Everyone Has Their Scars: Meaning Making In a Burn Survivor Support Group.

In the Burn Care literature, there is little on the lived experiences of burn support group members, the perceived benefits of burn support groups for the members, and even less on the meaning the survivors make of the support they receive. In order to provide effective services and to meet the psychosocial needs of burn survivors, it is important to understand the influence a support group has on its members as well as the personal experiences of those individuals who attend these groups. The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning that burn survivors make in a burn survivor support group. A non-random, purposeful convenience sample of six self-identified burn survivors was interviewed using a guided in-depth interview technique to explore their experiences in the support group. Key informant interviews and group observations served to triangulate the data collected in the individual interviews. The experiences of the group's members coalesced around five main themes: acceptance of self, perspective change, value of community, reciprocity, and structural meaning making components. The findings demonstrated the overall positive impact the support group had on psychosocial recovery. Additionally, analysis suggested that the meaning making process experience included Post Traumatic Growth and highlighted the importance of community in psychosocial recovery. Burn survivors reported unique growth opportunities that allowed them to integrate their injury into their identity within an encouraging and safe environment. Certain factors, such as improving group attendance, were addressed and both survivors and support staff generated suggestions for reaching others in need of support.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.