Prevention is better than cure. One whose actions are guided by foresight7 will use preventive methods all the more readily because prevention is a part of the natural order of things. It is applicable not only in domestic life, but also in the general life of society; and as evolution proceeds, the importance of repression8 continually diminishes, whilst the importance of prevention continually increases.
Every social institution serves for the attainment of some particular end—is, that is to say, a means to that end. If an end can be obtained without consuming wealth—that is, without employing the means involving such an expenditure of wealth, then the sacrifice of this wealth and the employment of these means are superfluous9, and even harmful. The tendency of every social institution is, in fact, to become superfluous, and to be superseded10 with the passage of the years.
[43]
The wise physician who has to deal with the diseases affecting the human body does not confine his efforts to the treatment and relief of symptoms, but endeavours to ascertain11 and to remove the causes of those symptoms. He is well aware that a method of treatment which is confined to the relief of mere1 symptoms will effect no more than a temporary improvement, and that as long as the cause of the symptoms remains12 in active operation, the morbid13 phenomena14 will continue to recur15. Now these considerations apply with just as much force to the social organism as they do to the individual human organism. When we pass judgment16 upon a social institution, we must always endeavour to ascertain whether any defect we may notice connected with its working belongs to the social institution as such, and whether the fault is inseparable from the institution, or whether we may reasonably expect that in the further course of development, or as a result of better organisation17, this particular defect will disappear. In the work of child-protection, these fundamental principles must always be kept in mind.
Objections to Child-Protection.—A number of objections have been formulated18 against child-protection, of which the following may be mentioned. In crèches and other institutions for the care of young children, the spread of infectious diseases very readily occurs. Most of the institutions aiming at child-protection are really rewards of immorality20, and thus tend to encourage immorality. It is a natural law that a child should be cared for by its own parents, and child-protection, in so far as it separates the child from its parents, is unnatural21.
Most of these objections are invalid22. Many authors maintain that the protection of juvenile23 criminals does more harm than good; but even if this is true to-day, it does not follow that juvenile criminals should not be protected, but simply that our methods of protection should be better adapted to their purpose. The objections urged against crèches and other institutions for the care of young children should not lead to the inference that no such institutions ought to exist, but should rather draw our attention to the necessity for taking better measures to prevent the introduction and spread of[44] infectious diseases. No one can doubt to-day that the suppression of these diseases is within our power.
Objections to the Care of Foundlings.—In the literature of our subject we find great diversity of opinion regarding the care of foundlings, and it is therefore necessary that we should examine the objections that have been made to institutions for this purpose. A careful study of the matter will show that the criticisms apply not to the general principle on which foundling hospitals are instituted, but to a particular form of this institution. It is well known that the foundling hospitals of former days received children by means of a turn-table, through an aperture24 in the wall (so that the person who brought the child might remain entirely25 unknown), that the children grew to maturity26 in such institutions, that the infants were artificially fed, that the most elementary hygienic precautions were neglected in these buildings, &c. &c. It is natural that such foundling hospitals as these should be attacked by many writers as harmful in the highest degree. But these writers completely ignore the fact that the defects were not characteristic of all foundling hospitals, and that therefore they did not attach to the institutions as such, but were the outcome simply of defective27 organisation; they also fail to observe that the care of foundlings may be undertaken without instituting foundling hospitals. The weightiest of all the objections to foundling hospitals is that the cost of maintenance of these institutions is disproportionate to any good they may effect, inasmuch as the value to society of those foundlings who attain maturity is no proper equivalent for the pains expended28 in attaining29 this result. In view of the lex minimi, to which reference was made at the beginning of this chapter, has such an institution any right to exist?
The turn-table for the reception of children was instituted for two reasons. In the first place, the whole act of “exposing” a child was to be discreetly30 veiled from the public eye; and, in the second place, no excuse was to be left open for the crime of infanticide. It is true that in our own day there are many reasons to be alleged31 against retaining the turn-table; it provides a means whereby the parents of children born in lawful32 wedlock33 can evade34 their natural obligations, and impose[45] these upon society at large; it involves a legal contradiction, inasmuch as it tacitly permits, and even formally invites, parents to expose their children, although this is a criminal offence; finally, it leads to the overcrowding of the foundling hospitals. In short, all the objections to the institution of the turn-table are perfectly35 sound; but it would be altogether unwarrantable to infer from this that foundling hospitals themselves are unnecessary and even harmful. Foundling hospitals can exist without a turn-table (not a single modern foundling hospital contains any such thing); the defects of foundling hospitals with turn-tables are not defects of foundling hospitals as such, but defects attaching to the institution of the turn-table.
If we are told that foundling hospitals fail to attain their ends (the prevention of infanticide and the increase of the population), if we are told that the foundling hospitals were themselves murder-traps, and that all they could do was to preserve for society a few individuals competent for harm rather than for good, we may rejoin that in modern foundling hospitals the death-rate is much lower than it was in those of former times, that children now receive in these institutions a much better upbringing than was formerly36 the case, and that the defects alleged do not attach to foundling hospitals as such, but merely to this or that way of managing such institutions. Finally, it is necessary to point out, that whereas the foundling hospitals of former times, owing to their defective administration, probably did not “pay,” the progress of medical science has greatly reduced the death-rate in foundling hospitals, the children in these institutions are now much better brought up, and for these reasons the effective return made by foundling hospitals to society is far greater than it used to be.
Darwinism versus37 Poor-Relief.—Many Darwinians oppose Poor-Relief. The interest of the community demands that its members should be physically38, intellectually, and morally sound. Social evolution and social well-being39 depend upon the survival of the fittest. It follows from this that the interest of the community demands that we should prevent the birth of diseased and weakly individuals; and that if such individuals should nevertheless be born, the sooner they perish[46] the better. If this were unconditionally40 true, we should have to admit that the relief of destitution41 is not merely useless to society, but is positively42 harmful.
In many instances, by the application of medical skill and knowledge, it is possible, at considerable expenditure of effort, to keep alive sickly persons, those predisposed to crime, and those predisposed to particular diseases—persons who, in default of such special care, would inevitably43 have succumbed45. Such defectives46, attaining maturity, procreate their kind, producing a new generation of sickly individuals, with deficient47 powers of resistance. Such applications of medical science are doubtless valuable from the point of view of the individuals thus benefited, but they promote the deterioration48 of the race. This anti-eugenist influence is exerted in a twofold manner: not only are the defectives kept alive and enabled to procreate their kind, but these defectives utilise goods and services which would otherwise have been allotted49 to healthy persons, whereby these latter become less well able to found and rear families.
The relief of destitution provides support for the weaker members of the community. Whereas, in default of public assistance, such persons would hesitate to marry, a generous public provision for the destitute50 facilitates the light-hearted increase of the lower classes of the population, since these latter feel justified51 in believing that, should the worst come to the worst, their children will be provided for by the community. In the relief of the destitute, the commodities devoted52 to the maintenance of the weak are taken away from the strong. In consequence of this deprivation53, the strong find it necessary to limit their families—an example which the weak will not follow. Thus the relief of destitution favours a reversed selection. The relief of destitution also impairs54 the efficiency of the processes whereby the diseased and useless constituents55 are eliminated from the social organism, and this interference with eliminative processes is no less dangerous to the social than it is to the individual organism.
Darwinism versus Child-Protection.—The Darwinians maintain that all these considerations apply with equal force to child-protection. We must, they tell us, protect strong children only, and do nothing for the weakly. Child-protection to-day,[47] they insist, effects the reverse of this. It counteracts56 excessive child mortality, which is an effective factor in selection, through its destruction of weakly children. For example, the existence of foundling hospitals induces many parents to abandon the care of their own children, and to commit these to the foundling hospitals. Many parents, being aware that the State undertakes the coercive reformatory education of neglected children, deliberately57 neglect the education of their own children, in order to force the community to undertake it.
During the first years of life, continue these ultra-Darwinians, more children die than in the later years of childhood, because, owing to natural selection in the first years of life, a larger proportion of the weak succumb44, so that the level of health of those in the later years of childhood is considerably58 higher. High infant mortality is at once a symptom and a means of natural-selection. Years characterised by high infant mortality necessarily follow years in which the infantile death-rate has been low. In countries with high infant mortality the population is stronger, because the badly-equipped new-born infants die in greater proportion than the well-equipped; in subsequent years the mortality is consequently lower, the fitness for military service is greater, and tuberculosis59 is less common. To diminish infant mortality would lead to a more rapid increase of population; it would, in fact, give rise to over-population to such an extent that the struggle for existence would become even more cruel and abhorrent60 than it is to-day. Certain departments of child-protection lead to the preservation61 of children whose survival is altogether undesirable62—children which would otherwise have perished during the first years of life.
(If it is true that illegitimate children are of very little use to the community, and if it is impossible to prevent the birth of such children, it is at any rate desirable, continue the writers of this school, that those which actually do come into the world should die as soon as possible. Consider also born criminals. These inflict63 grave injury on the community. If it is impossible to prevent their birth, should not society at least take steps to secure that their life should be as short as possible?)
[48]
The Right View.—These views are only partially64 correct. It may be true that a great proportion of illegitimate children are weakly, and perhaps for this reason their mortality-rate and criminality-rate are excessive; it is also probable that in the absence of child-protection their death-rate would be considerably higher than it is. Elsewhere in this work we shall consider whether, and to what extent, it is possible to prevent the birth of illegitimate children. It may also be true that the born criminal is physically, intellectually, and morally degenerate65, and that for these reasons in the absence of child-protection he would probably succumb in early life.
The race is not always damaged by the survival of those who have suffered from disease. The disease may be of such a kind that the patient who survives may recover completely, and may procreate perfectly healthy children. It is a very thorny66 question whether it can ever be right to refrain from the cure of certain patients, because to cure them would be injurious to the race. Here humanity and race-interest seem to conflict. If, in the future, by the proper application of preventive methods, we are able to ensure that very few such sick persons shall exist, it will no longer be necessary to attempt to cure such as do exist, for in that day the application of the euthanasia in such cases will no longer be regarded as inhuman67, but rather as perfectly natural and right.
To the assertion that only the healthy and strong should be protected, we may answer that the sickly and the weakly are far more in need of such protection. It is perfectly true that those who are not adapted to the conditions of their environment perish. But one of the chief aims of child protection is to enable children to become capable of adaptation to their environment; and in the majority of children we are able to effect this. Even those in whom this is unattainable ought not to be neglected, because, while they are slowly succumbing68, society suffers much injury from them. One who is ill or weak from one point of view only may nevertheless be a useful member of society, since perhaps in some other relationship he may be strong or healthy. In the present state of our knowledge, we are unable during a child’s early years, and still less immediately after birth, to determine[49] positively whether the child is intellectually or morally defective, whether it is a born criminal, or whether it is one capable of developing into a useful member of society. We must certainly dispute the assertion that a child which is bodily weak is of necessity also intellectually and morally defective, since thousands of instances establish the fact that a child which is bodily weak often proves to be a useful member of society. If there were no child-protection, children would perish whose survival is unquestionably desirable.
We consider, therefore, that child-protection is necessary, although, notwithstanding great pains and great sacrifices, it often results in the survival of individuals who are useless to society. The view that only the children of the inferior and poorer classes of the population are suitable for the application of the methods of child-protection, is erroneous, if only for the reason that the well-to-do to-day bring forth69 offspring utterly70 regardless whether these are strong or weak; and also because capitalism71 interferes72 in other ways with the effective operation of natural selection. These various evils can be obviated73 to-day only by means of child-protection.
In the case of infants, there is no question of the struggle for existence. For their death-rate depends upon two factors—first, upon their inborn74 capacity; secondly75, upon the conditions in which they are reared. The former factor is of far less importance in relation to infant mortality than it is in relation to child mortality. Only in an extremely limited sense is it possible, with regard to infants, to speak of a struggle for existence, in virtue76 of which the fittest survive. The infant is exposed to numerous dangers, in coping with which its inborn capacity hardly counts at all. When certain external influences come into play, the infant is quite incapable77 of making an advantageous78 use of its inborn physiological79 capacities. Such external influences destroy quite indifferently infants well-equipped and ill-equipped at birth. There is no doubt of the fact that a strong infant could better resist most of the diseases of infancy80 than a weakly infant; but the differences in power of resistance in infants are far less extensive than is generally believed. It is certainly wrong[50] to maintain that a strong infant is able successfully to resist all diseases.
For the very reason that certain diseases—for example, certain affections of the stomach and intestines—will destroy even the strongest infant, the prevention of these diseases becomes a matter of the first importance. It is unquestionable that such diseases can be more effectively prevented in proportion as the circumstances are favourable81 in which the infant is reared.
It is certainly through an error of observation that some writers maintain that in the age-class of children who have survived their first year we find no weaklings. Even the strongest infant will not survive to enter this age-class if its environing conditions are too unfavourable. It often happens that an infant survives an illness, and yet survives in a damaged condition. A high death-rate is a consequence of a high disease-rate; but of the infants affected82 with disease, only a certain proportion succumbs83, whilst the others survive with damaged constitutions, and constitute a favourable soil for fresh inroads of disease. In the twentieth century, in the civilised countries of Europe, of one hundred children dying during the first year of life, barely twenty die in consequence of inborn defects or congenital diseases (such as congenital debility, atrophy84, congenital scrofula, tuberculosis, &c.).
If it were true that infant mortality exercised a selective function, we should find a high infantile death-rate associated with a low death-rate in the case of children past infancy, and conversely. But everywhere we find that the infantile death-rate and the death-rate amongst children at ages one to five vary directly, and not inversely85. Moreover, the variations in the death-rates in children during different years of life are determined86 by the fact that the younger the child, the less are its powers of resistance; thus the danger to health resulting from unfavourable conditions of life varies inversely as the child’s age; and even within the limits of the first year of life, the infantile death-rate is higher in proportion as the time which has elapsed since birth is less. Among the lower classes of the population, the infantile death-rate is higher than it is among the upper classes. If a high infantile death-rate[51] exercised a selective influence, we should find that among the lower classes the death-rate among children more than one year old would be less than the death-rate of upper-class children of corresponding ages. But this is nowhere the case.
The mortality of children between the ages of one and five years depends chiefly upon the incidence of the infectious diseases. It is well known that these diseases are much milder in civilised than in uncivilised countries. From this it follows that the death-rate among children between the ages of one and five years depends chiefly upon the level of civilisation87; the death-rate being higher where the level of civilisation is low, and conversely; but the infantile death-rate is much less influenced by the standard of civilisation. Moreover, recent investigations88 have shown that (especially in large towns and in industrial regions) high infant mortality is closely associated with a low level of fitness for military service, and with a high death-rate from tuberculosis. It is true that the number of those who succumb to tuberculosis and the number of those who prove fit for military service are influenced by other causes in addition to the infantile death-rate—causes which have nothing to do with that death-rate. But the fact remains indisputable that the causes leading to a great mortality among infants tend to injure the constitution of those infants who succeed in surviving, and thus weaken the general health of the population.
Socialism versus Poor-Relief.—Many Socialists89 are opposed to the relief of destitution. Poverty existed prior to the rise of capitalism, and is found where the capitalist system has not as yet struck root. But the chief cause of poverty to-day is unquestionably capitalism. Capitalism is the creator of the proletariat, the type of the poor class; poverty and proletariat, poor man and proletarian, are almost equivalent terms. Capitalism is also the creator of pauperism91 (e.g. of the industrial reserve army), which must be regarded as an essential pre-condition of capitalist production. In the manufacturing districts, poverty is more extensive than it is in the agricultural districts. In the towns it is more extensive than in the country. Capitalism cannot exist[52] without poor-relief. Unless the destitute are relieved out of the superfluity of capitalism, certain very undesirable consequences will ensue. For poverty is a chief cause at once of punishable offences and of all kinds of disease. The two main purposes of the relief of the destitute are, in fact, the protection of the rich against criminal outbreaks on the part of the poor, and the prevention of the epidemic92 diseases which would breed in the surroundings of neglected poverty, and spread thence to the homes of the rich.
The chief aim of poor-relief is to give help in cases of poverty arising from individual causes, to deal with poverty regarded as an individual concern. Poor-relief makes no attempt whatever to do away with the social causes of poverty—nor, indeed, could the methods of poor-relief effect this, even if the attempt were made. In a certain sense, socialism and poor-relief have a common character, inasmuch as both are opposed to free competition. It is the aim of poor-relief to relieve the disastrous93 consequences of free competition; the aim of socialism is to do away with class distinctions and existing contrasts between wealth and poverty—that is, to equalise and to democratise. But socialism does not favour the relief of destitution, and rather regards the need for such relief as a proof of the unrighteousness of the capitalist system. Socialism regards poor-relief as nothing more than a way of treating symptoms of social disorder94, and as a method necessary only during the age of capitalism. Socialism is hostile to any social institution which serves to safeguard capitalism.
Socialism versus Child-Protection.—The considerations put forward regarding poor-relief bear to some extent on the relationships of child-protection to capitalism. Many departments of child-protection—foundling hospitals, for instance—are merely departments of poor-relief. Child-protection is chiefly concerned with the children of the poor, since these are far more in need of protection than the children of the rich.
Child-protection and socialism both existed, in a sense, prior to the development of capitalism. But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, child-protection has received much[53] more attention than in former times. This extensive development of child-protection is one phase of that general development whose other phase is the development of capitalism. Modern child-protection and modern socialism are necessary consequences of capitalism, and the existence of the last in the absence of child-protection and of socialism is altogether unthinkable. Capitalism gives rise to numerous diseases in the social organism, and then endeavours to cure them, for the most part, by the methods of child-protection. The causal relationship between capitalism and child-protection is not direct or primary. Certain applications of child-protection are not the direct consequences of capitalism itself, but only consequences of the causes by which capitalism has been created and evolved. When we come to examine concrete conditions, such as those of some particular country, we invariably find that child-protection and capitalism are intimately connected with the general development of the country with which we are concerned. This fact may interpose modifying conditions in the causal chain connecting capitalism and child-protection.
(The origin of the Children’s Courts in the United States of America offers an instructive example of this. In this country, as in England, special causes led early in the last century to the establishment of reformatory schools. But whereas in England, until quite recently, boarding institutions were preferred for this purpose, from the first, in the United States the attempt was made to arrange for the upbringing of neglected and criminal youths under family auspices95. The reasons for the adoption96 of this latter plan in America were the enormous possibilities of territorial97 expansion and the lively demand for new population. When juvenile offenders98 came before the courts, responsible individuals would offer to undertake the upbringing of these children, binding99 themselves over to report at regular intervals100 upon the behaviour of the children, and generally accepting all necessary responsibility. The judges ventured upon such experiments, and as the successful results multiplied, this method of procedure attained101 the force of a customary institution, and subsequently was formally embodied102 in legislation.)
[54]
Certain departments of child-protection were in existence before the days of capitalism, but these departments were greatly influenced by the changes introduced by capitalism. For this reason the direct causal relationship between capitalism and child-protection cannot always be demonstrated. It may of course happen, in any particular country, that child-protection stands at a higher or a lower level of development than appears to correspond to the general state of social evolution or to the development of capitalism in that particular country. As an example of this, we may mention Hungary, which, in the matter of child-protection, is in advance of countries where the development of capitalism and of civilisation are in a far more forward state; and in Hungary the development of child-protection has proceeded in complete independence of the shackles103 of historical evolution.
It is not an advantage, but a disadvantage, that child-protection is necessary to-day. The country which has need of numerous institutions for purposes of social betterment is in a bad way; and, indeed, the more of such institutions it needs, the worse must its condition be. These considerations apply to other institutions as well as to child-protection. Just as it is desirable that no institutions for social betterment should be necessary, so also we might wish that child-protection were superfluous. To put the matter in other words, it is desirable that in any country those conditions should not exist which have made it necessary to establish institutions for social betterment. The country which has no need for such institutions stands at a higher level than the country to which they are still indispensable. But of two countries which have equal need for such institutions, the one which possesses them stands at a higher level than the one in which they have not yet come into existence. This last consideration must not be forgotten when we are making a comparative study of child-protection in various countries.
Child-protection to-day is solely104 concerned with attempts to palliate the evils which necessarily result from the essential nature of the social organism of to-day, and is not concerned with efforts to transform the nature of that organism. Child-protection[55] alleviates105 some of the symptoms of capitalism, but does nothing to prevent the ever-renewed production of such symptoms. Thus we see that child-protection is not a scientific therapeutic106 method, for such a method tends, as time passes, to render itself superfluous. Child-protection is an important department of social activity. But there are other much more important departments. If the amount of wealth expended for the purposes of child-protection is excessive, means requisite to the attainment of other ends will be sacrificed, and the pursuit of much more important aims may be rendered impossible. The expenditure upon child-protection is useful to this extent, that it prevents the occurrence of much harm, and yet to-day a large proportion of such expenditure is quite useless, because the evils which child-protection attempts to relieve are not, as a matter of fact, all relieved. Capitalism is the source of the factors which make child-protection necessary. Hence all our efforts for child-protection are useless so long as we continue to create institutions by which capitalism is protected and strengthened. Child-protection to-day is in essence nothing more than a number of repressive measures, which are necessary only because capitalism will not permit the desired ends to be obtained by the use of preventive methods, owing to the fact that prevention would involve the destruction of capitalism. Thus the destruction of capitalism is a postulate107, not of socialism merely, but also of child-protection. Unfortunately, few people as yet recognise that prevention is the true duty of the collective intelligence; instead of searching out the causes which have made the use of repressive measures necessary, they expect a cure to result from the use of repressive measures alone.
Let our device be, Prevention. The existing social order must be completely revolutionised. Let us have done with palliatives. It is time for a new creation. Repression is good, but prevention is a great deal better! The use of palliatives is a necessary evil attaching to the existing social order; but it is a crying instance of the contradictory108 character of existing social conditions. It is not right that child-protection should be the leading social and political activity of the State,[56] although at present such activity is supposed to be the climax109 of political science. The course of action of a community which, while protecting children, oppresses adults, is unjust; for it would be better that children should perish, than that they should grow up to lives of misery110, crime, or prostitution. It is impossible to sympathise with a country which sends the children of the working class to foundling hospitals, and the adult workers themselves to prison; which protects children simply in order to increase the population, and yet forcibly, as it were, drives the adults from the country as emigrants111; which offers adult workers a starvation wage, and yet benevolently112 keeps paupers113 alive; which brings up pauper90 children to become proletarians, which breeds working men to depress by competition the wages of their fellows, and to play the part of miserable114 strike-breakers.
(Hungary affords an interesting example of this, for the social and political development of this country is by no means of the most modern type, and yet, in the matter of child-protection, Hungarian institutions are perhaps the finest in the whole world. It is true that child-protection in Hungary is to a large extent no more than child-protection on paper, if for no other reason, for this, that the proper administration of the Hungarian methods of child-protection cannot be carried out efficiently115 by the executive personnel available in that country.)
The true child-protection, the child-protection of the future, will take the form of the destruction of capitalism. It is true that in a certain way, and within certain limits, child-protection alleviates many of the evil effects of capitalism. But there is no doubt whatever that the aims of child-protection could be attained far more efficiently and far more rapidly by the destruction of capitalism. If we were to remove the causes which make child-protection necessary, as they would be removed by the destruction of capitalism, the need for child-protection would disappear. But the causes which make child-protection necessary to-day will not disappear until the State of the future comes into being. The question presses, should we postpone116 our attempts to deal with the symptoms of the disease, to palliate[57] the defects of the existing social order, until the day arrives when we shall be in a position to deal with these evils once and for all by radical117 measures?
No! Even to-day we have to concern ourselves with child-protection. The physician must not refuse to treat his patient because the means available for treatment will not suffice to cure. The wise physician does indeed endeavour to discover and to remove the causes of disease, but he does not neglect the symptoms. He is well aware that the disappearance118 of the symptoms does not indicate the cure of the disease. Nevertheless, he holds it to be his duty to prescribe certain remedies which do no more than relieve symptoms. For in many cases symptoms are disagreeable and even dangerous, and may actually lead to the death of the patient, before there is time to bring into play methods of treatment which might deal effectively with the causes of the disease. Often, too, a remedial measure which does no more than relieve symptoms may have an excellent effect upon the general bodily well-being of the patient. There are even cases in which a remedial measure exercises an unfavourable influence upon the disease and upon the patient’s general condition, and none the less it has to be administered, in order to ward19 off some greater evil. To-day, child-protection is useful and even indispensable. It is true that a well-planned social order affords the best child-protection, and such an order is of far greater value than child-protection in the narrower sense of the term; but this does not make the latter form of child-protection superfluous.
The Right View.—The answers to the questions asked in this chapter, and more especially the detailed119 answer to the question, what subdivisions of child-protection are the most important to-day, and what is the relative importance of these various subdivisions, will be found in the Special Part of this book. There I discuss the individual subdivisions of child-protection, and discuss in each case the tendency of evolution. Unquestionably, the tendency of evolution is in the direction of the better regulation of the activities applicable to the various subdivisions of child-protection.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
attainment
|
|
| n.达到，到达；［常pl.］成就，造诣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
requisite
|
|
| adj.需要的，必不可少的；n.必需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
repression
|
|
| n.镇压，抑制，抑压 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
morbid
|
|
| adj.病的；致病的；病态的；可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
recur
|
|
| vi.复发，重现，再发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
formulated
|
|
| v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 )；规划；确切地阐述；用公式表示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
immorality
|
|
| n. 不道德, 无道义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
invalid
|
|
| n.病人，伤残人；adj.有病的，伤残的；无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
juvenile
|
|
| n.青少年，少年读物；adj.青少年的，幼稚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
aperture
|
|
| n.孔，隙，窄的缺口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
maturity
|
|
| n.成熟；完成；(支票、债券等)到期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
expended
|
|
| v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
attaining
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的现在分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
discreetly
|
|
| ad.(言行)审慎地，慎重地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
wedlock
|
|
| n.婚姻，已婚状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
evade
|
|
| vt.逃避，回避；避开，躲避 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
versus
|
|
| prep.以…为对手，对；与…相比之下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
physically
|
|
| adj.物质上，体格上，身体上，按自然规律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
unconditionally
|
|
| adv.无条件地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
destitution
|
|
| n.穷困，缺乏，贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
succumb
|
|
| v.屈服，屈从；死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
succumbed
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的过去式和过去分词 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
defectives
|
|
| 次品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
47
deficient
|
|
| adj.不足的，不充份的，有缺陷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
deterioration
|
|
| n.退化；恶化；变坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
allotted
|
|
| 分配，拨给，摊派( allot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
deprivation
|
|
| n.匮乏；丧失；夺去，贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
impairs
|
|
| v.损害，削弱( impair的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
constituents
|
|
| n.选民( constituent的名词复数 )；成分；构成部分；要素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
counteracts
|
|
| 对抗，抵消( counteract的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
tuberculosis
|
|
| n.结核病，肺结核 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
abhorrent
|
|
| adj.可恶的，可恨的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
undesirable
|
|
| adj.不受欢迎的，不良的，不合意的，讨厌的；n.不受欢迎的人，不良分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
partially
|
|
| adv.部分地，从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
degenerate
|
|
| v.退步，堕落；adj.退步的，堕落的；n.堕落者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
thorny
|
|
| adj.多刺的，棘手的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
inhuman
|
|
| adj.残忍的，不人道的，无人性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
succumbing
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的现在分词 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
capitalism
|
|
| n.资本主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
interferes
|
|
| vi. 妨碍，冲突，干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
obviated
|
|
| v.避免，消除（贫困、不方便等）( obviate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
74
inborn
|
|
| adj.天生的，生来的，先天的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
physiological
|
|
| adj.生理学的，生理学上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
infancy
|
|
| n.婴儿期；幼年期；初期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
succumbs
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的第三人称单数 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
atrophy
|
|
| n./v.萎缩，虚脱，衰退 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
inversely
|
|
| adj.相反的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
investigations
|
|
| （正式的）调查( investigation的名词复数 )； 侦查； 科学研究； 学术研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
pauper
|
|
| n.贫民，被救济者，穷人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
pauperism
|
|
| n.有被救济的资格，贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
epidemic
|
|
| n.流行病；盛行；adj.流行性的，流传极广的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
disastrous
|
|
| adj.灾难性的，造成灾害的；极坏的，很糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
auspices
|
|
| n.资助，赞助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
offenders
|
|
| n.冒犯者( offender的名词复数 )；犯规者；罪犯；妨害…的人（或事物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
intervals
|
|
| n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 )；间隔时间；[数学]区间；（戏剧、电影或音乐会的）幕间休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
shackles
|
|
| 手铐( shackle的名词复数 )； 脚镣； 束缚； 羁绊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
alleviates
|
|
| 减轻，缓解，缓和( alleviate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
therapeutic
|
|
| adj.治疗的，起治疗作用的；对身心健康有益的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
postulate
|
|
| n.假定，基本条件；vt.要求，假定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
emigrants
|
|
| n.（从本国移往他国的）移民( emigrant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
benevolently
|
|
| adv.仁慈地，行善地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
paupers
|
|
| n.穷人( pauper的名词复数 )；贫民；贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
postpone
|
|
| v.延期，推迟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
radical
|
|
| n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
disappearance
|
|
| n.消失，消散，失踪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |