Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: MomCat on March 29, 2006, 01:04:00 PM
-
A debate on shock therapy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheigh ... _full.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ufd_shocktherapy_full.html)
It's nothing new:
USA Today Series
12-06-1995
More children undergo shock therapy
For the first time in four decades, children and adolescents are being used as subjects of significant new shock therapy studies.
The studies are being done quietly at respected schools and hospitals such as UCLA, the Mayo Clinic and the University of Michigan.
Shock therapy's use is on the rise, especially among the elderly. Children and other high-risk patients are receiving more shock as well, mostly as a treatment for severe depression.
Children still account for a small percentage of shock patients, and no national estimates exist.
But at a seminar for shock therapy doctors in May, one-third of psychiatrists raised their hands when asked if they did shock on young people.
University of Pennsylvania neuroscientist Peter Sterling, a shock opponent, calls the child studies "horrifying. . . . You're shocking a brain that is still developing."
California and Texas ban shock therapy on kids under 12. Most states permit it with approval of two psychiatrists and a parent or guardian.
Shock researchers met in Providence, R.I., in the fall of 1994 to discuss early results of the new studies, mostly unpublished.
"There's no evidence that electroconvulsive therapy affects brain development of children in any permanent way," says researcher Kathleen Logan, a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist.
"Parents and patients have been receptive in a vast majority of cases," Logan says. "We do a lot of education. We show them a video and the ECT suite. They're so desperate that they'll give it a try."
The latest child shock researchers compare their results to the pioneering work in the field: a 1947 study by psychiatrist Lauretta Bender.
Bender's study reported on 98 children (ages 3-11) shocked at Bellevue Hospital in New York. She reported a 97% success rate: "They were better controlled, seemed better integrated and more mature."
In 1950, Bender shocked a 2-year-old who had "a distressing anxiety that frequently reached a state of panic." After 20 shocks, the boy had "moderate improvement."
But in a 1954 follow-up, other researchers could not find improvement in Bender's children: "In a number of cases, parents have told the writers that the children were definitely worse," they wrote.
Today's researchers interpret Bender's study as evidence that shock works, at least temporarily.
The new studies are again reporting great success. A UCLA study had 100% success in nine adolescents. The Mayo Clinic found 65% were better. At Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, 14 who received shock spent 56% less time in the hospital than six who refused the treatment.
Ted Chabasinski, who as a 6-year-old foster child was shocked 20 times by Bender, says the research is unethical and should stop.
"It makes me sick to think children are having done to them what was done to me," says Chabasinski, a lawyer. "I've never met anyone other than myself who's functional after being shocked as a child."
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
-
They're so desperate that they'll give it a try.
This seems to be the justification du jour when it comes to abusing children.
-
You've got a wrong link at the start of your post.
And I don't believe this shit. What the fuck are they thinking? Do they really not know the relationship between electricity and brain cells? Do they jerk off when they do this to kids, or what?
I'll fucking say it again, you assclowns want shock therapy? I'll give you shock therapy. Lightning flashes between Luke's hands- he's gonna fry someone's ass.
-
The 1st link was to a debate, which worked for me, the 2nd is an article showing this has been going on for quite some time.
-
They did a story on shock therapy in programs at Three Springs last week on the Paula Zahn show.
-
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... zn.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/11/pzn.01.html)
But first, is it time we rewrite that old nursery school rhyme about girls and boys? You know, the one about sugar and spice? How about this? Young and bright and ready to fight. That's right. More girls are throwing punches and not just in the movies. Instead of "See Jane Run," it's see Jane hit. Our Jonathan Freed has more on girls with the gloves off in tonight's "Eye Opener."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kristen (ph) is a teenager who's found a way to be at peace with herself. Even animals feel it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE : When I used to be scared, the horses used to be scared.
FREED: But not so long ago, Kristen had serious behavioral problems.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When I turned 10, I'd start hitting walls when I was at angry. At times, it felt good to feel pain, just so I wouldn't have to feel the pain inside.
FREED: Soon, walls weren't enough.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first fight I got into, it was actually with a guy. We were like 11-years-old. And I jumped in and I started just swinging at the kid and kicking him and just screaming at him and cussing at him.
FREED: She says her unbridled rage led to her using and selling drugs and fighting with anyone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Getting suspended in school and -- like I got suspended for me and my friend, a teacher was yelling at us and we got up in their face. And she hit the teacher and then I came in and hit the teacher also.
FREED: We met Kristen (ph) at a treatment program for troubled kids called "Three Springs" in the mountains outside Huntsville, Alabama. Her case, though extreme, is by no means unique.
(on camera): Were you surprised by your findings?
PROFESSOR JAMES GARBARINO, LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: In a way, what I was surprised by was why it hadn't occurred to me earlier to look at this.
FREED (voice-over): Psychology professor James Garbarino, who's written a book called "See Jane Hit," argues aggression among girls is on the rise.
GARBARINO: Well if you look at some of the numbers, you see the Justice Department, the various state agencies that compile arrest rates saying that a generation ago for every one girl arrested for assault, there would be 10 boys arrested for assault. And more recently it's more like four boys for every one girl.
FREED: He says the problem goes beyond arrest records. Garbarino interviewed 200 girls for his book. And he says these days your daughter is likely to be bombarded with all kinds of aggressive images in pop culture, examples which could cause your child to act out at school, at home, everywhere.
(on camera): Tell me what it's like when you're starting to feel angry.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When I'm starting to feel angry, like my fists get all tight and my jaw clenches up.
FREED (voice-over): Kristen says she was influenced by pop culture.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you see things on T.V. or like on MTV, BET, girls fighting or -- you know, that's cool to fight you know -- people don't look up to you if you don't fight.
GARBARINO: In the past you might have said to your girl, girls don't hit and be able to back that up with what she saw in the larger culture. Today that's simply not true. It's not true. Girls do hit. And they can see evidence of that, so that they are being given permission.
FREED: Garbarino says a widely-publicized hazing incident at a suburban Chicago high school in 2003 is a perfect example of girls acting out. Five girls were hospitalized, 15 charged with misdemeanor battery.
MIKE MALES, SOCIOLOGIST: This is not a real increase in violence.
FREED: Sociologist Mike Males says society is simply more sensitive to violence now and quicker to make it a big issue.
MALES: There's very little statistical evidence that we've seen more violence among young girls. In fact, they seem to be safer and less violent today than in the past.
FREED: Karen Tisdell says she's seen girls becoming more aggressive in the 10 years she's run the treatment program here. But she doesn't put all of the blame on pop culture.
KAREN TISDELL, THREE SPRING: I don't think it's the cause. I do think that it's fueling it. I think a lot of the issues are more deep seated.
FREED: Issues like anger and abandonment. Kristen started feeling angry when her parents split up. But after a year at Three Springs, Kristen's learned to refocus her aggression.
(on camera): Do you feel that you're going to be able to keep it together? Are you going to be able to stay the person that you've become?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, I think like yes I'm going to be able to be who I am. I'm not perfect and I'm going to mess up, like that's OK with me. Just as long as I'm able to bounce back up from that.
FREED (voice-over): She wants future without violence and she's convinced it's possible if she tries. Jonathan Freed, CNN, Chicago.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: And there's this. Professor Garbarino says there are warning signs parents can look for in their daughters. Are other kids avoiding her? Is someone being hurt by her behavior? And do teachers and coaches say she's behaving badly? You might want to ask yourself those questions.
Meanwhile, we'll continue our focus on children and violence in just a moment with a visit to a school that uses electrical shocks to keep kids in line.
How much of a shock? See what happens when one of our reporters gets wired up and they push the button.
-
The Florida Senate Health Regulation committee is meeting tomorrow
Febuary 21, 2007 to consider a bill to ban Shock Treatment on kids under 18 in Florida. You can see the full bill here:
http://tinyurl.com/2rvj2n (http://tinyurl.com/2rvj2n)
Please e-mail Senator Atwater, Chairman of the committee and cc the
Senate committee members. Tell the Senators to vote YES on Senate
Bill 112. (e-mail addresses provided below)
If you know any health care professionals who can testify against shock
treatment or victims of shock treatment who want to speak out, please
contact Lee Sheldon, atwater.jeffrey.web@flsenate.gov (http://mailto:atwater.jeffrey.web@flsenate.gov)
Senate Health Regulation committee members:
alexander.jd.web@flsenate.gov (http://mailto:alexander.jd.web@flsenate.gov),
fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov (http://mailto:fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov),
lawson.alfred.web@flsenate.gov (http://mailto:lawson.alfred.web@flsenate.gov),
peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov
-
Maybe someone can use some of that zap zap therapy to blast the lard right out of Izzy retarded head. Shame it is used on kids in the first place, and a bigger fucking shame a fat sack of shit like here would seek to use that tragedy to further her pile of shit web site.
Fucking can't stand most advocates any more than I can stand these shit eating programmies.
Round em all up and shoot em. Plenty of ammo, the govt has been stock piling it since Korean War to fight of the REd Menace. Now we got a threat right in our own backyard that makes the Soviets look like a bunch of dancing queens.
Lock and load and shoot to kill boys. Take no prisoners.
-
jesus thats barbaric.....
-
Wow.
My husband just went through a series of ECT treatment. Ya know ... treatment of last resort. All throughly endorsed and recommended by his psychiatrist.
The effects were horrendous. He is just now recovering.
And his depression? Absolutely no better.
I can't even begin to imagine the effects this would have on a child.
Outrageous.
-
6. The results are memory loss, confusion, loss of space and time
orientation and even death.
7. Most patients are given a total of six to 12 shocks, one a day, three times a week.
Ask the foremost psychiatrists and they have no explanation to justify why or how their "treatment" works. It is literally as scientific as sticking one's head in a light socket. Do it often enough and you will become disoriented, confused, lose your memory or even die. Same result as ECT.
It was electric shock "treatment" for depression that led to Ernest Hemingway killing himself. Confusion and memory problems kept him from writing as well as hunting. The "cure" effectively destroyed Hemingway's ability to do the things he loved most, and he decided to suicide.
Lou Reed was given ECT in the fifties at his parents' request to end his "aberrant" homosexual activity. It was only a form of torture, and John Cale has said Lou Reed can't maintain relationships or trust, eventually a damaged synapse fires wrong and his perception of "friends" changes radically.
Why are these snake oil salesmen still pushing high voltage as a tonic for non-existant or more easily treated disorders?
-
MOM CAT
Go back over on CAICA, ok?
MOM CAT is Isabelle Zehnder!!!!!!!!
Bye Bye, IZZY Girl.
-
http://caica.org/Judge_Rotenberg_Prime_time_2-20-07.htm (http://caica.org/Judge_Rotenberg_Prime_time_2-20-07.htm)
-
http://caica.org/Judge_Rotenberg_Prime_time_2-20-07.htm (http://caica.org/Judge_Rotenberg_Prime_time_2-20-07.htm)
-
I found this old article on this Judge guy on the New York times website, this is some really sick stuff......
link (http://http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9506E5DE103BF932A05751C1A963948260)
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
Published: December 31, 1985
A Massachusetts state agency agreed yesterday to reconsider its order barring a school for autistic children from using a program of physical punishments as treatment.
The agreement, by the Massachustts Office for Children, appeared to be a significant victory for the school and the parents of many of its 64 clients. The parents had protested that their children had regressed into violent or self-abusive behavior after the agency sought in September to close the school and banned physical punishment, known as aversive therapy, for the autistic clients.
Autism is a baffling brain disorder that leads to speech defects and aggressive or self-abusive behavior.
Director Sees a Victory
Matthew Israel, the director of the school, the Behavior Research Institute in Providence, R.I., said he regarded the agreement as ''very much a victory.'' The agreement followed a judge's decision restoring aversive treatment for a child in the school, as requested by her parents.
According to Mary Kay Leonard, the director of the Office for Children, the accord calls for her to appoint a panel of experts ''to advise the agency on the conditions, if any, under which aversive therapy should be authorized in Massachusetts as a treatment for autistic children.'' The panel is to deliver a report in 30 days.
Without conceding that she had backed down from her order banning the physical punishments, Miss Leonard said, ''This will allow B.R.I. one more chance to present to the office exactly what aversive procedures it wishes to use'' and ''to demonstrate that B.R.I. now has the needed safeguards in place.''
Client Died in Treatment
The Massachusetts agency has jurisdiction over Behavior Research because while the school building is in Providence, the students live in seven houses in suburbs just across the Massachusetts border.
The agency's decision to ban aversive therapy came after the death of Vincent Milletich, a 22-year-old autistic man from Queens, who died while being bombarded with staticlike ''white noise.'' His death and the agency's action touched off an emotional dispute among parents, officials in Massachusetts and New York, psychologists and civil liberties groups.
The Office for Children and the civil liberties groups contended that the school's program was cruel. But many of the parents whose children had been expelled from other schools as too violent said it was the only effective treatment the children had ever received.
The parents also feared that if the school was shut, their offspring would end up in state mental hospitals in restraints and heavily sedated. Behavior Research refuses to use drugs.
In part the dispute grows out of sharp disagreements among psychologists over how best to treat autism, with some arguing that patients can be helped by a program solely of rewards, like compliments, hugs and candy, for fulfilling assigned tasks.
Rewards or Punishments
Behavior Research uses rewards, but Mr. Israel had also worked out a graduated system of punishments to be used when the rewards alone were ineffective. These included pinching, spanking, sprays of water or ammonia vapor, and cold showers.
The agreement on the center came 10 days after a probate court judge in southeastern Massachusetts ordered restoration of aversive therapy for Janine Casoria, a 15-year-old from Queens. Judge Ernest I. Rotenberg acted after the girl's parents, Judith and Carlo Casoria, contended in court that their daughter had reverted to uncontrollable, self-destructive behavior, including banging her head against objects and pulling out her hair.
Judge Rotenberg visited the school and watched a videotape of Janine made when she arrived four years ago. The film shows Janine repeatedly banging her head on the floor, pulling out her hair and groaning, despite efforts by attendants to hold her.
''That is one of the most violent scenes I have seen in my life,'' Judge Rotenberg said later in court. ''Why is there a controversy? I have viewed the school. I have seen Janine. I can't understand any reason in the world why this is a controversial procedure.''
Mr. Israel responded that the current trend in child rearing stressed as little punishment as possible.
Mr. Casoria said Janine had made enormous progress after entering the school.
-
Another article on JRC
link (http://http://www.mass.gov/mhlac/aversives_poly.htm)
Aversives
By: Polyxane S. Cobb
A toddler reaches up toward the handle of the pot on the stove where the soup has just come to a boil. His mother slaps the hand away, turns the handle inward, and then goes to comfort the crying child. What she has just done is employ an aversive technique. No one would fault her intervention, nor the seriousness of the consequence if she had not intervened. But everyone would also acknowledge that the intervention would not have been necessary had the handle of the pot not been within reach of the toddler.
Aversives, quite simply, are negative consequences for undesired behaviors. They can be mild. "if you get your clothes dirty you don?t get ice cream for dessert," or severe, "clean your room or you?re grounded for a month!" They can also be invasive such as spanks or slaps.
When employed as part of a behavioral program for children and adults with developmental disabilities, the matter is rightfully of public interest, The principle question always is: are aversives effective? And what do we mean by effective anyway?
States throughout the US have banned aversives. A number of states such as California, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York have actually passed legislation banning the use of aversive techniques. In Massachusetts we have failed to ban aversives. One school has been identified with the use of these methods?Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) and it has successfully fought legislation to terminate its use.
Aversive Therapy promises that dangerous, anti-social, self-injurious behaviors will be eliminated through the use of punishments. It works on the assumption that when people are punished for bad behavior, they will stop it and, instead, do whatever it is the people in control consider desirable. But is there any evidence at all that it works?
The indications that any behavioral therapy is successful are fairly straightforward:
1: The undesirable targeted behaviors are eliminated,
2: The therapy can be withdrawn slowly until it ceases altogether and the undesirable behaviors remain eliminated, and
3: Desirable behaviors are acquired as part of the process
Although the indications that a therapy is successful are straightforward, the process of developing those techniques and applying them to individuals is far more complex. Every behavior must be analyzed. The environment and its components must be scrutinized. The general health and well being of the student must be known and appreciated. Once all that is done, each behavior must be targeted separately so that it is clear to the student what the behavior is that is generating the intervention.
The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) has, over the years, employed a variety of techniques it has labeled "therapy." These procedures include electric shocks from a device strapped to the student and activated by a remote control, food deprivation, as well as spanks, water sprayed in the face or nostrils, forcing the student to eat jalapeño peppers or other odious foods, and denial of ordinary comforts.
To my knowledge, neither the school, nor Matthew Israel, the Director, has ever submitted data, with replicatable methodology, demonstrating the success of any of these therapies?none?to any journal for peer review. In light of the highly invasive nature of many of these procedures, that unwillingness to submit the work to peer review is striking. Since JRC so vehemently proclaims the success of its techniques, this unwillingness to share the information with other schools that might wish to test the "success" of these techniques is also notable.
However, the school?s use of aversives and painful techniques directly contradicts the policies of three national organizations: The Arc, AAMR (American Association on Mental Retardation) and TASH (the organization has existed since 1974; the acronym once stood for The Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps). No one can deny that these organizations represent the largest family and professional groups dedicated to individuals with cognitive disabilities. TASH states as the purpose of its resolution on "positive Behavioral Supports," is?"to afford the rights of people with disabilities to receive interventions that are respectful, free of pain and produce changes for the individuals." It?"calls for the cessation of the use of any educational, psychological, or behavioral intervention that exhibits some or all of the following characteristics:
? dehumanization through the use of procedures that are normally unacceptable in community environments for persons who are not labeled with a disability;
? obvious signs of physical pain experienced by the individual;
? physical injury and potential or actual side effects such as tissue damage, physical illness, and/or severe physical or emotional stress."
The Arc and AAMR in a joint resolution state: "Our constituents are frequently subjected to aversive and deprivation procedures that may cause physical and/or psychological harm and are dehumanizing. Furthermore, aversive procedures result in the loss of dignity and inhibit full participation in and acceptance by society." Thus, the organizations call for behavioral interventions or supports that are?"individually designed, positive, help them learn new skills, provide alternatives to challenging behaviors, offer opportunities for choice and social integration, and allow for environmental modifications."
Aversive therapy is still possible in Massachusetts, despite the overwhelming opposition of these organization.
Murray Sidman, often called the father of modern behavioral analysis has researched just this question. He writes:
Many retarded and autistic children are ordinarily ignored because they are considered to be emotional and intellectual vegetables, unable to appreciate or adapt to their environment. But they sometimes discover that if they damage themselves, hitting, scratching, clawing, lacerating themselves and drawing blood, they bring the whole community down on them; they make themselves the center of attention. These children have been taught, albeit unknowingly by their teachers, to administer pain to themselves as the only way to gain attention. The proof comes when we then provide the same attention for constructive acts; the self-abuse ceases.
The effects of prolonged punishments as a behavioral tool are pronounced. First, punished people become acclimated to punishments. The procedures thus begin to lose effectiveness. The severity of the punishment must then be increased in an ever-increasing spiral. Proponents of aversives such as JRC argue that self-injurious behaviors are so destructive and inexplicable that analyzing the behavior is unlikely to illuminate its cause. Proponents acknowledge that punishments must be continued indefinitely, but they argue, the few young people who engage in these behaviors are fundamentally different than other people. One cannot analyze why they are doing what they are doing, one can only respond.
A second side effect of prolonged punishments is that the student begins to focus on nothing except his stress. He cannot acquire new and useful skills because he is always in a state of fear and apprehension.
A third side effect is that instead of viewing teachers and staff as helpers, they are transformed into negative reinforcers. An approach by the staffer, no matter how benevolent that person?s intentions at the moment, is viewed by the student as a threat and the action as the onset of a cycle of punishment. The very people who should be seen as helpful are, instead, seen as hurtful.
Eventually a state of behavioral depression overtakes the student. He becomes lethargic, anxious, and is often described as zombie-like. An important sense of freedom and personal security has been driven out of his world by the unrelenting fear of punishment.
This is the bleak, unrelenting future for students treated with such aversive procedures. Since their undesired behaviors are only suppressed, they cannot graduate to less intrusive programs where the suppressed behaviors will re-surface absent the punishments. So organizations employing aversives proclaim a stasis effect: a low level of punishments keeps these students controlled, it maintains, the way insulin controls diabetes.
Students in other programs which do not use aversives and with successes that include progressing to less restrictive environments are regarded by organizations such as JRC as less "involved" than their students. By applying ciurcular reasoning, proponents oof aversives claim that: if a student can live outside of the initial program he was not as challenged in the first place. The proof, therefore, that aversives "work" is that JRC students can never leave the program!
So What Does Work?
Severe behaviors always have a rational, if sometimes complicated root. As Sidman pointed out, the young person might simply be trying to get attention but doesn?t have a constructive way to do it. He may be in pain or other distress and not have the communicative powers to describe his predicament. He may be trying to do something else entirely and not have the physical refinement to achieve his goal. Whatever the reason, the destructive behaviors focus the attention of caregivers with a power few other actions hold.
The non-aversive techniques to resolve these negative behaviors and replace them with constructive behaviors are varied, but all contain many of the same elements. Techniques such as Gentle Teaching (see www.inala.org.au/behaviour/strategies.htm (http://www.inala.org.au/behaviour/strategies.htm)), the ABC method and others all promote:
? a careful analysis of the targeted behaviors,
? systematic interventions that include ignoring the behavior (but not the person),
? activities that redirect the attention of the person, providing alternative behaviors, and, most critically, numerous and generous rewards for exhibiting desired behaviors.
The rewards are the critical element simply because we all are more willing to engage in behaviors if we are rewarded for them. The most important reward is approval?not candy, not money, not a trip to the mall?approval. And when instituting a behavioral program, the generous use of approval for all desired or acceptable behaviors creates a positive atmosphere that stimulates the young person to engage in ever more frequent positive behaviors.
If Positive techniques are so great, how come they don?t work on JRC students?
Positive techniques do work on JRC students and elsewhere.. The few who have been moved to other facilities where positive approaches are the norm have flourished. Some have found jobs and become taxpayers. Others have moved into community residences and day programs where positives only approaches are used. None have been transferred back to a program that uses aversives. Indeed, schools like JRC maintain that they do use positive techniques and their students still engage in self-destructive and aggressive acts. In the example of JRC, it?s true, the offer rewards in the form of chits that students can cash in for time in the Big Reward Store and rewards delivered to the students? workstations, but the backbone of the program is the use of aversives. Positive approaches, however, must be comprehensive. The initial approach, the constant motivator, and the underlying theme of the program must be positive.
States throughout the US have banned aversives. California, Connecticut, Florida, North & South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado have all passed legislation banning the use of aversive techniques. Some are more comprehensive than others, but all have shown a strong inclination to promote the dignity and personal autonomy of people with developmental disabilities. It is a step Massachusetts has yet to take.
-
I hope that these people burn in hell for this. Sick child pedophiles. There is no excuse to do that to a kid. I couldn't even finish reading the article, I don't want to lose my appetite right before dinner.
-
tonight on primetime there is a special at 9 pm est for those who get television, check your local channels, primetime is ABC... tonights expose is on couples with genetic matches that are in love,
but the second half is about a school in massachusetts that uses electric skin shocks on autistic children as a way to control their behavior...
-
I'd rather splatter my brains all over this monitor than watch that.
-
tonight on primetime there is a special at 9 pm est for those who get television, check your local channels, primetime is ABC... tonights expose is on couples with genetic matches that are in love,
but the second half is about a school in massachusetts that uses electric skin shocks on autistic children as a way to control their behavior...
I'm glad I wasn't able to see that because I was at work. It would have TOTALLY ruined my nice little happy/hope trip.
Now dont talk about that before I flip out and give them a few shocks for ruining my night. :evil:
-
I watched and at the moment I'm speechless, so much of what I believed about programs that others have called generalizations and assumptions was confirmed by this story.
Everything that program survivors have said about their parents, "insanedeadorjail", and brainwashing was demonstrated in that segment. Watching that show has strengthened my resolve to fight this bs. I'm convinced children need a bill of rights to protect them from stupid, selfish, or desperate parents and the fucked up version of therapy being pushed by heartless quacks.
-
Well damn. I posted the notice and forgot to watch. What I get for not putting it in my daytimer. Oh well. I completely understand the gist. When you come out of shell shock, perhaps you can share more of what was covered in the expose.
Ultimately, how much sense does it make to warehose kids with 'whatever' "disorder" and treat them in a factory production manner?
I can't imagine having 10-15-20 autistic kids in my care simultaneously. Of course, IF I didn't know what I know, I might be looking for the easiest, most 'effective' way to keep them 'under control'.
Why aren't we questioning the whole practice of warehousing? Particularly with this population which so deparately seem to need one-on-one.
I was sickened by the response of the parents to the latest murder of an autistic kid in RTC. They were fighting the state to improve regulations and oversight due to abuse their son had endured in a prior facility, when their he was killed in the new facility they had moved him to. Get a clue.... NO one is going to care about your kid the way you will/sh0uld!!! You can't force them, manipulate them, legislate them to. That is a useless fantasy. Quit your job and stay home with the child you were meant to raise.
Lawmakers are calling for "Jonathan's Law". How thoughtful. Do they have any clue how many kids have died in RTCs? And specifically from restraint? This ain't new. It's quiet old.
http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&o ... an%20Carey (http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=Jonathan%20Carey)
-
Quoted by Deborah:
Why aren't we questioning the whole practice of warehousing?
I've pointed out before that we "warehouse" our kids from the time we put them in daycare. At six weeks old we put them in institutions for the purposes of gainful employment. For some it's absolute economic survival. For others it's for the bigger house, nicer cars, the boat, the annual vacations, etc.
Warehousing our kids doesn't start when we place out of control teens in hell hole boarding schools. It starts from the cradle.
-
Just where are you trying to go with this, TS?
-
The idea that kids who don't have parents who care about them and spend time with them turn out "troubled"?
Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
Well, kids whose parents smother them turn out that way too, but you know.
-
Ganja~
I'm simply pointing out (in reference to Deborahs question) that we should question the prudence of "warehousing" our children. And that IMHO, the trend of institionlizing our children does not begin when parents place their teens in RTC's, EGBS's, or TBS'. I think that in some families ... (stressing again that I'm not referring to parents who must work to feed and clothe themselves) we are quick to put our kids in mega daycares. And to be frank ... they are doing so to chase more materials. In our culture, that is an acceptable practice.
Further more ... in many school districts .... the institution of school now offers breakfast, lunch and after school snacks ... daycare. There are two schools in our district that will hold your grade school age child until 6 pm. That puts some children in "the system" for up to 12 hours.
My point? It just shouldn't shock us to the degree that it does when teens are "warehoused". For I believe that as a culture we endorse warehousing them from the cradle.
-
Neglect and smothering(restrictive-control) can produce the same thing because they're born of the same seed, selfishness.
The parents in the news story were constantly saying how after therapy(torture) they could hug their children, go to a restaurant as a family, and act like the Jone's. The Doctor(Isreal something) trumpeted his unproven and untested treatment(bullshit) as working faster then any other treatment(instant gratification?) in changing self destructive autistic behavior. My point is this, the parents care more about what they get out of their kids then they do about their kids. Most of the parents said that their children were acting out violently and injuring themselves, In the program the kids are injured by a third party. The only difference is that in the program the kids are hurt and compliant, not social "embarrassments" that require sacrifice/vigilance and patiences.
It may seem strange but selfishness masquerading as love is nothing new. The controlling husband's use of love to justify his abusive behavior is one of the more obvious forms of selfishness portrayed as love in the context of smothering/restrictive-control. On the neglectful end of the selfish spectrum you have the deadbeat father, no need to explain that one.
The selfishness of these parents allows them to overlook obvious abuse because they have convinced themselves that they are providing a service, out of love, for the needs of their special children. By putting the focus on the child's behavior and not on that of themselves the parents are effectively tricking themselves into viewing their actions as benevolent.
Despite their own self treachery however it's obvious that the parents know that what their children are being put through is abusive because they're quick to justify it by blaming the child's behavior and the "failure" of the more time consuming therapies.
God please forgive me, but I want a camera there when the parents finally acknowledge what they already know is true, that their paying for the torture of their autistic children.
-
Man the program-parents are out in full support of their program abcnews-forum (http://http://forums.go.com/abcnews/Primetime/forum?start=0&forumID=10&byThread=true)
Am I being punked? these people can't be real, but yeah I know they are so sad......
Fuck I gotta take a break from this stuff my heart is breaking....
-
It honestly doesn't matter what they write there. ABC's used to forum zerg.
Even on the tiny chance that they're real, several hundred program parents don't have the power of one angry [deleted] activist.
JRC's going down the hard way.