On 2004-02-20 14:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Your ideas definitely sound negotiable. Is stockholm syndrome like an isolation-induced medical condition? If it is, then that would probably have a good chance of holding up in court if you want to have the mail policies changed. These rights' cases can carry a pretty fuzzy line between the two parties, though. If they were to approve of that, then would that make parents unable to stop there kids from barring phone calls at home, who had nothing to do with the program? My personal experience with mail in the program wasn't EXTREMELY frustrating, but then again my parents would send mail out to most of my friends, when I would send it to them. I don't know much about S.S., but if I were to assume, I would think that as long as the kids have SOME communication, they would not have a strong enough sense of isolation to really be in any danger. Maybe there could be a standard for a set amount of minimum contacts- whatever can be proven to be safe or whatever. The idea of controlled mail does serve a good purpose- as a parent, I am sure that you understand the influence that other kids have on one another. I think more phone calls w/ parents would definitely be nothing but instrumental for the children. I still believe they shouldn't be with held from the student having to work for them, but perhaps maybe not quite so much. I didn't speak to my parents on the phone until my 5th month day in the program, and after that, I never felt like I was quite as distant or disconnected with them (costa rica definitely feels like its another planet away).
Other than that, I agree a lot with what you say about haing social services very involved, and having random visits every month or so. They did have Costa Rican child welfare services (PANI?) come by with random visits, but it never really settled everyone's suspicion- they never found enough to shut it down (until whatever happened with the riots there). They always thought that the school would just put on an act for a day or something. A big factor is how comfortable the parents are with their kid across the country/world: I think a closer relationship between officials and the schools would really be able to help parents rest easy- as well as keep fishy things from going on. But no matter how many visits/checkups to the school, there will still be small margins which will allow large amounts of suspicion to form. I think the best way to handle that situation would be to have at least one (government) official on grounds at all times.
oh yeah, you didn't mention what program you were in :
: "
It only takes three days to induce Stockholm Syndrome. I understand the concerns about influence of peers, but allowing mail is the *least* intrusive way to neutralize one of the preconditions for induction of the syndrome.
I wasn't in a program. I could have been. I would have had no rights, and placement in a program probably would have killed me. I have bipolar II disorder, which (last time I checked) has the distinction of being the mental illness most likely to end in suicide. Fortunately, I respond well to medication, but I *would* have suicided in a program. Guaranteed. There are ways, even on suicide watch, and I already knew plenty of them---they were my safety net in case something like a program did happen to me, so I wouldn't have to live through it.
Fortunately, I respond well to medication and am more normal than most "normal" people provided I don't get in a situation where some idiot could keep me from taking it. Which, thank god, is highly unlikely.
I have a degree in psychology from a nationally ranked school, and I had an experience of someone being sent to a program who should never have been accepted into one.
I'm not against residential treatment, just *bad* residential treatment, insufficient safeguards to ensure quality, and no checks on the system to keep parents from warehousing kids for trivial reasons.
If you were doing coke, if I had been the person making the call, I would have considered you a solid candidate for residential treatment.
The other kid I spoke of above wasn't in need of residential treatment, in my opinion, from everything I was able to find out (which was a hell of a lot).
My problem with that situation isn't so much that the kid is in residential treatment. It's that there was no competent disinterested party anywhere in the pipeline deciding whether the kid needed to be there or not.
In your case, letters to and from non-active-user non-convict friends, family members, neighbors, etc., would have only served to make the adjustment to being clean at home smoother and more likely to "take"---by giving you the experience of interacting with those folks clean and sober.
One of the reasons substance abuse treatment sometimes fails is the patient gets used to being clean in the treatment environment, but gets home and is used to being trashed in interactions with the people in his life. Encourage letters, and the patient is going to get home with some experience of interacting with the people in his life *while sober*---which can only help in the ongoing effort to build the habit of the healthy, fun, coping kind of sobriety at home.
Oh, I also, naturally, have no problem with censoring harrassment or threats of violence, whether incoming or outgoing, and any incoming letters that are basically emotionally abusive towards the patient. If it's jerking the patient around and making him/her feel like crap, any psychiatrist worth his salt would be well within professional ethics to stop that incoming letter.
I believe if you fix the isolation, fix admissions criteria based on the parents' need for a cashectomy and fix the lack of oversight, the industry will have a shakeout where the programs with problems will either shape up or go under.
It's not that residential treatment is *never* needed or has to be done badly----it's just that it's (mostly) being done badly *now* and needs to be cleaned up.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
--Albert Einstein
