Found this interesting tool online after being given something similar at a doctor's office during a pre-surgery visit. The idea is to assess whether or not a patient is more or less likely to abuse opiates given their particular background.
Questions about drug and alcohol use, family addiction history, and other areas are given point scores to determine whether a patient may or may not have a greater risk of addiction if prescribed opiates. The higher the score, the more likelihood that person could become addicted to opiates. Though it is a self-reporting survey and perhaps of questionable value, what stood out is the highlighting the medical community assigns to particular areas, especially when it comes to the effects of sexual abuse on females versus males at young ages. If a female experienced pre-adolescent sexual abuse, there is a whopping three points more assigned versus none at all for the male.
At first, it wasn't a surprise that they recognize women would be more likely to become emotional wrecks after such an experience. They do not assign any "damage points" to a man who may have been abused at a young age. But there is a notable gap in coverage - the survey did not differentiate between hetero versus homosexual molestation cases.
I suspect if a pre-adolescent male were molested by an adult male, that would be at least as bad as a pre-adolescent female being molested by a male - perhaps even worse, since many grown men who later "discovered" they are gay were often molested by males, often relatives, when very young. In either case, these two classes of victims could just as easily turn into pill popping wrecks as adults.
I have to wonder - is the medical community so worried about offending homosexual males that they don't dare ask about molestation experiences? Or is it really solid science that if a pre-adolescent male is molested by either a male or female, there would be zero impact from either experience when it comes to him later developing an addictive personality?
Something seems amiss.
Questions about drug and alcohol use, family addiction history, and other areas are given point scores to determine whether a patient may or may not have a greater risk of addiction if prescribed opiates. The higher the score, the more likelihood that person could become addicted to opiates. Though it is a self-reporting survey and perhaps of questionable value, what stood out is the highlighting the medical community assigns to particular areas, especially when it comes to the effects of sexual abuse on females versus males at young ages. If a female experienced pre-adolescent sexual abuse, there is a whopping three points more assigned versus none at all for the male.
At first, it wasn't a surprise that they recognize women would be more likely to become emotional wrecks after such an experience. They do not assign any "damage points" to a man who may have been abused at a young age. But there is a notable gap in coverage - the survey did not differentiate between hetero versus homosexual molestation cases.
I suspect if a pre-adolescent male were molested by an adult male, that would be at least as bad as a pre-adolescent female being molested by a male - perhaps even worse, since many grown men who later "discovered" they are gay were often molested by males, often relatives, when very young. In either case, these two classes of victims could just as easily turn into pill popping wrecks as adults.
I have to wonder - is the medical community so worried about offending homosexual males that they don't dare ask about molestation experiences? Or is it really solid science that if a pre-adolescent male is molested by either a male or female, there would be zero impact from either experience when it comes to him later developing an addictive personality?
Something seems amiss.
