Psychologyresearch.org.uk

The father of Camryn Wilson, the first baby born in Summit County, Ohio in 2008, has been sentenced for shaking the baby to death. Sentenced to a term of 15 years to life, the 29 year-old man will probably serve 20 years in prison. To his credit, he offered no excuses for his crime. Stressed from an argument with the mother, he couldn’t tolerate the baby’s incessant crying. He insisted on a guilty plea, even though the autopsy showed evidence of previous abuse that might have implicated others and clouded prosecutorial certainty, as his lawyer, no doubt advocated. Hopefully, the young man is on a path to recovering his soul. Apart from recapitulating my post made at the time of the early adjudication of the case, I can’t help but wonder at the symbolism of the media using victims of the Madoff scam as a symbol of loss, when, as a country, the loss of this child is so much more damaging.    

Read the original here:
Shaken Babies and the Struggle for the Soul

Will neuroscience discover what makes our kids happy, or would playing on a swing set do more than any laboratory discovery? New York Times family columnist Judith Warner revealed she is exploring the “exciting new field of developmental neuroscience,” where “the best and the brightest” may be headed for careers now that Wall Street has collapsed. Will that world, in which highly motivated and intelligent parents like Warner labor intensely to master phrases like “single nucleotide polymorphism,” be a happier one for our children?  Or would they do better simply going out and exploring the world on their own or with other children? At the same time as the Warner column, New York old timer, author, and journalist Pete Hamill appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and spoke of driving through middle-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn: “There are no kids on the street, getting into fist fights, falling in love with the wrong people. They’re all inside, typing on keyboards, leading virtual lives. I hope they appreciate how privileged they are.” Immediately on his saying that, the show’s two hosts Mika Brezinski and Joe Scarborough looked stricken with recognition, as they quickly recapitulated in their minds how their own lives differed from their children’s. Their childhood worlds – in which they rode bikes in their neighborhoods, walked with friends to the movies or community swimming pools on Saturdays, organized their own games with balls and jacks – has disappeared. They now subsidize and support their children’s veal-like existences, where they are bred, and fed, and cultivated to produce the best possible outcomes – kids capable of going to elite schools and getting the few slots in society allotted to the “best and brightest.” Will those children be – are they – happier? We know they are more medicated for their various conditions – bipolar disorder, depression, ADHD. Does this make them happier? Of course, middle and upper-middle class parents can think, “So who goes out and plays on their own any more? Ghetto kids and immigrant children? What’s so great about their lives? They’ll end up struggling to maintain borderline existences in the new information economy.” I have lately been accompanying my small grandson and his parents to their local Queens playground where I spend my time alternately following him on various climbing apparatus as he encounters the polyglot nation – Polish, Dominican, Serbian – and reassuring my son and daughter-in-law that the experience isn’t life-threatening. I watched as Keith Olbermann discussed with Washington columnist Margaret Carlson the play set the Obama’s had built for their two young girls in the back yard of the White House, within view of the Oval Office. Upon seeing it, the kids – ages 10 and 8 – rushed out and played by themselves for an hour. Twice in the brief time allotted to discussing this small topic, Carlson predicted one of the children would suffer a “broken shoulder.” No good can come from leaving kids playing unsupervised on dangerous climbing surfaces and swings! If the Obama’s raise children in their uber-privileged environments who are capable of playing on their own and taking themselves to town on public transportation, it will be a greater accomplishment than if the President rescues the economy. For the choice now seems to be protecting children from being exposed to life on the streets – or allowing them to enter that uncertain world where anything can happen, meaning we can’t guarantee our kids’ success. And we just can’t chance that.

Read the original here:
Will Our Kids Be Happy? Why we don’t allow them to find out for themselves

Medications are the most frequently recommended treatment for low back pain. Research has shown that 80% of primary care patients with low back pain were prescribed at least one medication when seen by the primary care provider; more than one third were prescribed two or more medications. The most commonly prescribed drugs for low back pain are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as Motrin and naproxen, muscle relaxants, and opioid-based pain killers. Other medications regularly prescribed for chronic low back pain include benzodiazepines such as Valium, cortisone-type drugs, anti-depressant medications and anti-seizure medications. Of course, many patients use over-the-counter medications such as Tylenol, aspirin, and NSAIDs such as Advil. A challenge to many health care providers involves the choosing of the safest and most effective medication for a given patient. A more disturbing thought involves the possibility that many of the medications physicians prescribe may have little benefit. Thanks to a recent review by the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians, published in the October 02, 2008 edition of Annals of Internal Medicine, there is a little more statistical certainty behind the decision to treat with a particular medication. The authors found clear evidence that Tylenol, NSAIDs, and tricyclic anti-depressants were effective for chronic low back pain, at least for short-term pain relief. Effects, however, were “moderate”-not overwhelming. The authors also found fair evidence that tramadol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin are effective for pain relief. Interestingly, the interpretation of the effectiveness of opioids for low back was considered a challenge by the researchers. However, recent reviews of studies on opioids have concluded that for various chronic pain conditions opioids are of moderate benefit. Comparing the various drug classes to one another is extremely difficult, due to the lack of head-to-head trials. Likewise, there are few head-to-head trials examining drugs within the same class. On the other hand, there is much data on the differences in side effect profiles for the various classes of medications. For example, muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, and tricyclic antidepressants cause sedation. Opioids are associated with high rates of sedation and constipation. It would appear that for mild or moderate pain, a trial of Tylenol might be a reasonable initial treatment, as for most patients it is safer than NSAIDs. Unfortunately, Tylenol is a less effective pain medication; so, for more severe pain perhaps an NSAID would be best. For severe pain, a trial of opioid drugs would be reasonable in order to achieve pain relief and improve function, keeping in mind all the while the potential for abuse. In making the decision to treat chronic low back pain, patient and physician must discuss the possibilities and predispositions for side effects, drug interactions, and drug costs. After discussing with the chronic pain sufferer the severity and length of time of pain, then the decision can be made as to the best treatment for that particular patient. It will still be the case in many cases that the “best” treatment is the one that works.    

View original post here:
The “BEST” Medication For Chronic Low Back Pain

This quasi-facetious title is meant to highlight something essential to understanding childhood. Namely, that–more than anything else–what distinguishes children from adults is in their ability to control impulses. Put simply, the younger the child, the less developed the ability; the older, the greater the ability. And when the child eventually becomes an adult, presumably this capability has been more or less mastered. Fundamentally, civilizing or socializing children depends on the capacity of our institutions (particularly that of family and school) to teach them to curb or eradicate many of the behaviors deeply embedded in them. If, ultimately, they’re to function adequately in society, what–universally–is natural for them needs to be almost completely subdued. It’s almost mandatory that their original “biological scripts” be rewritten. If, specifically, they’re to fit in with others and, more generally, into society at large, they just can’t continue to do what their inborn nature might dictate. That is, from within the mind of a young child, if something is wanted it ought to be pursued–and immediately , too (and, further, with little or no regard for consequences). Additionally, if something is keenly felt , it should be acted out at once. So when angry, hit or scream. When sad, cry. When afraid, run or hide. When disgusted, make a face. Such impulsive acting-out is nothing more than being true to our inborn nature. In this respect, impulse and instinct are virtually inseparable. But unfortunately, we all learn over time that doing what comes naturally is, typically, not in our best interests, nor is it acceptable to the world around us. Well-adjusted behaviors–vs. developmentally normal but pragmatically “disordered” behaviors- -necessitate all sorts of self-imposed restraints (call them, if you will, “inner checks and balances”). So impulsive behavior, while it may be totally natural and reflective of where, in a sense, we should be at any particular stage of development, is nonetheless neither safe nor healthy for us–or even appropriate in helping us negotiate the difficult process of finding our proper place in society. And though our impulsiveness may to varying degrees be tolerated by our parents, it still needs to be taken charge of–or reined in–by them. If not, how will we avoid ultimately being rejected by those around us? After all, by definition unruly children don’t play by the rules. And generally they don’t share as much as they’re “supposed to” either. Nor are they very adept at suppressing their aggressive tendencies–or restraining or disciplining themselves. It’s simply not part of who they are. Again, impulsive behavior is innate–wired into us at birth. It can be seen as the pre-installed software that enables our organism to function. And since it’s how we’re “made,” it’s certainly nothing to feel guilty or ashamed about. The problem is that such impulsivity is primitive. It optimizes our chances of survival–but far more in the wild than in civilization. And this is exactly why, in the context of modern society, it warrants being viewed as dysfunctional, or “disordered.” For such impulsivity, pre-programmed as it is for another time and place, is precisely what gets in the way of our becoming fully socialized. If, finally, we’re to get along in the world, we have no choice but to adapt to what the world requires of us. And so, contrary to how we’ve been “constructed,” our unwary impulsivity needs systematically to be disciplined out of us. In fact, responsible parenting literally demands that parents bring this impulsivity under control–that they teach us to regulate (if not outright repress) it by correcting us almost every time we follow our internal dictates (i.e., what we’d do “naturally” if not subject to others’ reactions). For example, the constitutional inclination to cry or strike out when someone hurts us is automatic . . . until we’re motivated–through external conditioning–to inhibit such expression. Kids with ADHD represent a case in point here. Their marked inability to control their impulses can wreak havoc both on themselves and their relationships, as well as cause all sorts of problems for others, both at home and school (and anywhere else their wayward impulses might take them). Without malicious intent, their behaviors can easily end up being “anti-social–for example, heedlessly expressing their creativity through graffiti; or acting in public in rowdy, obstreperous, or otherwise obnoxious ways; or even punching out someone who’s just said something upsetting to them. In consequence, if such children are ever going to fit it (not to say, thrive), they’ll require an inordinate amount of parental training and discipline, and be subject to all kinds of behavioral modification. And if all this external regulation still fails sufficiently to reduce their maladaptive behaviors, they’ll also need to be put on medication–all in the expanded effort to bring their behavior up to acceptable childhood standards. But even these standards, though far more adaptive and age-appropriate, aren’t adequate to enable children to meet the demands that society will one day make on them. So all parents, if they’re to be responsible, need to set firm limits on their children when they’re behaving impulsively. And this impulsivity can include acting foolishly, imprudently, gullibly, mindlessly, rashly, and (as is so frequently the case with ADHD children) recklessly as well. Moreover, it’s only right that parents exert such authority. For unless their child’s impulsive, unrestrained behavior is brought under control, that child will have problems making (and keeping) friends, experience difficulty in applying themselves to anything that doesn’t “capture” their attention, will repeatedly antagonize others (most notably their parents–thus weakening this all-important attachment bond), and so on and so on.   Note: Part 2 of this post will deal with (1) how all addictive behavior–in the addict’s inability to control strong, though self-defeating, impulses–warrants understanding as a regression to (or fixation in) childhood; and (2) why it’s essential that parents learn to be as compassionate as possible when their children act impulsively.  

See more here: 
Childhood as an Impulse Control Disorder

Children are, in my book, off limits when writing about personal experiences.  As an author and psychotherapist with an expertise in family estrangement, I have not hesitated to share my personal experiences with readers.  Other writers and clinicians have also contributed their stories because like me, we feel our experiences can help others.  In my writing, however, my children are off limits when it comes to public exposure.  I feel strongly that they’re entitled to this respect and privacy; after all, thought they’re all grown up now, they’re still my children. This week I was shocked and appalled by a story in a British newspaper, The Independent , about an acclaimed writer named Julie Myerson who decided to write the story of her decision to cut off all ties with her 17 year old son.  Myerson, by the way, is no hack; she’s a well-known and critically acclaimed writer in the UK.   Myerson’s son Jake had developed a habituation to a form of marijuana called “skunk. ”  For some reason, skunk smoking has become epidemic among British adolescents. I don’t know why this trend hasn’t migrated to the US, but fortunately it hasn’t, at least to my knowledge.  Skunk is extremely powerful cannabis that is grown hydroponically and is up to 25 times more powerful than the pot smoked in the U.S.  It’s created a serious public health problem in Britain and has caused a dramatic rise in psychosis and hospital admissions due to skunk abuse are at their highest level.  In Myerson’s soon to be released semi-autobiographical book, “The Lost Child”, she writes that her son Jake’s drug abuse was so out of control that he became violent and posed a threat to his two younger siblings and to her and his father.  Because he refused treatment and became unmanageable to live with, she took the advice offered by drug abuse experts to throw him out of their home and in effect, to disown him.  To put it another way, she resigned from her job as Jake’s mother.    Ironically Myerson had been disowned by her own father and had promised Jake when he was 12 years old that she would never cut him out of her life because “we think a parent’s relationship with their child is the parent’s responsibility – however old or bad the child is.”  Good for you Julie, I agree with you there.  A parent is a parent and is always a parent of their children.  Having been cut off by my parents, I couldn’t agree with you more.  I also don’t disagree with the professionals who advised her that she needed to throw Jake out of the house.  That’s the only way to stop enabling the addiction with the hope the addict will hit bottom and get treatment.  Apparently Jake did become abstinent from drugs after a period of time and this drama could have been used as a stepping-stone to repairing the rift between Jake and his family. Instead Julie chose to publicly expose her child’s drug problems and the related behavioral problems caused by the drug abuse.  Now that, in my opinion, is off limits, indecent and obscene.  No one with a heart would publicly expose their child’s personal struggles.  Any parent with respect for their child and human decency, love and kindness would not be critical of their child in their writing and publicly humiliate them for their own glorification as a writer.  She made a choice to do this, though and never even gave her son the choice to have his and the family’s dirty laundry aired out in public. Every adolescent challenges their parent’s self-control and engages in unpleasant defiance and sometimes abusiveness.  I was no picnic as a teenager and certainly adolescence was not the easiest of times for me as a parent. Julie Myerson, however, made two indefensible moves: she not only publicly defamed her son but she never, at least in public, reflected on her role in her son’s problem.  I’m not saying her son became a drug abuser because of bad parenting, not at all, but I am saying that as parents we always have to look honestly at our part in perpetuating our children’s very normal human challenges.   Julie, its time as they say in AA, to make a searching and fearless moral inventory.  Addiction is a family disease after all. 

Read the original here: 
Once a Parent, Always a Parent: One Mother’s Resignation by Literary Defamation

Over at Opposing Views, bioethicist Jacob Appel argues that pre-implantation genetic screening for severe disease mutations should be compulsory for parents undergoing IVF . Appell dodges one obvious criticism of this suggestion – that it unacceptably limits parental autonomy – by pointing out that “Western societies have long acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child”. As examples, Appell cites the facts that Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot deny their own children blood transfusions, however strong their religious opposition, and that “American courts consistently compel pediatric cancer therapy, even when parents object”. Given these precedents, Appell argues that allowing children to be brought into the world with a severe genetic disease, when this situation could be easily avoided with large-scale genetic screening, is morally indefensible and analogous to child abuse. I’m wary of any argument that violates parental autonomy – but Appell’s argument certainly seems consistent with emerging Western values weighing child protection above parental choice (so long, of course, as such protection does not extend to embryos). I actually suspect that top-down coercion will not ultimately be required to enforce embryo screening for severe diseases, however – social pressure will be a far more effective tool. Once pre-natal screening for severe disease (both through IVF embryo testing and maternal blood testing) becomes effective and cheap, parents of disabled children will be increasingly viewed by society as being responsible for their child’s disease . Social ostracism will always trump legality as an incentive to change moral values. Whether you see such a world as right or wrong will of course depend on your political and religious beliefs, but I really can’t see how these changes can be avoided; they are an inevitable consequence of advances in genetic technology coupled with human nature. In other words: like it or not, genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy will almost certainly be little more than historical curiosities within a decade or two . I must admit that I find it hard to view this prospect with anything approaching sadness. Subscribe to Genetic Future . Read the comments on this post…

Excerpt from: 
Embryo screening should be mandatory [Genetic Future]

Babies can say volume without saying a single word. They can wave good-bye, point at things to indicate an interest or shake their heads to mean “No”. These gestures may be very simple, but they are a sign of things to come. Year-old toddlers who use more gestures tend to have more expansive vocabularies several years later. And this link between early gesturing and future linguistic ability may partially explain by children from poorer families tend to have smaller vocabularies than those from richer ones. Vocabulary size tallies strongly with a child’s academic success, so it’s striking that the lexical gap between rich and poor appears when children are still toddlers and can continue throughout their school life. What is it about a family’s socioeconomic status that so strongly affects their child’s linguistic fate at such an early age? Obviously, spoken words are a factor. Affluent parents tend to spend more time talking to their kids and use more complicated sentences with a wider range of words. But Meredith Rowe and Susan Goldin-Meadow from the University of Chicago found that actions count too. Children gesture before they learn to speak and previous studies have shown that even among children with similar spoken skills, those who gesture more frequently during early life tend to know more words later on. Rowe and Goldin-Meadow have shown that differences in gesturing can partly explain the social gradient in vocabulary size. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read more from the original source: 
Babies’ gestures partly explain link between wealth and vocabulary [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

The mainstream media are just queuing up to fail in their reporting of the propranolol story from a couple of days ago. To reiterate: Propranolol is commonly used to treat high blood pressure and prevent migraines in children. But Merel Kindt and colleagues from the University of Amsterdam have found that it can do much more. By giving it to people before they recalled a scary memory about a spider, they could erase the fearful response it triggered. The critical thing about the study is that the entire memory hadn’t been erased in a typical sci-fi way. Kindt had trained the volunteers to be fearful of spidery images by pairing them with electric shocks. Even after they’d been given propranolol, they still expected to receive a shock when they saw a picture of a spider – they just weren’t afraid of the prospect. The drug hadn’t so much erased their memories, as dulled their emotional sting. It’s more like removing all the formatting from a Word document than deleting the entire file. The drug is not a ” memory-wiping pill ” (Guardian). It cannot “erase bad/painful memories” ( Sun / Fox News / Metro / Daily Mail ) and it won’t give you a ” spotless mind ” (Scotsman). Perhaps it’s unsurprising given that massive wire agencies said similar things. The Press Association led with claims that the drug can ” erase fearful memories “. Reuters at least said more cautiously that it was a ” step towards erasing bad memories “. To quote the person who actually did the research (and thanks Merel for chiming in on the earlier post):  “There was no memory erasure, just elimination of the fearful response.” The problem with all of this, of course, is that people have straw-manned the research and are falling over themselves to publish trite editorials that (a) are irrelevant to the actual study and (b) serve to stoke public outrage over an ethical dilemma of their own concoction. There are exceptions. The Boston Globe got it right and has a brilliant bit at the end that lays out in four simple sentences the bottom line, cautions, what’s next, and where the research was published. It has however accompanied the article with an incongruous photo of a koala, presumably some sort of mix-up with the Australian bushfire story. The mental health charity MIND released a long and well-considered statement , which showed that they had actually read the paper and understood the science. The charity’s CEO, Paul Farmer, said: “This is fascinating research that could transform the treatment for phobias and post traumatic stress disorder. Around 10 million people in the UK have a phobia and about 3.5% of the population will be affected by post traumatic stress disorder at some point yet our understanding of how to treat these conditions is still limited. While we welcome any advancement in this field we should also exercise caution before heralding this as a miracle cure. “Eradicating emotional responses is clearly an area we would need to be very careful about. It could affect people’s ability to respond to dangerous situations in the future and could even take away people’s positive memories. We would not want to see an ‘accelerated Alzheimer’s’ approach. “We still have limited research on how to treat complex mental health problems, with the focus often on pharmacological solutions. Drugs are a somewhat sledgehammer approach and can have unintended consequences. We know from other psychiatric drugs, for example antipsychotics and antidepressants, that individuals react in hugely varied ways to treatments and are often vulnerable to unpleasant side effects. “We would need to see much more research into the risks and benefits into this treatment before it becomes a reality.” All of that was culled by the BBC into the following: But British experts questioned the ethics of tampering with the mind. Paul Farmer, chief executive of mental health charity Mind, said he was concerned about the “fundamentally pharmacological” approach to people with problems such as phobias and anxiety. He said the procedure might also alter good memories and warned against an “accelerated Alzheimer’s” approach. Do you think it carries the same meaning or sense? Read the comments on this post…

Read more here: 
More on propranolol – the drug that doesn’t erase memories [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

Our health isn’t just affected by the things we do after we’re born – the conditions we face inside our mother’s womb can have a lasting impact on our wellbeing, much later in life. This message comes from a growing number of studies that compare a mother’s behaviour during pregnancy to the subsequent health of her child. But all of these studies have a problem. Mothers also pass on half of their genes to their children, and it’s very difficult to say which aspects of the child’s health are affected by conditions in the womb, and which are influenced by mum’s genetic legacy. Take the case of smoking. Doing it while pregnant is bad news for the foetus, and studies have suggested that children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are more likely to be born prematurely, be born lighter, have poorer lung function, and be more likely to die suddenly before their first birthday. More controversially, they may even show higher levels of behavioural problems including autistic disorders and antisocial tendencies. Biologically, these results make sense, but many of these risks can be inherited too. For example, genetic factors can strongly influence both a person’s susceptibility to nicotine addiction and their propensity for violent behaviour. A mother’s genes could also affect the birth weight of her child. To untangle these influences, the ideal experiment would involve randomly implanting foetuses either in the wombs of their own mothers, or those of unrelated women.   That’s possible in animals but deliberately doing so in humans would be both unethical and impractical. Nonetheless, Frances Rice from Cardiff University realised that this experiment was actually well underway. Since the advent of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technology in the late 1970s, many mothers have nourished babies in their womb, who weren’t genetically related to them. Here was an ideal chance to study the effects of conditions in the womb, without any confusion caused by shared genes. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read the original here:
Ask an IVF baby: does smoking while pregnant lead to antisocial behaviour? [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

Monsters existed in the 1800s. They were not mythical creatures, but children born with birth defects who were widely discussed in the medical literature and sometimes cruelly paraded in the travelling freak shows of the time. Curiously, one of the most popular explanations for these congenital deformities concerned the psychology of the expectant mother. If you had asked a 19th century doctor why some children were born with unusual bodies, or even fairly common birthmarks, you might have been told that they were caused by a frightening incident experienced by the mother during pregnancy. The theory, known as ‘ maternal impression ‘, suggested the trauma could symbolically imprint itself on the foetus. The 1896 book Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine described many such cases in their chapter on obstetric anomalies, and this is a fairly typical example: Parvin mentions an instance of the influence of maternal impression in the causation of a large, vivid, red mark or splotch on the face: “When the mother was in Ireland she was badly frightened by a fire in which some cattle were burned. Again, during the early months of her pregnancy she was frightened by seeing another woman suddenly light the fire with kerosene, and at that time became firmly impressed with the idea that her child would be marked.’ In another case history, a child with hydrocephalus with a “small and rabbit-shaped” face and deformed eyes is explained by the fact that a rabbit jumped at its mother during pregnancy where she was frightened by its ‘glare’. Perhaps one of the most curious cases was published in 1817 and concerned a recalcitrant father who denied being responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, causing the mother a great deal of distress. The child was later born, reportedly with the name of date of birth of his father clearly visible in his eyes. This is a curious mirror of the first, probably mythical, case of maternal impression, where Hippocrates reportedly saved the honour of an adulterous princess by explaining her dark skinned child as due to her having a portrait of a ‘negro’ in her room. Although the theory enjoyed a long and colourful life, it peacefully passed away in the late 19th century when it became clear that the mind of the mother had no influence on birthmarks or congenital deformities. For many years the psychological state of the expectant mother was thought to have virtually no effect on the developing child. But then the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, and that all began to change. The quickly assembled Finnish force was vastly outnumbered and ominously outgunned but, unlike their Soviet counterparts, they were quick and comfortable in the Artic conditions and made swift and deadly attacks. In one of history’s great military victories, they defeated the Russians but suffered heavy losses. Many of the dead were young men, and many of the grieving were young pregnant women. Nearly 40 years later, two Finnish psychiatrists decided to look at the mental health of the children who grew up without fathers. They compared children born to women who grieved during pregnancy, to those born to women who lost their husbands after the child had been born. Their study , published in 1978, found that mothers who had lost their husbands during pregnancy were much more likely to have children who later developed schizophrenia. Many similar studies have found that severe maternal stress during pregnancy affects the developing brain of the child, increasing the risk of cognitive or psychiatric problems later in life, possibly due to the effect of the hormonal response of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal ( HPA ) system. Thankfully, we no longer think of people as monsters, whatever their size, shape or mental state, and we have long banished the monstrous myths of ‘maternal impression’. But we do know that the mind of the mother is connected to the development of the unborn baby, and that maternal experiences can still echo through the life of the child.

Read more from the original source: 
The shock of the few