on treatment and prevention in terms of the social consequences of substance use.

Historical positions of the American Psychiatric Association

In the early 1950s, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders refered to both alcohol and drug abuse as part of Sociopathic Personality Disturbances, which were thought to be symptoms of deeper psychological disorders or moral weakness . By the third edition, in the 1980s, drug abuse was grouped into 'substance abuse'. In 1972, the American Psychiatric Association created a definition that used legality, social acceptability, and even cultural familiarity as qualifying factors:

…as a general rule, we reserve the term drug abuse to apply to the illegal, nonmedical use of a limited number of substances, most of them drugs, which have properties of altering the mental state in ways that are considered by social norms and defined by statute to be inappropriate, undesirable, harmful, threatening, or, at minimum, culture-alien.

Historical positions of the American Medical Association

In 1966, the American Medical Association's Committee on Alcoholism and Addiction defined abuse of stimulants (amphetamines, primarily) in terms of "medical supervision":

…"use" refers to the proper place of stimulants in medical practice; "misuse" applies to the physician's role in initating a potentially dangerous course of therapy; and "abuse" refers to self-administration of these drugs without medical supervision and particularly in large doses that may lead to psychological dependency, tolerance and abnormal behavior.

Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse

The Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse defines drug abuse as "nonmedical use of drugs, both drugs that have and those that do not have generally accepted medical value".

Political and criminal justice definitions

Most countries have legislation designed to criminalise some drug use. Usually however the legislative process is self-referential, defining abuse in terms of what is made illegal. The legislation concerns lists of drugs specified by the legislation. These drugs are often called illegal drugs but, generally, what is illegal is their unlicensed production, supply and possession. The drugs are also called controlled drugs or controlled substances.

World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO), a public health agency comprised of delegates appointed by the governments of member nations, is considered by many to be a medical authority. Definitions found in WHO reports are often used as the basis for legislation at national, regional and local levels. The WHO also produces the ICD, a major diagnostic resource used by medical professionals worldwide. Although it consists largely of public health professionals, the WHO is an arm of the United Nations political body, and is therefore responsive to the needs of, demands from, and prevailing views among the UN member states that appoint WHO delegates. The manner in which the WHO has recognized and dealt with 'drug abuse' over the years reflects a continuing struggle to reconcile conflicting historical, political, social, cultural, and medical viewpoints. In its early reports, the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-Producing Drugs used the terms 'abuse' and 'addiction' interchangeably. Beginning in 1950s, attempts were made to distinguish between scientific and emotionally-charged terminology. However, the term 'abuse' was still inserted into definitions of addiction and dependency. In 1957, while not explicitly saying that 'drug abuse' was synonymous with 'addiction', the committee first attempted to clarify existing definitions of addiction and habituation as had been in common parlance since at least 1931:

Drug addiction is a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by the repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic). Its characteristics include: (i) an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means; (ii) a tendency to increase the dose; (iii) a psychic (psychological) and generally a physical dependence on the effects of the drug; and (iv) detrimental effects on the individual and on society.

Drug habituation (habit) is a condition resulting from the repeated consumption of a drug. Its characteristics include (i) a desire (but not a compulsion) to continue taking the drug for the sense of improved well-being which it engenders; (ii) little or no tendency to increase the dose; (iii) some degree of psychic dependence on the effect of the drug, but absence of physical dependence and hence of an abstinence syndrome [withdrawal], and (iv) detrimental effects, if any, primarily on the individual.

In 1964, a new WHO committee found these definitions to be inadequate, and suggested using the blanket term 'drug dependence':

The definition of addiction gained some acceptance, but confusion in the use of the terms addiction and habituation and misuse of the former continued. Further, the list of drugs abused increased in number and diversity. These difficulties have become increasingly apparent and various attempts have been made to find a term that could be applied to drug abuse generally. The component in common appears to be dependence, whether psychic or physical or both. Hence, use of the term 'drug dependence', with a modifying phase linking it to a particular drug type in order to differentiate one class of drugs from another, had been given most careful consideration. The Expert Committee recommends substitution of the term 'drug dependence' for the terms 'drug addiction' and 'drug habituation'. (emphasis added)

The committee did not clearly define dependence, but did go on to clarify that there was a distinction between physical and psychological ('psychic') dependence. It said that drug abuse was "a state of psychic dependence or physical dependence, or both, on a drug, arising in a person following administration of that drug on a periodic or continued basis." Psychic dependence was defined as a state in which "there is a feeling of satisfaction and psychic drive that requires periodic or continuous administration of the drug to produce pleasure or to avoid discomfort" and all drugs were said to be capable of producing this state:

There is scarcely any agent which can be taken into the body to which some individuals will not get a reaction satisfactory or pleasurable to them, persuading them to continue its use even to the point of abuse — that is, to excessive or persistent use beyond medical need. (emphasis added)

This is believed to be the first reference to "medical need" as a factor in the distinction between use and abuse. In 1965, the same WHO committee commented further, now providing a specific definition of abuse:

Drug abuse is the consumption of a drug apart from medical need or in unnecessary quantities. Its nature and significance may be considered from two points of view: one relates to the interaction between the drug and the individual, the other to the interaction between drug abuse and society. The first viewpoint is concerned with drug dependence and the interplay between the pharmacodynamic actions of the drug and the physiological and psychological status of the individual. The second — the interaction between drug abuse and society — is concerned with the interplay of a wide range of conditions, environmental, sociological, and economic.

Individuals may become dependent upon a wide variety of chemical substances that produce central nervous system effects ranging from stimulation to depression. All of these drugs have one effect in common: they are capable of creating, in certain individuals, a particular state of mind that is termed "psychic dependence ".

Some drugs… induce physical dependence, which is an adaptive state that manifests itself by intense physical disturbances when the administration of the drug is suspended or when its action is affected by the administration of a specific antagonist.

The committee offered several disclaimers of its definitions:

It must be emphasized that drug dependence and drug abuse, as used by the Committee, are general terms and carry no connotation of the degree of risk to public health or of the need for drug control or for a particular type of drug control. The Committee would point out again that the recommendation for the use of the terms drug abuse and drug dependence of this or that type must not be regarded as a re-definition; rather, these terms are intended as descriptive expressions for clarification in scientific reference, interdisciplinary discussions, and national and international procedures.

The 1969 edition of the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) manual defined drug abuse as "persistent or sporadic excessive drug use inconsistent with or unrelated to acceptable medical practice", modern editions have not used the term because of it's ambiguity, prefering instead to refer to the cluster of symptoms previously called 'drug abuse' as 'substance abuse'. In 1973, these statements and recent legislation based upon the term "dependence" rather than "addiction" or "abuse" were praised by President Richard M. Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse in its final report:

The Commission applauds the much-belated attempt by the scientific community to sever its conceptual apparatus from the vocabulary of politics and emotion. "Addiction," like "narcotics" and "drug abuse," has a general connotation of evil, suggesting illicit ecstasy, guilt and sin. Because the public image is conditioned more by cultural perceptions than by medical ones, medically-precise meanings simply cannot be harmonized with common parlance.

And in 1975, the WHO further distanced itself from the term 'drug abuse':

"Drug abuse" is a term in need of some clarification. …The term is really a convenient, but not very precise, way of indicating that (1) an unspecified drug is being used in an uspecified manner and amount … and (2) such use has been judged by some person or group to be wrong (illegal or immoral) and/or harmful to the user or society, or both. What might be called "drug abuse" by some would not necessarily be considered so by others. … For these reasons, the term "drug abuse" is avoided here

The World Health Organization presently prefers to use the terms harmful use and hazardous use (of drugs), in order to distinguish between the health effects of drug abuse rather than the social consequences. Another preferred term is drug misuse, defined as the "use of a substance for a purpose not consistent with legal or medical guidelines, as in the non-medical use of prescription medications." According to WHO, the term misuse is preferred by some in the belief that it is less judgmental. However, the 1957 and 1964–1965 WHO definitions of addiction, dependence and drug abuse persist to the present day in medical literature and have become entrenched in global legislation, despite the disclaimers and reliance on contentious assumptions. The WHO itself continues to use 'drug abuse' in its publications, and uses the term 'abuse' consistently and exclusively when discussing the control and consumption of illegal substances. This is in keeping with guidelines issued by the WHO's parent organization, the United Nations, which discourages any recognition of "recreational" or "responsible" use of drugs. Researchers may take note that somewhat less contentious definitions of addiction, dependence, and tolerance (with no speculation as to their roles in the definition of drug abuse) were jointly issued in 2001 by the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine in the publication "Definitions Related to the Use of Opioids for the Treatment of Pain".

NIDA

The US National Institute on Drug Abuse defines drug abuse as "The use of illegal drugs or the inappropriate use of legal drugs. The repeated use of drugs to produce pleasure, to alleviate stress, or to alter or avoid reality (or all three)."

Nixon Administration

In 1975, psychiatrist Jerome H. Jaffe (in his role as Drug Policy Director in the Nixon Administration) defined drug abuse as "the use, usually by self-administration, of any drug in a manner that deviates from the approved medical or social patterns within a given culture". According to Jaffe, the term "conveys the notion of social disapproval, and it is not necessarily descriptive of any particular pattern of drug use or its potential adverse consequences".

Stolen Generation

Stolen Generation is the term commonly used to mean the Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972. Originally considered child welfare, the practice is today perceived by many as a gross human rights violation, having wrought extensive family and cultural damage. The nature of the removals, their extent, and its effects on those removed, is a topic of considerable dispute and political debate within Australia to the point that the term "Stolen Generation" is often referred to in the (often conservative) media as the "so-called Stolen Generation". According to a government enquiry on the topic, at least 35,000 children were removed from their parents, and the figure may be substantially higher (the report notes that formal records of removals were very poorly kept). Percentage estimates were given that 10–30% of all Aboriginal children born during the seventy year period were removed. Similar actions were undertaken in the United States, where Native children such as Apaches were taken and put up for adoptions, and in Canada where children were sent to residential schools. [http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-692/disasters_tragedies/residential_schools/] Caucasian children living in Australia were sometimes removed from their families, as were British children during WWII, particularly those whose families were poverty-stricken and poorly educated.

The policy in theory

Although children of full Aboriginal descent were removed, in general "half-castes", the children of "mixed descent" (having one or more European ancestor) were the most targeted. A 1937 Federal Government conference on Native Welfare concluded in its final report that "...the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end." Therefore the aim of the policy was twofold, both of which are now considered highly racist: one was to assimilate mixed-descent Aborigines into the European society and culture. (Full-blooded Aborigines were considered too uncivilized to be assimilated.) The other was to ensure mixed-descent Aborigines would intermarry with Caucasians rather than with Aborigines; although the Social Darwinist ideology prevalent at the time held that the Aboriginal race would sooner or later die out, it was decided that the process was to be hastened by eventually breeding the Aboriginal race out of existence. A. O. Neville, the Chief Protector of the Aborigines in Western Australia, was probably the most vocal proponent of the policy at the time.

The policy in practice

A recent Government report noted that removals were certainly voluntary in some cases, as some mothers surrendered their children as they believed that they were unable to raise them for some reason. However a substantial body of evidence indicates that in a disturbing number of cases children were forcibly removed from their parents using "force or duress". In general the practice was to remove children between the ages of two and four, although in some cases, children were removed just hours after birth. The official report observed that in many cases gross violations of human rights occurred. Children were in some cases forcibly removed from their mothers' arms while still in the hospital. Other evidence gathered indicated that deception and brutality was used to remove the children. One account referring to events in 1935 stated that... :"I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin]. They put us in the police [vehicle] and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we'd gone [about ten miles] they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mothers' backs, crying, trying not to be left behind. But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us." [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/] The official report closely examined the distinctions between "forcible removal", "removal under threat or duress", "official deception", "uninformed voluntary release", and "voluntary release". Even in the last case, there was evidence that in some cases Aboriginal parents voluntarily sent their children to religious missions, in the hope that at least in this way they would be able to retain contact with their children and some knowledge of their whereabouts. With regard to official deception, the report identified several cases where parents were told by government officials that their children had died, even though this was not the case. The report also acknowledged that in several cases the state took responsibility for children that were genuinely orphaned or in a state of neglect. Defenders of the removals, in fact, claim that mixed-race children were often severely neglected within Aboriginal communities. The evidence gathered also indicated a substantial number of cases where the care of the children after removal was extremely good. Nonetheless, the report condemned the policy of disconnecting children from their "cultural heritage". In the testimony of one Aboriginal; "I've got everything that could be reasonably expected: a good home environment, education, stuff like that, but that's all material stuff. It's all the non-material stuff that I didn't have — the lineage... You know, you've just come out of nowhere; there you are". [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen04.html] Removed children were in most cases placed into institutional facilities operated by religious or charitable organisations, although a significant number, particularly females, were "fostered" out. A common aspect of the removals was the failure by these institutions to keep records of the actual parentage of the child, or such details as the date or place of birth. The report went on to note that "...the physical infrastructure of missions, government institutions and children's homes was often very poor and resources were insufficient to improve them or to keep the children adequately clothed, fed and sheltered." Incidence of sexual abuse were disturbingly high, overall 17% of females and 8% of males reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse while under institutional or foster care. [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen18.html] The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe. Although the stated aim of the "resocialisation" programme was to improve the integration of Aboriginals into modern society, a study conducted in Melbourne and cited in the official report found that there was no tangible improvement in the social position of "removed" Aborigines as compared to "non-removed", particularly in the areas of employment and post-secondary education. Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginals were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs. The only notable advantage "removed" Aboriginals possessed was a higher average income, which the report noted was most likely due to the increased urbanisation of removed individuals, and hence greater access to welfare payments than for Aboriginals living in tribal communities. It should be noted that Aboriginal children were not the only group to go through forced permanent removal from their families during this period. In the 1950s and 1960s, children removed from their families for various reasons and varying levels of consent, were sent from the United Kingdom to orphanages in Australia and Canada, where some experienced similar abuse to the stolen generation and were also left without family connections. The legal circumstances regarding the Stolen Generation remain unclear. Although some compensation claims are pending, it is not possible for a court to rule on behalf of plaintiffs simply because they were removed, as at the time, such removals were entirely legal under Australian law. Likewise, even though the actions may have contravened International Law, ruling on such a basis is outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts. At least two compensation claims have passed through the Australian courts and failed. The presiding judge noted in his summary judgement that he was not ruling that there would never be valid cases for compensation with regard to the Stolen Generation, only that in these specific two cases he could not find evidence of illegal conduct by the officials involved.

History of public awareness

Awareness of the Stolen Generation, and the practices which created it, only began to enter the public arena in the late 1980s through the efforts of Aboriginal activists, artists and musicians. The extensive public interest in the Mabo case had the side effect of throwing the media spotlight on all issues related to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, and most notably the Stolen Generation. In 1992, as media attention and public interest began to mount, the Prime Minister, Paul Keating made the first formal acknowledgement of the Stolen Generation, by saying in a speech that "... we took the children from their mothers ... It was our ignorance and prejudice." In 1995 the (then) Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Lavarch MP, commissioned a formal inquiry entitled "The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families". This inquiry commenced in May 1995, presided over by Sir Ronald Wilson, the president of the (Australian) Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and Mick Dodson, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). During the ensuing 17 months, the Inquiry visited every state and Territory in Australia, heard testimony from 535 Aboriginal Australians, and received submissions of evidence from over 600 more. In April 1997 the official report "Bringing Them Home - Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families" was released. Between the commissioning of the National Inquiry and the release of the final report in 1997, the conservative government of John Howard had replaced the Keating government. The report proved to be a considerable embarrassment for the Howard administration, as it recommended that the Australian Government formally apologise to the affected families, a proposal actively rejected by Howard, on the grounds that a formal admission of wrongdoing would lead to massive compensation litigation. Howard was quoted as saying "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies." [http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/2000/12/08/FFXDTEAWFGC.html]. As a result Commissioner Dodson resigned from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, saying in a newspaper column that "I despair for my country and regret the ignorance of political leaders who do not appreciate what is required to achieve reconciliation for us as a nation." [http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/2000/12/08/FFXDTEAWFGC.html] As a result of the report, formal apologies were tabled and passed in the state parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, and also in the parliament of the Northern Territory. On 26 May 1998 the first "National Sorry Day" was held, and reconciliation events were held nationally, and attended by over a million people. As public pressure continued to increase, Howard drafted a motion of "deep and sincere regret over the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents" which was passed by the federal parliament in August 1999. Howard went on to say that the Stolen Generation represented "...the most blemished chapter in the history of this country." [http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s115691.htm] However, some felt that his motion stopped too short of saying "sorry", and therefore was unacceptable. In April 2000 a scandal occurred when the (then) Aboriginal Affairs Minister, John Herron, tabled a report in Parliament that questioned whether or not there ever actually had been a "Stolen Generation", on the semantic distinction that as "only 10% of Aboriginal children" has been removed, they did not constitute an entire "generation". After a week of scathing media commentary and the attempted invasion of parliament by scores of angry Aboriginals, Mr Herron apologised for the "understandable offence taken by some people" as a result of his comments, although he refused to alter the report as it had been tabled, and in particular the (disputed) figure of 10%. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/20000407/A53755-2000Apr6.html]. John HerronIn May 2000, a "Walk for Reconciliation" was staged in Sydney, with up to 400,000 people marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge as a gesture of apology. A similar walk was staged in Melbourne later that year. In July 2000, the issue of the Stolen Generation came before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva who heavily criticised the Howard government for its manner of attempting to resolve the issues related to the Stolen Generation. Australia was also the target of a formal censure by the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. [http://www.smh.com.au/news/0007/22/text/pageone8.html], [http://www.theage.com.au/news/20000718/A12986-2000Jul17.html] Global media attention turned again to the Stolen Generation issue during the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics. A large "aboriginal tent city" was established on the grounds of Sydney University to bring attention to Aboriginal issues in general. The Aboriginal athlete Cathy Freeman (who was chosen to light the Olympic Flame and went on to win the gold medal for the 400 metre sprint) disclosed in interviews that her own grandmother was a "victim" of forced removal. The internationally successful rock group Midnight Oil obtained worldwide media interest when they performed at the Olympic closing ceremony wearing black sweatsuits with the word "SORRY" emblazoned across them. In November 2001, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology on behalf of the Vatican to the affected Aboriginal families for the actions of any and all Catholic authorities or organisations in connection with the Stolen Generation.

Other viewpoints

The Australian book and film Rabbit-Proof Fence tells a dramatic story about three young 'half-caste' or mixed race Aboriginal girls who ran away from a Western Australian settlement in which they were placed in 1931 as part of the Stolen Generation. The historical accuracy of the film has been disputed, both in terms of the feats of endurance of the girls themselves and its characterisation of the nature of government policy towards mixed race children.

External links

- [http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/stolen_children/ The (Australian) Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission website]
- [http://www.humanrights.gov.au/bth Bringing them home - The (Australian) Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission's education module on the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families]
- [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/ "Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families."] The official Australian government report.
- [http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no2_2004/larbalestier_white.htm White Over Black: Discourses of Whiteness in Australian Culture in Borderlands eJournal]. Category:Australian political controversies Stolen Generation Category:Human rights

Native Americans in the United States

:This article is about the people indigenous to the United States. For broader uses of "Native American" and related terms, see Native Americans. Native Americans] Native Americans in the United States (also Indians, American Indians, First Americans, Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal Peoples, Aboriginal Americans, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Original Americans) are those indigenous peoples within the territory that is now encompassed by the continental United States, and their descendants in modern times. This collective term encompasses a large number of distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of them still enduring as political communities. A comprehensive tribal list can be found under "Classification of Native Americans." The U.S. states and several of the inhabited insular areas which do not form part of the continental U.S. territory also contain indigenous groups. These other indigenous peoples in the United States are not generally designated as "Native Americans". This includes groups such as the Alaska Natives (Inuit, Yupik, Aleut, etc.), Native Hawaiians (also known as Kanaka Māoli and Kanaka 'Oiwi), and various Pacific Islander peoples such as the Chamorros. There is some controversy surrounding the names used to describe these peoples. U.S. specific teminology considerations are also covered in the Terminology differences section, below.

Early history

See also: archeology of the Americas, models of migration to the New World, and indigenous people of the Americas for more detailed history and migration theories.

The Bering Strait Land Bridge theory

Based on anthropological and genetic evidence, most scientists believe that most Native Americans descend from people who migrated from Siberia across the Bering Land Bridge between 17,000 and 11,000 years ago, where the Bering Strait is today. The exact epoch and route is still a matter of controversy. It should be noted, however, that many Native Americans reject theories of modern anthropology, having their own traditional stories that offer accounts to their origins, which are seen only as folklore by the scientific community. The primarily Siberian origin is widely regarded as the most likely, consisting of at least three separate migrations from Siberia to the Americas:
- The first wave, during the late Pleistocene, would be the forerunners of the Clovis and Folsom cultures, both hunting the abundant large mammals of the virgin continent. This wave eventually spread over the entire hemisphere, as far south as Tierra del Fuego and is believed to have reached the New World no later than 11,000 years ago.
- The second migration brought the ancestors of the Na-Dene peoples. They lived in Alaska and western Canada, but some migrated as far south as the Pacific Northwestern U.S. and the American Southwest, and would be ancestral to the Dene, Apaches and Navajos. This group is believed to have reached North America between 6,000 to 8,000 years ago.
- The third wave brought the ancestors of the Inuit, Yupik and Aleut peoples. They may have come by sea over the Bering Strait, after the land bridge had disappeared. They are believed to have reached Alaska as late as 3,000 years ago. In recent years, molecular genetics studies have suggested as many as four distinct migrations from Asia. These studies also provide surprising evidence of smaller-scale, contemporaneous migrations from Europe, possibly by peoples who had adopted a lifestyle resembling that of Inuits and Yupiks during the last ice age. While many Native American groups retained a