Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: MomCat on March 27, 2006, 01:23:00 AM
-
Lord, have mercy. I can't believe what people will do to children. I mean, really. This is simply disgusting. I've heard of people using shock mats to keep their pets off the furniture (someone actually suggested I use one to keep my cats from shedding on my couch - I'll vacuum the hair, thank you just the same.) And I've heard of shock collars on dogs so they won't bark (like my neighbors used on her dogs). But on children? Unbelievable!
Dispute Over Shock Therapies Has Education Officials Reconsidering
Out-Of-State Placements
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express http://www.InclusionDaily.com (http://www.InclusionDaily.com)
March 24, 2006
ALBANY, NEW YORK--Some parents and experts say the device is a godsend.
Others consider it primitive and cruel, and say that it reminds them of "One
Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
The device is called a "Graduated Electronic Decelerator", or GED, and is
about the same size and shape as a backpack, and is worn much like one.
About half of the residents at the Judge Rotenberg Education Center in
Canton, Massachusetts -- most with intellectual disabilities, mental
illness, or brain injuries -- wear them 24 hours a day for what is called
"aversive therapy".
The GEDs -- which were developed at JRC and have been approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration -- have electrodes that are placed on specific
spots on the person's skin. When a person wearing a GED "misbehaves", JRC
staff members push a button on a remote control device to deliver an
electric jolt, which a JRC spokesperson described as feeling much like a
hard pinch of skin or a bee sting, for up to two seconds.
"It's painful," resident Katie Sparchichino told Newsday.
Rotenberg provides reports on its website showing that the devices have been
effective in getting some people to reduce "aggression and self-injury".
"It's not something someone would enjoy having done to them. That's why a
lot of kids change behaviors," explained Sparchichino. "I didn't want to get
shocked and I changed my behavior."
Without the GED, Sparchichino regressed, such as when she went home and her
mother found she could not shock her daughter.
While most experts agree that punishments are usually effective in reducing
a specific behavior, one criticism made by opponents of such pain compliance
or aversive treatments has been that the person subjected to them can start
to depend on them: Once the threat of discomfort is gone, the undesired
behavior can return, even at higher levels than before the treatment
started.
Last week, Evelyn Nicholson of Freeport, New York, announced that she is
suing her local school district for sending her 17-year-old adopted son,
Antwone, to the Rotenberg Center, formerly known as the "Behavior Research
Institute". She said that the institution's aversive therapy caused her son
emotional trauma and fear, amounting to corporal punishment, which is banned
in New York and at least 26 other states.
JRC started using the shock treatment on Antwone, who has learning
disabilities, in August of 2004, because he cursed, threw things and
attacked staff. Over the next 18 months, the GED was used on Antwone 79
times, or about once a week.
"He said, 'Mommy, you don't know how it feels. It's very painful,'" Mrs.
Nicholson recalled when describing her son's phone calls.
At her request, the facility stopped using the shock treatments on Antwone
in February. His psychologist said that without the GED the teen's
"inappropriate behavior" returned almost immediately. Last Thursday, it took
eight people to restrain Antwone after he tried to attack a staff member,
the psychologist said.
Last July, the New York lawmakers passed "Billy's Law", a measure that gives
state officials increased oversight of the treatment that more than 1,400
New York children and adults receive at out-of-state facilities. Rotenberg
currently houses about 150 youths from New York for whom their home state
could not provide adequate services.
Because of concerns over mistreatment at out-of-state facilities, New York
education officials and state lawmakers are considering ending the practice
altogether, and bringing those children and adults back to their home state.
Related:
"Mom cites trauma and fear" (Newsday)
http://www.newsday.com/ny-liantw0321,0,3279484.story (http://www.newsday.com/ny-liantw0321,0,3279484.story)
"Shock therapy disputed" (Newsday)
http://www.newsday.com/ny-lishok0321,0,4065911.story (http://www.newsday.com/ny-lishok0321,0,4065911.story)
"School defends electric shock of disabled youths" (Newsday)
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/06/red/0324a.htm (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/06/red/0324a.htm)
"Use of Skin-Shock as an Aversive in Behavioral Treatment" (Judge Rotenberg
Educational Center)
http://www.effectivetreatment.org (http://www.effectivetreatment.org)
"State sending more disabled students away" (Newsday)
http://www.newsday.com/ny-lishok0322,0,4131448.story (http://www.newsday.com/ny-lishok0322,0,4131448.story)
--
-
While most experts agree that punishments are usually effective in reducing
a specific behavior, one criticism made by opponents of such pain compliance
or aversive treatments has been that the person subjected to them can start
to depend on them: Once the threat of discomfort is gone, the undesired
behavior can return, even at higher levels than before the treatment
started.
This is a disgusting way to go about "therapy."
As a side note, the exerpt above perfectly describes why "programs" don't work and actually exacerbate behavioral problems.
Why is this so hard to see for supposedly "rational" people?
-
I'm not real fond of the idea of using electric shocks to change behavior. But NY area newspapers report that some parents maintain they tried everything else and this works. Some of the kids otherwise just bang their heads against the wall, or hit, or whatever. One problem is that when the "therapy" is stopped, sometimes the behavior returns. Anyway there is a lot of stuff being written about it, and not all sane people oppose it strongly. It is interesting though, that it seems there is only one place in the nation that does this, and even then only with about 2/3 of their 100 or so students. How the other 250 million of us survive?
-
Some of the kids otherwise just bang their heads against the wall, or hit, or whatever.
Then the level of care provided for them is not sufficient. You can't take a program that is insufficient to meet these kids' needs and make it better by shocking the residents.
If they can't function within the framework of that program, then their level of care needs to be increased. It's a simple solution to a simple problem.
-
That's what I was thinking.
If they respond to the shock treatment, doesn't that demonstrate that they cognizant to learn in more humane ways.
Is this really about inadequate staff to provide the one-on-one attention these kids need? Methods that make it easier for staff?
What happened to head bangers wearing helmets- a more humane way to 'protect' them if no real help is provided.
-
If they respond to the shock treatment, doesn't that demonstrate that they cognizant to learn in more humane ways.
Yes, it does.
Is this really about inadequate staff to provide the one-on-one attention these kids need? Methods that make it easier for staff?
It is more at the level where the "program" is inadequate to care for the needs of these kids, not the staff.
And, yes, it is a bandaid used by staff to make the environment more manageable.
But the underlying problem remains that the facility (program) does not meet the needs of these kids, so the only way to reconcile that problem is to place these kids appropriately.
_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality."
-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2006-03-27 06:45 ]
-
JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST.
Mother of... holy fuck, this can't be real...
I got... rescued from something way, way too similar... and I'm fictional.
Luke charges up massively. The static charge in the air is absurd. It's all his body's defenses can to do to stop him from electrocuting himself.
They want shocks?
I'LL FUCKING GIVE THEM SHOCKS.
_________________
Age: 16
Rescued from abusive extreme behavior modification program two years ago after three days of hell. Won't ever forget it.[ This Message was edited by: Luke Stephens on 2006-03-27 14:05 ]
-
On 2006-03-27 05:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I'm not real fond of the idea of using electric shocks to change behavior. But NY area newspapers report that some parents maintain they tried everything else and this works. Some of the kids otherwise just bang their heads against the wall, or hit, or whatever. One problem is that when the "therapy" is stopped, sometimes the behavior returns. Anyway there is a lot of stuff being written about it, and not all sane people oppose it strongly. It is interesting though, that it seems there is only one place in the nation that does this, and even then only with about 2/3 of their 100 or so students. How the other 250 million of us survive?"
It's. A. Spanking.
It's also far too easy to give. How often would many parents spank if it was as easy as pushing a button?
One of the safeguards for parents who use spanking (and yes, I know most of you disapprove) is that it is emotionally very unfun to spank your kid.
You want to do just about anything else to avoid having to actually hit your kid. Any less hurtful (to your kid) strategy that you can possibly use, you want to use. If it's not that big a deal, a behavior might even be something you *should* just let go. Just because your first inclination is a behavior is annoying doesn't mean it's the *kid* that's wrong that time. Sometimes Mom or Dad is just cranky.
I can think of few worse ideas than to make the equivalent of a spanking as easy and convenient and emotionally distant from the parent or caretaker as *pushing a damn button.*
Grrrrrr.
Julie
-
Well, since we already established the point that electroshock is not therapeutic, but rather an enforcement tool, let's take it a step further. If it's more convenient and/or efficient to zap the kids, then wouldn't it be even more convenient and/or efficient to make them be the ones who have to carry the batteries?
-
The device is called a "Graduated Electronic Decelerator", or GED, and is
about the same size and shape as a backpack, and is worn much like one.
About half of the residents at the Judge Rotenberg Education Center in
Canton, Massachusetts -- most with intellectual disabilities, mental
illness, or brain injuries -- wear them 24 hours a day for what is called
"aversive therapy".
The GEDs -- which were developed at JRC and have been approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration -- have electrodes that are placed on specific
spots on the person's skin. When a person wearing a GED "misbehaves", JRC
staff members push a button on a remote control device to deliver an
electric jolt, which a JRC spokesperson described as feeling much like a
hard pinch of skin or a bee sting, for up to two seconds.
"It's painful," resident Katie Sparchichino told Newsday.
Child care, dog training -- what's the difference?
(http://http://www.weekend-sportsman.com/images/dogtra1200NC.gif)
Any dog trainer worth his salt will tell you these 'devices' are both unneccesarry and harmful to the dog's development. Only half ass trainers with no patience use these things.
How long until bored staff start pushing buttons for fun? Are they getting their new child-rearing theories from the simpsons?
(http://http://capefeare.com/frames/disgrace/182.jpg)
-
this has got to be joke, right?
-
Some of the kids otherwise just bang their heads against the wall
Right, because poofy helmets is just too much trouble.
I remember that I got a shocker collar for my friend's dog, because he was a horrible barker and the neighbors were having a shit fit. (My friend's deaf friend could actually "hear" him bark, because the vibrations were so intense.) This was before all the reasearch came out that those collars were way worse than we seemed to believe it was. The ads always downplayed its intensity. Every time he barked, it went off, and he just yelped. In addition, once you took it off, he just started barking again. Not only did it defeat the entire purpose of this "adverse training", it was upsetting him greatly, and probably smarting like a bitch, and just made him more neurotic. We were horrified at how fucked up this thing really was.
Obviously we didn't use it for very long, and it was a terrible, terrible idea on my part, and I was an idiot for even thinking that this would help. If these kinds of things aren't fit for dogs, then they certainly aren't for humans.
Another thing this reminds me of is the shock experiment that studied how easily people can be coerced into committing horrible acts of sadism. I heard about it in sociology class, but I think Maia talks about it in her book, too. All it took was an authority figure in a white lab coat to convince participants to gradually turn up the voltage on the screaming subject, who was pretending to be wired up to the switch.
I have a suspicion that these staff who are responsible for administering shocks to these children are in the same mindset. They were told that this is a completely rational way of treating people, so it seems normal for them, even though their common sense should dictate otherwise. (Same with how I simply believed the ad's claims of success for the shocker collar. Even though my most basic common sense should have alerted me to the fact that this was an absolutely ridiculous way of curbing problematic behavior.) And of course, it probably devolves very quickly into staff doing this whenever a kid does something that they don't like, like talking back, or not responding as quickly as they would like. It's abusive even if the "therapy" is followed to the letter, so there is only one way to go from there: downhill.
In my case, probably the smart thing for me to have done was to try the collar on myself. Then just keep shocking myself every time I tried to talk. That would have probably made me wise up real quick that this was the stupidest idea ever. I wonder if any of these people who administer this "shock therapy" have ever actually strapped themselves up to it for a day, and see if they still have the same opinion about its effecacy afterwards.
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-03-27 21:54 ]
-
I call dibs on testing the collar on Georgie Bushie.
TSW
-
"Raising children is like training dogs; consistency, consistency, consistency."
--Elijah Haines Hilliard; EHH to you
People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security.
--Benjamin Franklin
-
I wouldn't be surprised to see them put up the Invisable Fence! You know what that is right? We have one for our two pitbulls! They wear collars, and the wire goes around the entire property! As soon as they get within a foot of the fenceline ZAP! They are both 10+ years old, but dug out once, and attacked a dog down the street. I have to say, they have not gotten out since.
However, there are those twisted fucks that work at these places, who push these buttons for fun. We know there are!!! I mean how many times did a staff member provoke me, so I would end up getting restarained by them and a few others? Good times, good times! I'll tell you what, had I had this electronic shock device hooked up to me, I would have been burnt toast a long time ago!!!
-
I wouldn't be surprised to see them put up the Invisable Fence!
Have you seen the movie "Running Man"? They put collars on the convicts and when they pass the "perimeter" the collar explodes and severs the head.
That's the next logical step...
-
Oh that's right! I think I read the book a long time ago?
Anyway, maybe I have really lost it.........and gone completely mad but......
Why not just microchip these kids? Let them be the guinne pigs? I am sure Bush and Lichfield could work out some kind of agreement?
It could solve multiple issues at one time.....
1. Make sure those brats don't run. If they do they'll get shocked.......like some kind of migraine that won't kill them, but won't go away unless they turn around, and return to the program.
2. If they disable it, it will administer some kind of tranquilizer that will drop them to the ground. While this happens, GPS is picking up signal, and giving out precise location.
I know I have said this one time before.....but I will say it again. I remember, clear back in 1989 when I ran away from my first TBS one of the senior staff who along with 4-5 others escorted me from the home I was hiding out in said to me.....and I remember it very clearly.....she had just put me in the back of the car, and sat next to me with this smirk on her face. She says to me, it's no use you continuing to run. We knew where you were. From the first apartment, till now. I didn't understand at first....and I said well why didn't you come and get me? In fact the apartment/dorm I was in was 4 stories high, and had atleast 40 units? I remember peaking out the window, and seeing a familiar truck that a staff member drove on her dashboard I could see flyers, and a walkie talkie. Maybe they picked up my signal, and didn't want to scare all the college students, and be disruptive....so they were waiting for me to come out?
I remember a few days later, when I was being taken by these guys to a friends house in SLC we had some cars speeding after us on the freeway. Somehow we out ran them, and their friend wasn't home so they panicked and took me to a runaway house in Provo/Orem. It was occupied by 10 young adults who I think were druggies? The windows had no glass, just covered with sheets, it was an abandoned house I remember. The next day, I woke up, and was looking out the window when we were surronded. It was total swat team style. I didn't even try to run, I just opened up the door, and let them cuff and take me.
But, back to the first part of my story....so how did you know where I was? She says to me, do you remember the first thing we did when you got to the school was take you to the doctor? I said yeah so? She goes remember you getting some shots? I go yeah??? She says to me, well one of those shots they injected you with was a microchip. I was thinking, what the fuck? Now back then, how many times did someone ever bring up microchips? I was thinking, huh?!! Well, I do remember this room that was always locked, and in the basement of Unit 5 which also housed the laundry room. Well, I remember seeing the door ajar one day, and peeked in. It was all this electronic equipment....with maps on the walls. With dots all over them. I wasn't able to investigate, I just closed the door. But, suddenly this was flashing into my head. It scared the shit out of me. I've never been able to make sense of it. This was 17 years ago.
These days, all livestock is microchipped, so are alot of our housepets. We are already there, and we even have humans that are volunteering for this procedure. Was I one of the first to have this unknowingly done to her? I don't know, was I? That is always in the back of my mind.
Then I think of the ties between Lichfield and Bush. What kinds of things could this next generation of kids be the guinne pigs for? Something like this? Something along the lines of a new alternative method for behaivor modification?
I don't know?
-
Relax, darling. You have no microchips in you.
First, this technology was not even available at the time (home PC's were barely coming into play then - technology was "large size").
Even currently, there are no injectable microchips. They need to be surgically implanted under the skin (of pets, livestock. or humans) and have no ability to actively send signals, so GPS is out of play in this scenario.
This sounds more like some dreams being synthesized into your memories of that shithole.
Rest be assured, this IS NOT happening to you.
Hope this helps ; )
-
Don't give em any ideas!! They may not mind that someone runs- supports the notion they need to be there.
-
On 2006-03-28 09:47:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"
I wouldn't be surprised to see them put up the Invisable Fence!
Have you seen the movie "Running Man"? They put collars on the convicts and when they pass the "perimeter" the collar explodes and severs the head.
That's the next logical step...
"
Do you think Richard Dawson will be involved in this "new therapy", by any chance?
Survey says...
-
Okay, technical reality check.
There are passive transponders and active transponders.
The doggy microchip is a passive transponder. That means when a hand scanner sends it the code that says, "Talk to me," the dogchip sends out a very low power signal that the scanner then decodes. The scanner just sends its signal a very short distance to the dog sitting right there, and the dogchip just sends its radio signal a very short distance to the scanner. The dogchip only chirps when the scanner tells it, "Talk to me."
Now lets talk about a stronger passive transponder, lojack. Lojack is about the size of a deck of cards and has to have constant input of power from your car battery, or run on a backup battery. Then when your car is stolen, police send the lojack a talk to me radio signal and the lojack starts screaming on whatever radio frequency and the police have to triangulate in with special equipment in the police cars to find it.
One of the problems companies like lojack run into is that the radio frequency spectrum is very cluttered. The people who "own" the rights to those bits of spectrum are very possessive about them. If you tried to lojack hundreds or thousands of kids, the problem is you'd have to know roughly where they were already to be able to pick up the signal and start triangulating in, and you'd have to have multiple cars to triangulate in.
With the power requirements involved, no way can you use a microchip to lojack an animal or a kid.
As far as how they really found you, CCM girl, watch an episode or a few of Dog the Bounty Hunter.
It's possible to run from something, get lost, and stay lost, but it takes a level of paranoia about dealing with people that most people don't have. You have to be personally certain deep down in your soul that anybody who *can* rat you out, *will* rat you out. That anybody will let "them" search for you in their house or on their property when they come for you. That anybody who you've let lay eyes on you is going to instantly develop a very good memory once shown your picture and asked to be helpful.
You have to get farther, faster, than they think you possibly can without letting anybody lay eyes on you. Sometimes hitching a ride will save you, sometimes it'll burn you.
You have to go someplace where you know *nobody* and have no familiarity with the place, have the self-discipline not to contact anybody you know--not anybody at all. The person you are sure in your heart won't turn you in is the person who does---and who is absolutely convinced they're "doing it for you, as a friend."
The person who tries to cover for you, if you find one, is a lousy liar and the people sent to find you can tell she's lying and that she knows where you are.
You go far, you go somewhere you don't know anyone and nobody knows you, you go somewhere you've never been. You change your appearance as much as possible so that people who see you do not see the same person they will see later when your photo is shown around--but you make sure whatever you change it to is dead ordinary. You stay out of sight of people as much as possible, or get someplace where there are so many people that nobody is going to remember any one person as long as you don't stand out.
Most people aren't paranoid enough to do all that.
Julie
-
Thanks you guys, that makes me feel a smidgen better! You have to admit that was really weird she told me that. She must have been reading some intresting science fiction books in her spare time. I wonder if she has any idea that to this very day, I think of her, and what she said?
Thanks Vicky A.