Restraints

[Anonymous]

I'm interested in the topic of "restraint."  Don't most "programs" use restraint when it's the last resort - to keep someone from hurting either themselves, some else or property?

What do others think about it.  If you don't agree-why, if you do - why?

Melissa - were you ever restrained (physically, that is  :wink: ) while you were at your program?

[Anonymous]

I have paperwork from a hospital adolescent program that says --

"In order to keep the unit safe for all patients and staff, we use seclusion an restraints in extreme situations. If a patient loses control and requires physical restraining, we will use the least restrictive manner possible to assist him in regaining control. If a patient is restrained, there will most often be a community meeting so the community can ask questions and discuss their feelings."

The Casa parent manual says --

"The Casa By The Sea Program is designed to minimize the need for physical restraint of a student; in fact, most students will go through the whole Program without ever needing to be restrained. However, we do work with highly oppositional teens who can, at times, be volatile, confrontive, resistive, and aggressive, making the need for restraint unavoidable. No matter what preventative measures we take, occasionally a student may act out, necessitating restraint measures. Circumstances which may warrant the need for restraint include, but are not limited to: to prevent the student from running away from the Program; to prevent the student from jeopardizing the safety of others or self; to prevent entering an unauthorized area; to prevent the destruction of property."

The statement "not limited to" allows them to do whatever they please.

Another drastic difference is that the hospital program's restraint means having wrists and legs tied to a chair. The adolescent is re-evaluated every 15 minutes. If it is still not safe, the adolescent is released from restraints and is allowed to stretch arms/legs and the staff massage the arms/legs before restraining again.

[Deborah]

The Austin American Statesman did an extensive expose on restraint in childcaring facilities after the death of Chase Moody at On Track, a Brown Schools Wilderness Program.
You can access those articles at:
http://www.statesman.com/specialreports ... restraint/

Parents should be aware that there are more humane ways of dealing with an angry child. Do a search for De-escalation techniques. Programs would like for parents to believe that it is the only way. There are other reasons that restraint and the threat of restraint are used.

That link provides updates on the Moody case which are not looking good. Three staff held him in an illegal restraint until he died yet, the Grand jury found "insufficient evidence of criminal responsibility" in Chase Moody case.

Brown Schools has moved to stop the lawsuit-
The Brown Schools, a Delaware corporation with operations based in Austin, filed a petition in state District Court in Mason County earlier this month, asking a judge to rule that any dispute over the death of 17-year-old Chase Moody at the On Track therapeutic wilderness program be turned over to a binding arbitration panel.

The court filing, which names Chase's mother and father as defendants, says the family agreed to as much in a contract signed by Chase's mother before the teen was enrolled in the camp.

Alan Rau, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an expert in arbitration, said the likelihood of any potential case going to an arbitration panel could come down to technical issues, including how the judge interprets the admissions contract Chase's mother signed.

"There were two things, if I were Johnnie Cochran, I would say. One is that Texas personal injury can't be arbitrated under a pre-dispute clause unless you have the signatures of the lawyers, which you never get," Rau said. "Another argument occurs to me that I would make ? if I were Johnnie Cochran ? is that the clause doesn't cover this kind of thing."

However, Rau said, there also are questions as to whether federal laws, which can trump state statutes and tend to favor arbitration agreements, apply.

"It's not a slam dunk either way," Rau said. "There are arguments that could be made both ways."

Program Parents-- Better know what's in your contracts.
Deborah

[anon]

[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-17 18:43 ]

[spots]

In order to restrain a creature, one must take away from that creature its most formidable weapon.

-For a cow, it is roping its head/neck to remove the cow's ability to slash or charge with its horns, its first line of defense.  
-For a horse, it is roping its head or tangling its feet (or attaching a halter and rope to its head) to remove its primary defense, which is to run.
-For a rabbit, it is grabbing its ears and holding its body close and tight, removing its ability to run.
-For a dog, it is tying shut its mouth with a muzzle (or adding a collar and leash, controlling the head movement) so as to remove its primary defense, its teeth.
-For a human, it is binding its hands, e.g., handcuffs or a 4-point hold-down, removing the primary means of defense/offense.  

When any creature is so detained, that creature will almost always become suddenly very submissive..."giving up".  A horse can obviously pull away, and a human has other means with which to attack.  But the primal natural instinct is to give up, to quiet almost magically.  Restraining a violent person (have you ever watched "Cops" on TV?) is removing the means of escape or attack.  One in a zillion violent people would keep on writhing while handcuffed, but they are aberrant, defying nature.

There is never a need nor reason to inflict pain.  In fact, pain counteracts the submission instinct, because the creature senses that submission is not going to get him anywhere.  Pain is punishment, pure and simple.  Even slow pain (a restrained individual is forced to kneel until the pain beings) is counter-productive.  There is no point except sadism.

[Anonymous]

Phoenix House and Daytop are the two largest drug treatment providers for adolescents in the U.S.  Both started from the Synanon model, but as they became regulated, they had to drop its extremes.  

While they still often use "attack therapy," they can no longer keep kids up all night for it, nor deprive them of food.

Neither ever uses restraints!  

If kids run, the police are called to return them.  And they accept inner city kids, not just the middle class.  Of course, the kids are screened to rule out the severely mentally ill and those with a prior history of assault:  but most kids in WWASP have no prior history of violence and are not psychotic either (beforehand, anyway).

The programs that think they "need" to use restraints are rationalizing their desire for punishment; even most mental hospitals use it only rarely-- maybe once a month, certainly not daily the way Straight or WWASP seems to do.