RMA staff I remember from RMA, you post yours from CEDU

[Whooter]

Process and people, Whooter.  There were staff I liked, mainly because I almost identified with them as residents, they were put through an "induction" process that was completely therapeutically unsound.  The nicer, less threatening staff were just a relief for me. But. They still upheld a bad program. And I didn't need to hear their cop outs about rubbing fecal matter all over themselves, among other things.  (Seriously, when I went to CEDU, I had never even heard of bestiality etc.)  Many of the young staff who came weren't healthy emotionally. Nice, maybe, but not healthy. Many came straight out of EST and Lifespring - promoting experientials and "modalities" that are completely inappropriate for teens.

New staff were forced to cop out and share every part of their history to a group of students. They had to share everything from painful experiences, such as rape, to deviant or criminal acts, to abuse to total strangers. "Sharing your story" did not include happy or positive aspects of your life. It was all about the painful or the negative. Everything outside of Cedu was "bad."  It was not done in a "I overcame it and so can you" fashion. It was done with shame and pain. I don't think it is appropriate for staff to give detailed mastubatory histories to kids, much less the other tales.... (At least masturbation is normal. But it is NOT normal to sit down with people you don't know and talk about masturbating.)

I needed people to look up to and respect and act as mentors.  

I don't walk up to strangers and say, "Hello. My name is Samara, and I was raped when I was 15. Before that.... and then there was the time that... and my uncle... by the way, my favorite way to masturbate is... "

Thats pretty bad.  I am sorry you had to experience something like that.  I cant see an value in doing that.  Thats a thousand miles away from what is happening now.  At least with the programs I am familiar with and the people I have spoken to.

From what you described or how I read it I dont see the staff as being responsible for the abuse even though they were being abusive.  The staff may have felt they were helping you .  They seemed to be as much a victim as you were.  The school cultivated this environment and ultimately were responsible for the outcome.



...

[Awake]

This question involves U2 Whooter, who do we sue for abuse? The staff, or the program?



.

My opinion:

If the abuse was defined in the process then you would sue the program.  The staff would be free to walk.

If the abuse was done outside the defined process (staff member took it upon him/herself) then you would sue the staff.  But since the staff worked for the school you would always include the school on the lawsuit because they are the ones with the money and since they were the employers they could be held liable.



...

That's nice you have an opinion, but do you constitute an authority on how a program is to operate ethically? Don't you think this standard should be incorporated before these unstitutions begin practice? Again, the original argument.

I’m not arguing with you. People are free to decide whether you have any merit in this conversation or not. This was the original context of the conversation that you don't have an answer for.

So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?



.

That’s actually a really good question, Awake. I guess they would be viewed as abusive. But would they know it themselves? Maybe they feel they are doing good.

Take the girl at the pharmacy counter who gives you the morning after pill. Does she know what she is giving you? Is she considered complicit in the murder of an unborn child? Is the Pharmacist that fills the prescription? Or just The doctor who prescribed it?



...

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

I think one needs to decide what the vantage point is before the answer can be attained.

For example if we looked at the staff administering chemotherapy and watched the child slowly get sick, start vomiting, watch her hair fall out, watch her cry and become too embarrassed to have her friends see her. It is clearly abusive(short term) but we accept it because the abuse may make her better long term.

The same may be true with the staff at these programs that you describe. You also might consider that very few people could maintain a job where they wake knowing they are going to abusing children. I couldn’t imagine that any of them feel that way.



...

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why? We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?




...

[Samara]

I wish I could say these practices were limited but theyw ere endemic... They were OF the program, committed BY the staff... and I know ten years later, same practices still in effect.  CEDU closed... but some of its practioners started new programs. I am not optimistic about those.  

It's like Prison.  High rate of recidivism. The longer you stay the more new "tricks" you learn... you also have a harder time letting go of institutional mentality.

[Whooter]

[



That's nice you have an opinion, but do you constitute an authority on how a program is to operate ethically? Don't you think this standard should be incorporated before these unstitutions begin practice? Again, the original argument.

I don’t think this is the original argument.  But I will go with it.

I think that there should be standards on how the TTI should conduct itself.  I believe the industry evolved over time and found themselves outside of defined boundaries.. they cant fit cleanly into any one category i.e boarding school because kids don’t go for 4 years…..  treatment center … they don’t have doctors on staff and no one is committed to long term care….  So each program is autonomous and defines its own modality and standards.

If states could define a new category they could enforce better regulation but as it stands now the programs apply and get waivers so that they don’t need to be held accountable to all the red tape which is required by other institutions.



...

[Ursus]

Many of these programs, though not all, advertise themselves as "behavioral health" institutions. Within the mental health field, of which behavioral health is a subspecialty, there is a code of conduct which, to my mind at least, should preclude a lot of this TC mumbo jumbo, namely:

"First, Do No Harm."[/list]

[Whooter]

Many of these programs, though not all, advertise themselves as "behavioral health" institutions. Within the mental health field, of which behavioral health is a subspecialty, there is a code of conduct which, to my mind at least, should preclude a lot of this TC mumbo jumbo, namely:

"First, Do No Harm."[/list]

I think we can all agree here.  I dont think any program wants to make the child worse off than they already are.



...

[Samara]

It seems logical to me, then, that TBS's wouldn't rely on attack therapy, coerced disclosures and spontaneous, chronic degradation as the foundation for treatment.

And, yet... logic defied.

[Awake]

Many of these programs, though not all, advertise themselves as "behavioral health" institutions. Within the mental health field, of which behavioral health is a subspecialty, there is a code of conduct which, to my mind at least, should preclude a lot of this TC mumbo jumbo, namely:

"First, Do No Harm."[/list]

I think we can all agree here.  I dont think any program wants to make the child worse off than they already are.



...

I'm going to treat this as a different conversation than the one we were previously discussing in which you thought you had logical responses to, Whooter.


As the start of a new topic , here, you are saying we can all agree that a program ( it's directors, owners) shouldn't make the child worse off than they already are.   Well to expound upon that concept, is it ethical to force someone through a process that will unquestionably make them different (good or bad depending on the perspective) than they were before?

[Whooter]

I'm going to treat this as a different conversation than the one we were previously discussing in which you thought you had logical responses to, Whooter.


As the start of a new topic , here, you are saying we can all agree that a program ( it's directors, owners) shouldn't make the child worse off than they already are.   Well to expound upon that concept, is it ethical to force someone through a process that will unquestionably make them different (good or bad depending on the perspective) than they were before?

Until  the person becomes an adult and can decide for themselves then it is our duty as parents to mold them and shape them and provide them with the tools to have a happy, long and successful life.   There child should not be asked .. it should be a process that the parents decide is best for them.



...

[maruska]

I'm going to treat this as a different conversation than the one we were previously discussing in which you thought you had logical responses to, Whooter.


As the start of a new topic , here, you are saying we can all agree that a program ( it's directors, owners) shouldn't make the child worse off than they already are.   Well to expound upon that concept, is it ethical to force someone through a process that will unquestionably make them different (good or bad depending on the perspective) than they were before?

Until  the person becomes an adult and can decide for themselves then it is our duty as parents to mold them and shape them and provide them with the tools to have a happy, long and successful life.   There child should not be asked .. it should be a process that the parents decide is best for them.


I

I never wanted  to "mold and shape" may children...I wanted to teach them my values, show them the world, show them the opportunities ,but I let them decide ...because in the end, it is their life, I do not own them....And they always had a say...sometimes my answer would be no and they had a hard time to accept it. Sometimes they did the opposite of I would hope and had to bear the consequences, but isn´t that a part of growing up? How else would they learn? How else would they become responsible for their own life, if you never give them the opportunity to decide? You cannot shelter them for 18 years of their life , you have to accept they will make mistakes. Hardest thing ever....

[Whooter]

I'm going to treat this as a different conversation than the one we were previously discussing in which you thought you had logical responses to, Whooter.


As the start of a new topic , here, you are saying we can all agree that a program ( it's directors, owners) shouldn't make the child worse off than they already are.   Well to expound upon that concept, is it ethical to force someone through a process that will unquestionably make them different (good or bad depending on the perspective) than they were before?

Until  the person becomes an adult and can decide for themselves then it is our duty as parents to mold them and shape them and provide them with the tools to have a happy, long and successful life.   There child should not be asked .. it should be a process that the parents decide is best for them.


I

I never wanted  to "mold and shape" may children...I wanted to teach them my values, show them the world, show them the opportunities ,but I let them decide ...because in the end, it is their life, I do not own them....And they always had a say...sometimes my answer would be no and they had a hard time to accept it. Sometimes they did the opposite of I would hope and had to bear the consequences, but isn´t that a part of growing up? How else would they learn? How else would they become responsible for their own life, if you never give them the opportunity to decide? You cannot shelter them for 18 years of their life , you have to accept they will make mistakes. Hardest thing ever....

I think we agree here, for the most part,matushka, (maybe the wording you disagree with) your children were molded and shaped by what you exposed them to, your values and the places in the world that you chose to show them.  Early on in their life they have little or no say i.e. you change the diaper when you feel it is needed.  You feed them what you feel is needed no negotiations.  As they get older they get a little bit more freedom and choice in their lives but the parents still have the final decision.  We can give the children the choice to brush their teeth before or after their bath, but they still have to bathe and brush their teeth.  So we do agree that the children are part of the process……..Finally by age 18 they have hopefully been taught to be independent and are making healthy choices and they fly the coop.



...

[Ursus]

Until  the person becomes an adult and can decide for themselves then it is our duty as parents to mold them and shape them and provide them with the tools to have a happy, long and successful life.   There child should not be asked .. it should be a process that the parents decide is best for them.

Our duty to mold and shape... hmm.

I take it you believe in Play-doh parenting, Whooter?  :seg:

[DannyB II]

Maruska wrote:
I never wanted  to "mold and shape" may children...I wanted to teach them my values, show them the world, show them the opportunities ,but I let them decide ...because in the end, it is their life, I do not own them....And they always had a say...sometimes my answer would be no and they had a hard time to accept it. Sometimes they did the opposite of I would hope and had to bear the consequences, but isn´t that a part of growing up? How else would they learn? How else would they become responsible for their own life, if you never give them the opportunity to decide? You cannot shelter them for 18 years of their life , you have to accept they will make mistakes. Hardest thing ever....  

Danny wrote:
Thats molding and shaping why, because you were over seeing the entire process from birth till about 17 0r 18 yrs. of age, it is called loving your kids. If they dirfted to far in the negative you would have stepped in, there is no way you stand there and let them slide. Yes we present are morals, values and show them the principles that guide us, no my children did not want all my values nor did they care for my opinions at times but there is no way I just stand by and watch them make self destructive decisions one after another.
I laughed when you said that when the time came for "NO" that your kids had a hard time accepting it. Man I still have a hard time accepting it myself. Anyway great conversation just wanted to add my two cents.

Danny

[Whooter]

Until  the person becomes an adult and can decide for themselves then it is our duty as parents to mold them and shape them and provide them with the tools to have a happy, long and successful life.   There child should not be asked .. it should be a process that the parents decide is best for them.

Our duty to mold and shape... hmm.

I take it you believe in Play-doh parenting, Whooter?  :seg:

Ha,Ha,Ha   We went though a lot of that stuff as I recall.



...

[Samara]

DB: I didn't write the mold and shape post. I think it was Maruska.