You guys can't keep making assumptions that sending a kid to WT or TBS is the first thing a parent does the first time their kid smokes a joint or snorts a line.
I've only gone by what you said. I haven't assumed anything really. I've read what you wrote and commented on what you said.
In any case, I think you are quick to insult others due to what you perceive to be an attack on you when people ask questions and ask you to justify what you say with facts. It's a touchy subject and people don't like to go into details. I understand that to an extent.
I have said it before that I'm glad that your kid is doing better. Who could be upset with a happy, functioning child?
What I object to is that places that use these types of "programs" don't tell the truth about their approach to "treatment." Now. I'm not saying that your program has done this - I wouldn't know. What I do know, however, is that they advertise that they can treat various psychological/social disorders. They advertise that they are successful, yet there is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim.
I can say this universally about all of these programs simply because I stay current on the research being conducted and there is not a single, solitary clinical trial for "wilderness programs" that indicates that they can successfully treat anything whatsoever. Current research indicates that these programs are at best ineffective and at worst damaging.
Mental health treatment must always be conducted under the least restrictive conditions possible. This is a general rule of the discipline. Sending a child to one of these programs against their will is counterintuitive the "least restrictive" philosophy.
Their going voluntarily is rare and is usually coerced or in some cases the children are "kidnapped" from their beds in the middle of the night by paid "escorts" who handcuff your kid and drag him/her from the house in handcuffs, against their will, to be forcibly transported to the program - for a fee, of course.
My point about this has been that if your kid required out of home placement (dangerous to self or others - well below 1% of all cases) then he/she is in need of a level of care that a WP simply cannot deliver.
I'm not saying that there aren't some people in this industry who have good intentions and are trying to help kids.
What I'm saying is that these places, based on the least restrictive care model, are accepting children whose placement there is unwarranted (many) or even dangerous (very few). I'm saying that they're in business to sell a product - like every business sells a product to make profit - and the product they're selling isn't therapy for the kids, it's hope for the parents and it's wrong.
Let's get this discussion back to FACTS and away from TheWho's and the
single anon parent who has defended SN for two years in this thread.There is no evidence that shows these programs work, period. You can't spin it, you can't deny it. It's as obvious as the nose on your face and TheWho and the AnonAngryDisrespectfulSingleSNSupporter know this. This is precisely why they try to drag the dialogue into the gutter and drail the thread. They have nothing to stand on in a fair, level, grounded discussion.
This is why AnonAngryDisrespectfulSingleSNSupporter resorts to name calling and TheWho resorts to fictitious "data." They're logically cornered and would have to admit that the only evidence that SN is effective is their
feelings. TheWho has exactly zero experience with SN; knows nothing of it whatsoever. Never been there, kid never went there, yet he tries to speak as if he's an
authority on the subject. It's ridiculous at best, desperate manipulation and prevarication at worst.
