Search results

This paper considers parents who misuse substances. The potential impacts of their substance misuse on their ability to parent effectively and safely (parenting capacity) are explored, as are some of the barriers many parents face when attempting to seek treatment for problematic substance misuse. The terms ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are used interchangeably in this paper and ‘substances’ refers to alcohol, illicit drugs and overuse of prescribed medicines. It is important to make the distinction between parents whose use of substances does not constitute dependency and might be best described as ‘recreational or hazardous’. Such individuals might not seek treatment and estimates of prevalence rates of use among this cohort are difficult as they remain hidden from services. Parents who might already be in treatment services or who might be seeking treatment might be described as ‘problematic or dependent’ although presentation at services is neither necessary nor sufficient to assume that the individual's misuse of substances is problematic or indicative of a dependency. The use of substances is associated with numerous harms to the individual: psychologically, socially, interpersonally and physically, and is a risk factor towards negative parenting practices. The use of substances in itself is not an indication of neglectful or harmful parenting, as many parents who use substances have adequate parenting skills, however, it is more frequently associated as a risk rather than a protective factor when considering potential harms. Most of the research refers to mothers although we are aware that some fathers may have sole parenting responsibility for their children. Parents, in particular mothers, face many barriers when trying to access substance misuse treatment services. When they are in treatment, services often lack the skills and experiences to be able to balance managing child protection issues and engaging the parent in treatment. A full review of the issues associated with parenting and substance misuse is beyond the scope of this paper and the reader is referred to Fowler (2003), Cleaver et al (1999), Velleman and Templeton (2007) and Day and George (2005) and the British Psychological Society's Child Protection Portfolio (2007) for further discussion.

As we approach the millennium, we find ourselves in a world that places ever greater weight and significance on the outcome of polls, surveys, and market research. The advent of modern polling began with the use of scientific sampling in the mid‐1930s and has progressed vastly beyond the initial techniques and purposes of the early practitioners such as George Gallup, Elmo Roper, and Archibald Crossley. In today's environment, the computer is an integral part of most commercial survey work, as are the efforts by academic and nonprofit enterprises. It should be noted that the distinction between the use of the words “poll” and “survey” is somewhat arbitrary, with the mass media seeming to prefer “polling,” and with academia selecting “survey research.” However, searching online systems will yield differing results, hence this author's inclusion of both terms in the title of this article.

A pæan of joy and triumph which speaks for itself, and which is a very true indication of how the question of poisonous adulteration is viewed by certain sections of “the trade,” and by certain of the smaller and irresponsible trade organs, has appeared in print. It would seem that the thanks of “the trade” are due to the defendants in the case heard at the Liverpool Police Court for having obtained an official acknowledgment that the use of salicylic acid and of other preservatives, even in large amounts, in wines and suchlike articles, is not only allowable, but is really necessary for the proper keeping of the product. It must have been a charming change in the general proceedings at the Liverpool Court to listen to a “preservatives” case conducted before a magistrate who evidently realises that manufacturers, in these days, in order to make a “decent” profit, have to use the cheapest materials they can buy, and cannot afford to pick and choose; and that they have therefore “been compelled” to put preservatives into their articles so as to prevent their going bad. He was evidently not to be misled by the usual statement that such substances should not be used because they are injurious to health— as though that could be thought to have anything to do with the much more important fact that the public “really want” to have an article supplied to them which is cheap, and yet keeps well. Besides, many doctors and professors were brought forward to prove that they had never known a case of fatal poisoning due to the use of salicylic acid as a preservative. Unfortunately, it is only the big firms that can manage to bring forward such admirable and learned witnesses, and the smaller firms have to suffer persecution by faddists and others who attempt to obtain the public notice by pretending to be solicitous about the public health. Altogether the prosecution did not have a pleasant time, for the magistrate showed his appreciation of the evidence of one of the witnesses by humorously rallying him about his experiments with kittens, as though any‐one could presume to judge from experiments on brute beasts what would be the effect on human beings—the “lords of creation.” Everyone reading the evidence will be struck by the fact that the defendant stated that he had once tried to brew without preservatives, but with the only result that the entire lot “went bad.” All manufacturers of his own type will sympathise with him, since, of course, there is no practicable way of getting over this trouble except by the use of preservatives; although the above‐mentioned faddists are so unkind as to state that if everything is clean the article will keep. But this must surely be sheer theory, for it cannot be supposed that there can be any manufacturer of this class of article who would be foolish enough to think he could run his business at a profit, and yet go to all the expense of having the returned empties washed out before refilling, and of paying the heavy price asked for the best crude materials, when he has to compete with rival firms, who can use practically anything, and yet turn out an article equal in every way from a selling point of view, and one that will keep sufficiently, by the simple (and cheap) expedient of throwing theory on one side, and by pinning their faith to a preservative which has now received the approval of a magistrate. Manufacturers who use preservatives, whether they are makers of wines or are dairymen, and all similar tradesmen, should join together to protect their interests, for, as they must all admit, “the welfare of the trade” is the chief thing they have to consider, and any other interest must come second, if it is to come in at all. Now is the time for action, for the Commission appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives in foods has not yet given its decision, and there is still time for a properly‐conducted campaign, backed up by those “influential members of the trade” of whom we hear so much, and aided by such far‐reaching and brilliant magisterial decisions, to force these opinions prominently forward, in spite of the prejudice of the public; and to insure to the trades interested the unfettered use of preservatives,—which save “the trade” hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, by enabling the manufacturers to dispense with heavily‐priced apparatus, with extra workmen and with the use of expensive materials,—and which are urgently asked for by the public,—since we all prefer to have our foods drugged than to have them pure.

In a recent article dealing with the crimes against humanity committed by Germany, The Daily Telegraph remarks that thousands of innocent men, women, and little children murdered in cold blood by airship and submarine appeal for vengeance. The acts of Germany from the early days of the war onwards have filled decent‐minded people with feelings of loathing, and it is well that the last bonds uniting the two nations should be severed. This is no ordinary war. It has cut a deep chasm between the British and German peoples. By every means in our power we must remove, root and branch, those enemy influences in our midst which, by a process of “peaceful penetration,” were undermining our social, financial, and industrial power.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

LIBRARIANS in charge of small municipal collections are sometimes apt to forget, when enviously regarding some of the larger libraries, that, in many ways, a small library has advantages over its larger rivals, and may even carry out ideas and suggestions which are too laborious to be carried out on a very great scale. As an illustration, I wish to cite the experience of my own library at Bingley, and show how, by working out these suggestions, the membership has been raised from 700 to 1,600, and the annual issues from 24,000 to 54,000 volumes.

It is now forty years since there appeared H. R. Plomer's first volume Dictionary of the booksellers and printers who were at work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1641 to 1667. This has been followed by additional Bibliographical Society publications covering similarly the years up to 1775. From the short sketches given in this series, indicating changes of imprint and type of work undertaken, scholars working with English books issued before the closing years of the eighteenth century have had great assistance in dating the undated and in determining the colour and calibre of any work before it is consulted.

Considerable progress has been made in connection with the scientific survey now being undertaken as a preliminary to the consideration of improved methods of treatment and prevention of the ever increasing menace of grain pests, of which there are some seventy varieties. The survey is being made by the Stored Products Laboratory, of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, under the direction of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and is being conducted by Professor Munro, assisted by a staff of experienced entomologists. At the commencement of the survey a research committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. E. J. Butler, C.M.G., C.I.E., the Secretary of the Agricultural Research Council, to supervise the survey, consider its results, and report to the Department. Membership of the Research Committee includes, in addition to representation from Government Departments, Mr. W. P. Henderson, the Chief Chemist of the L.M.S. Railway, and Mr. W. McAuley Gracie, M.B.E., M.Inst.T., Chairman of the Standing Conference on Pest Infestation set up by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. At a recent meeting of the Research Committee, Professor Munro submitted a progress report dealing with the scientific survey, and on the convincing evidence contained in the report the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research sought the opinion of the Standing Conference on Pest Infestation as to whether consideration of control and remedial measures should be undertaken forthwith. The Standing Conference, whose membership comprises representatives of Government Departments, trading authorities and associations, including the Ministry of Agriculture, the four main line railway companies, the Port of London Authority, the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners, the Research Association of British Flour Millers, the National Federation of Corn Trade Associations, the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants, the National Farmers' Union, the Brewers' Society and the Maltsters' Association, took unanimous resolutions desiring the Department to secure immediate consideration of control and remedial action appropriate to the varying circumstances, and to extend the constitution of the Conference to bring into contributing membership interests outside the grain trade, but who are concerned with other produce susceptible to pest infestation, inasmuch as they would derive benefit from this stage of the work. The Chairman was authorised to negotiate with the Department accordingly and standing orders were suspended to enable him to admit into membership such bodies as furnished the requisite proof of interest. The Conference also urged that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should consult immediately with other appropriate public departments to secure adequate arrangements being made for the complete treatment of the problems of prevention and cure. The cost of such treatment, however, has to be met largely by industrial contributions, but it is understood that there is indication that generous contribution may be made from public funds towards the cost of the immediate remedial stage, providing that substantial industrial financial backing is forthcoming. Promises of further financial support have already been secured, but more money is required before negotiation can be entered into with the Department to obtain help from public funds. The co‐operation of all industrial organisations faced with the problem of infestation, by taking up contributory membership to support the conference in its national work, is urgently required. The problems of infestation can only be successfully combated if the complete co‐operation of all sections of industry in any way affected is secured. Full details and information regarding membership of the Conference can readily be obtained on application to the Chairman of the Standing Conference on Pest Infestation at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 16, Old Queen Street, London, S.W.1.

Generally industrialists are interested only in the net product of their operations and aim to maximise this product by turning the private costs of doing business into social costs, to be borne by others, usually the employees in the form of hazards. The objective of protective labour legislation has been abatement of this avoidance of private costs at the expense of third parties. But the goal of minimising enterprise costs is at odds with this goal of public policy. 1986 marks the 150th anniversary of the case of Priestly v. Fowler in which a suit for damages was brought against an employer by an employee. The present examination of class conflict over work and health begins with this case. The Union Carbide (India) Ltd disaster in Bhopal is also examined. Although laws are enacted, conflict between employers and employees is simply transferred to the courts or enforcement agencies. Workers' compensation and the implications of deregulation in the 1980s is examined.