Monitor on Psychology - July/August 2012

Letters
Don’t forget ACEs

I read with interest Dr. Suzanne Bennett Johnson’s comments (“President’s Column,” April Monitor) about the obesity epidemic in the United States and the far-reaching medical and economic impact of this major health concern.

I was also heartened to see the
article in the same April issue about the
importance of treatment interventions
for childhood trauma, and the mention
of the ACE studies (ongoing CDC study
about adverse childhood experiences)
in this article. However, I was a bit
disappointed that neither Dr. Johnson’s
well-written article, nor the article
about trauma intervention mentioned
ACE as a factor in the development
of obesity. The ACE studies strongly
support this correlation, and it was
interesting that obesity was left out of
the list of increased psychological and
physiological consequences related to
adverse childhood experiences in the
trauma article. A recent study by Burke,
et. al., in the June 2011 issue of Child
Abuse and Neglect, found that children
with ACE scores of four or more were
significantly more likely to suffer from
learning and behavioral problems as well
as obesity.

I would like to have seen the Monitor do a better job of “connecting the dots” regarding the impact of adverse childhood experiences.

SALLY SEXTON, PSYD

Scottsbluff, Neb.

Spend more time helping people
and less time with paperwork!

Helper software delivers:

• Easy-to-use billing and scheduling features designed for
psychologists in private or small group practice
• Quicker reimbursements with electronic claims
• Comprehensive Electronic Medical Record
• Access to discounted online Continuing Education Units

Fourth Amendment rights Regarding the “Judicial Notebook” column in the May Monitor, it is not for psychological research to influence constitutional interpretations. The Constitution is our foundational law, which tells the government what it cannot do — in this case, unreasonable searches. This is a legal issue of what constitutes an unreasonable search, not an issue of people’s expectation of privacy. As we know, people’s opinions can change from generation to generation, while the Constitution needs to remain the same. We also know that people’s expectations often do not fit reality; in a matter of constitutional law, the justices need to weigh the facts of the case, not how an individual perceives the world. Personal embarrassment should not be the concern of psychologists, but whether or not the government is constrained to a proper level by the Fourth Amendment. If embarrassment were the basis of the decision, then no person could be tried for a crime because it would be embarrassing to them. If all psychological research can do is inform the court of fluid public opinions and expectations, then it should stay away.

JONATHAN ZAPPALA

Catholic University of America student

Offer expires December 31, 2012

Please send letters to smartin@apa.org or Sara Martin, Monitor editor. Letters should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for space and clarity.