Press "Enter" to skip to content

Children at Risk for Poor Quality of Life – EDI Ratios

Trying to understand the findings of the Offord Centre research called the early development instrument is a remarkably difficult thing to talk about particularly because we’re shedding light on about 33% of our children who have been critically compromised in their expected quality of life.

It’s difficult to understand that human society in the wider community, can do this to themselves. It’s also very difficult to believe. But the proof is in the action being taken by the provincial government and by the wider Canadian Society watched closely by the federal government. So, let’s take a look at a down-to-earth perspective for community child rearing.

The Human Early Learning Partnership being formed as a coalition of researchers at the University of British Columbia have taken up the task of mapping out solutions to change to course of our social system to resolve and remove any further source of harm to individuals.

Note: The graph represents the whole population annually making 35.5%. But taken as two populations the numbers are even more alarming. Boys at risk is 47% and Girls at risk is 24%.

It all starts before conception.

EDI  brackets a time in which in customary modern child rearing which involves a willful blindness, is the sole responsibility of the parents. In the present custom there are too many questions left to chance. with no community involvement. But many answers proffered.

In this brave new world til now only parents are assumed to understand what needs to be done in the raising of their children!  But more questions arise. They may dictate the intervention of a much wider base of social responsibility. A much wider community of involvement.

In ancient times, specifically (I like to call on the ancient Greeks 4th Century BC) the community was responsible for child rearing, not the state. But in Canada, the state has “no business in the bedrooms of the nation” nor the family. says who? As well, there is no status of person as a fetus. Therefore the preborn is outside the law.

That must change in order for a solution to our child-raising problem can be properly rectified. Given this reality, who cares what those five questions mean? Because there’s no law to acknowledge the existence of a fetus in Canada.

The most fascinating writer to help clarify the idea ‘a fetus as person’ is DH Lawrence in a book called Fantasia of the Unconscious. In it Lawrence’s argument is clear and compelling: Life Begins in the first ‘cell’ of the individual.

This I understand to be a Human Zygote. I would argue, human life begins before that time even before conjugation. That is the period in all existence when two humans imagine what’s possible for their future. I’d say it as “A desire to be one into the future.” We all know that without a plan, nothing good happens.

Another writer, this time a highly competent Psychologist named Daniel Goleman among other titles writes ‘Vital Lies, Simple Truths’. This is a wonderfully revealing analysis on the necessity of individuals burying the truth for the purpose of survival.

His analysis highlights sticky problems between groups and individuals that arise, the most remarkable being the confusion promulgated in the newborn and the embryo which becomes embedded in the psyche of the infant over time. What amounts to an inheritance of discord as an element of its character becomes almost impossible to be removed voluntarily.

Goleman describes this a particularly cogent example of the alacrity of the fetus/infant intellect and a natural survival response. But now our global village supplies overwhelming social feedback not seen in history with no natural way to ameliorate unfamiliar states of mind in the wider community.

It was brought home to me because of my own twilight experience as a three year old. It was at a time when my father was transitioning between jobs just after the war. On a cold windy wet October evening and my parents were having a fight. I’d call it a ‘heated’ argument.

My mother was at her wit’s end & not making sense of her relationship with her husband, my father. She was angry, and feeling powerless over his lack of concern for her. I was standing beside my little sister standing in her crib. In one desperate flourish Mom whipped on her winter coat and forcefully said she was leaving. And she did!

I remember being very unhappy. Expressing my doubts with awful yells of Come Back Mom! But they weren’t as bad as my year and a half sister’s voice of terror. She had no words just signals of abject horror.

Goleman describes the implications of that particular example of abandonment as the most egregious error a parent can make toward any child and it does not have to be in words but also in any kind of body language and thought processes one wishes. He also says that feeling of abandonment will be buried in the psyche of the child for eternity. Not just one language in ones sphere is needed to convey meaning. The infant already knows the necessary languages you use. And it’s listening carefully.