Résumés
Abstract
The definition of suffering is difficult to pinpoint, particularly when addressing suffering within cases of child abuse. Dividing humanity into the categories of “perpetrators” and “victims” is too rudimentary. This dichotomy depreciates the human cost of the “perpetrator” while simultaneously failing to account for the complexity of “victimization” and the communal/collective responsibility for the suffering of those abused. This essay introduces two terms from feminist Christian theology, “radical suffering” and “callousness,” as a way of bolstering already-established definitions of suffering within the clinical context and bioethics literature. The aim is to: a) describe suffering in a way that mitigates dehumanizing tendencies and b) direct attention to a collective responsibility for cultures of abuse that enable violence and violation.
Keywords:
- child abuse,
- radical suffering,
- suffering,
- callousness,
- culture of abuse,
- advocacy,
- United States
Résumé
La définition de la souffrance est difficile à cerner, en particulier lorsqu’il s’agit de la souffrance dans les cas de maltraitance d’enfants. Diviser l’humanité en catégories « auteurs » et « victimes » est trop rudimentaire. Cette dichotomie déprécie le coût humain de l’« auteur » tout en ne rendant pas compte de la complexité de la « victimisation » et de la responsabilité communautaire/collective de la souffrance des personnes abusées. Cet essai présente deux termes issus de la théologie chrétienne féministe, la « souffrance radicale » et l’« insensibilité », afin de renforcer les définitions déjà établies de la souffrance dans le contexte clinique et la littérature bioéthique. L’objectif est de : a) décrire la souffrance d’une manière qui atténue les tendances déshumanisantes et b) attirer l’attention sur la responsabilité collective des cultures de maltraitance qui favorisent la violence et la violation.
Mots-clés :
- abus d’enfants,
- souffrance radicale,
- souffrance,
- insensibilité,
- culture de l’abus,
- plaidoyer,
- États-Unis
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- 1. Ruffolo LI, Gaba H, Dale BS, et al. Outcomes after child physical abuse and association with community-level social determinants of health. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2022;235(5):810-18.
- 2. Puls HT, Chung PJ, Anderson C. Universal child care as a policy to prevent child maltreatment. Pediatrics. 2022;150(2):e2022056660.
- 3. Farley W. Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A Contemporary Theodicy. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox; 1990.
- 4. Tate T. What we talk about when we talk about pediatric suffering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2020;41(4):143-63.
- 5. Amonoo HL, Harris JH, Murphy WS, Abrahm JL, Peteet JR. The physician’s role in responding to existential suffering: what does it mean to comfort always? Journal of Palliative Care. 2020;35(1):8-12.
- 6. Salter EK. The new futility? The rhetoric and role of “suffering” in pediatric decision-making. Nursing Ethics. 2020;27(1):16-27.
- 7. Cassell EJ. Recognizing suffering. Hastings Center Report. 1991;21(3):24-31.
- 8. Ledbetter EO. An ethical approach to intervention/prevention of child maltreatment. Advances in Pediatrics. 2003;50(1):215-229.
- 9. Palusci VJ, Botash AS. Race and bias in child maltreatment diagnosis and reporting. Pediatrics. 2021;148(1):e2020049625.
- 10. Puls HT, Hall M, Anderst JD, Gurley T, Perrin J, Chung PJ. State spending on public benefit programs and child maltreatment. Pediatrics. 2021;148(5):e2021050685.
- 11. World Health Organization. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: Social determinants of health discussion paper 2. Geneva: WHO; 2010.