Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Facility Question and Answers
Open Sky Wilderness in Colorado
SUCK IT:
How many kids have died in treatment programs? Now compare this number to the percentage of troubled teens who end up harming themselves through drug abuse, or suicide. Death is possible outside of treatment programs, and one of the main motivators for parents seeking help for their child in the first place. The fact is the chances are extremely remote that a child will die in a treatment program. If a parent knows their kid is doing addictive and deadly drugs, what are the chances the kid will die from that? What if the kid has a close call and the parent comes home and they are passed out and survive an overdose on heroine, and the child still refuses treatment? In this case what would the average fornits poster argue happen? Because generally speaking a normal teenager's chances of harm are relatively low, but once a parent realizes they are using drugs, or drinking and driving, or any other number of dangerous behaviors the chances go up very quickly. It is at this point parents make the decision to seek treatment, and most will come to the conclusion the chances are greater the child will benefit and be safer in treatment than not.
You cannot take the most emotional and damaging singular events within an entire industry and attempt to indict it from top to bottom, it's not accurate. You can sit on top of a list of dead children and think it helps your argument, but this offers no solutions to parents with troubled teens in need of help. It's an effective position for one thing only, and that is offering up anti program propaganda which you seem particular eager to do. In this role I can understand your usage of these examples, but you are also forgetting their parents sought out treatment for a reason. Would offering no alternative or solutions have prevented them from sending their child to treatment? In this way fornits continues to fail parents because it's more interested in propagandizing than providing an accurate representation about the chances of success or failure within a treatment program. You should think to yourself, how can I use my insight to make this industry safer? Instead of attacking the industry perhaps consider starting a legitimate organization that people will listen to. You can help improve programs, which in turn will help everybody. Sitting on the sidelines throwing mud helps nobody. Think about it.
Paul St. John:
I actually do have some ideas.
I have been thinking about them awhile.
I wouldn t be the person to do it though. It's not what I want to do..
.. but I have ideas.
Anne Bonney:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids" ---A pedophile and his assistant go around in a windowless white van marked "free candy". The pedophile gets arrested for obvious reasons. The assistant gets away with it.
A few days later the assistant is seen driving his own windowless green van marked "free toys".
We should give the former assistant a chance, right? I mean, how do we know for sure that he's doing the same thing as his boss used to?
--- End quote ---
Exactly, good analogy, People are not pedophiles by association, Pile. If you hang out with gay people for a few years it doesn't mean you will become gay.
--- End quote ---
Who's talking about gay people?? Pile was talking about pedophiles. Why are you attempting to conflate the two?
Most disingenuous poster EVAR!
And seriously? Pile's analogy? You'd send your kid into the assistant's van? Wow....no wonder you have such an affinity for programs.
Anne Bonney:
--- Quote from: "SUCK IT" ---You cannot take the most emotional and damaging singular events within an entire industry and attempt to indict it from top to bottom, it's not accurate.
--- End quote ---
It is entirely accurate to indict programs that use these type of tactics. They are completely unwarranted and have been proven to do more damage, not help.
http://www.teenhelponline.com/trust-your-teen.html
Some confrontation groups use strong group pressure to break down a at risk youth’s defenses in order to compel “honesty.” A target of such a group is sometimes referred to as “being on the hot sea.” Trying to defend against interrogation but subjected to intense attack from the group, the at risk youth eventually breaks under the strain of prolonged confrontation. Defenses are shattered, a flood of emotion comes forth, and the inner person is bared for the scrutiny of the group. The climate of the confrontation groups is one of invasion and exposure.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 000919.htm
Treatment
Successful treatment requires close involvement of the child's family. Parents can learn techniques to help manage their child's problem behavior.
In cases of abuse, the child may need to be removed from the family and placed in a less chaotic environment. Treatment with medications or talk therapy may be used for depression and attention-deficit disorder, which commonly accompany conduct disorder.
Many "behavioral modification" schools, "wilderness programs," and "boot camps" are sold to parents as solutions for conduct disorder. These may use a form of "attack therapy" or "confrontation," which can actually be harmful. There is no research support for such techniques. Research suggests that treating children at home, along with their families, is more effective.
If you are considering an inpatient program, be sure to check it out thoroughly. Serious injuries and deaths have been associated with some programs. They are not regulated in many states.
--- Quote ---You can sit on top of a list of dead children and think it helps your argument, but this offers no solutions to parents with troubled teens in need of help.
--- End quote ---
Primum non nocere.
--- Quote --- In this role I can understand your usage of these examples, but you are also forgetting their parents sought out treatment for a reason.
--- End quote ---
I'm sure they did, but that doesn't make their "reason" valid.
--- Quote ---You should think to yourself, how can I use my insight to make this industry safer?
--- End quote ---
By eliminating it and recommending real help instead.
--- Quote ---Instead of attacking the industry perhaps consider starting a legitimate organization that people will listen to. You can help improve programs, which in turn will help everybody.
--- End quote ---
So your solution is just more regulation then?
westbeth:
I was at Open Sky in the over 18 program. They were not abusive.
I was in the voluntary program, of course. In theory I could have left at any time. In practice, you have to walk ten miles to a phone with your 50-pound pack, which was not an option I seriously considered. You also get a guide haranguing you the whole way, and an ‘in case we need emotional blackmail’ letter from your parents. Apparently in the under 18 group they took everyone’s shoes at lights out to prevent runaways. [and encourage bedwetting, presumably.]
The guides in my group were pretty clearly sticking to the rules, and the policies were reasonable and safe, as long as never being unmonitored seems reasonable. They did have me strip, squat, and cough, but they never touched me. They made an itemized list of all the belongings I brought, taped the boxes shut, and stored them while I watched. While I was there, nothing escalated to the point where physical restraint would be reasonable, and nobody was allowed to touch anyone else, except for hugs when permission had been explicitly given. Obviously, packs were adjusted, blisters were taped, we gave a hand over rocks, but nothing hinky.
Nobody really got disciplined for anything much while I was there, except for things where you lost privileges like using a knife or going on extra excursions.
For me, Open Sky was 85% a waste of time and 15% helpful. It was basically really frequent group therapy, with a (fairly gentle) dose of boot camp, and wilderness mysticism. They keep you busy 24/7 – basically no unscheduled time. You’re either doing the basic hiking/camping stuff, or you’re working on self-reflection assignments. The assignments were not helpful for me. If you’ve spent more than 2 minutes in therapy, you’ve already done all of it, though maybe not in such an organized way, or with a whole group of people looking over your shoulder. Being required to journal every day was helpful.
Open Sky might have been more helpful if I had been dealing with substance abuse issues instead of depression. Maybe the incredibly authoritarian rules and emotional manipulation would have been easier to swallow if it actually had a purpose with me.
We didn’t spend much time with actual therapists – once a week, with a fairly defined script – not especially helpful. The guides did most of the heavy lifting, on a game plan they cleared with the therapists.
They did take into account individual capabilities. The most strenuous stuff we did was carrying firewood and water for our camp, and if you said you couldn’t take a full load, you would still have to carry a partial load. Peer pressure to carry your weight was definitely there, but we also helped each other out when we had trouble with physical stuff.
The other 3-7 people in your group are intimately involved with your work. They all have their own issues. Watching the other people in my group, I think Open Sky would have been totally useless if it hadn’t been my idea, and if I hadn’t gone into it wanting to do the work. Even starting from there, the almost totally inflexible rules and blatant manipulation kind of alienated me, and I spent a lot of time reminding myself that even though much of it seemed stupid, I had decided to try it their way, and it wouldn’t help if I wasn’t sincere.
I got the impression not everyone had that attitude; one girl in particular was incredibly two-faced – what we said around the guides and what she said to the rest of us were very different. Everyone was there voluntarily, but some people it was because they had gotten an ultimatum from their parents. The people who decided themselves got a lot more done; one of the other guys was basically just telling them what they wanted to hear.
Going in, I had no idea what it was actually going to be like. They didn’t give any hint of the ten-mile to a phone rule, and I asked about it. The receptionist I talked to gave the impression that a few materials like books could be kept if they got approval, and then they didn’t do any thing about the stuff I had asked them to get approved, so I have no idea if it would have passed or not.
All in all, Open Sky seems safe if not generally effective, but people definitely need to be wary.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version