Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: MightyAardvark on July 06, 2006, 10:22:00 AM
-
So I was watching Wimbledon today and this got me thinking about the teen-help industry, as most things do. About thirty five seconds into my bout of obsessive navel gazing I found myself pondering the following issue...
The teen help industry is riddled with abuse cases and neglect etc. These events get given a lot of very emotive coverage and people spend a lot of time asking themselves how these things could possibly be allowed to happen in America. Then we get the calls from various quarters for regulations etc.
All of these children are to be mourned and not forgotten about but I wonder if the amount of attention they get deflects people away from the real issue.
By continually focussing on issues of process and procedure we never get around to examining the root concept of the Teen help industry which is the assumption that it is ethically acceptable or even desirable to take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up.
Discuss...and play nice TSW
-
On 2006-07-06 07:22:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"So I was watching Wimbledon today and this got me thinking about the teen-help industry, as most things do. About thirty five seconds into my bout of obsessive navel gazing I found myself pondering the following issue...
The teen help industry is riddled with abuse cases and neglect etc. These events get given a lot of very emotive coverage and people spend a lot of time asking themselves how these things could possibly be allowed to happen in America. Then we get the calls from various quarters for regulations etc.
All of these children are to be mourned and not forgotten about but I wonder if the amount of attention they get deflects people away from the real issue.
By continually focussing on issues of process and procedure we never get around to examining the root concept of the Teen help industry which is the assumption that it is ethically acceptable or even desirable to take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up.
Discuss...and play nice TSW"
MA, the most important point you're missing is that most of the abuse and neglect happens at the programs that are already licensed or are run by states. Here's why: Most kids at state-run programs are placed there because their parents are not involved--by choice or by state mandate because of abuse charges at home, or incompetence. Once placed there by social workers, they're pretty much on their own. Low wages and poor hiring practices exacerbate the risk of abuse and neglect at these places.
On the other hand, members of the "industry," --private programs--generally serve families that are closely involved, so there is already a monitoring tool in place. Most of the abuse and neglect allegations at these places peter out because they aren't true, or they're ridiculously exaggerated.
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.
-
Bullshit, most private programs police themselves. And have failed miserably.
-
Anon, you say "there is a monitoring tool in place" in private programs. YOU ARE VERY WRONG. When private programs monitor communications between the parents and their child--the parents are not allowed to "monitor" what is actually going on in these programs.
And your statement that any abuse children suffer, and report in these private programs are exaggerated is JUST FALSE. Your statement insinuates that children LIE about abuse, and that, TOO is a VERY WRONG STATEMENT.
Perhaps your experience with a private program was positive---but you do not speak for anyone except yourself. Child must, and WILL be believed when they report abuse in these programs.
-
On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state.
Not true at all. That's how these places work. Be it physically or mentally or both, kids are broken down. Make no mistake about it. That's how their miraculous "change" is brought about. The industry knows this. That's why they live and work in this insular little world. That's why they can't take any criticism or dissention. Everything runs on this thinly veiled lie that all of what they do is necessary, that there is a need at all for them. Fear, fear and more fear. Play on the fears of the parents, convince them that you have the key to returning their sweet little girl or boy back to them. Can't be done unless you 'regress' someone which is essentially what they're doing. Most of the kids, the VAST majority would grow out of whatever behavior is causing concern for the parents. The rebellion, moodiness, truancy etc. are normal parts of the process of breaking away from their role as the child in the family. The programs seem insistent on creating these tantalizing images of the sweet pre-adolescent child. Tame little Child Creature (Zappa). Ya know, that whole adolescence/pathology thing. THAT view of adolescence is what has to change. Nothing else will until it does.
-
On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.
"
well at my program the mantra was...
"first we need to break youdown before we can build you back up"
go figure
-
MA, the most important point you're missing is that most of the abuse and neglect happens at the programs that are already licensed or are run by states. Here's why: Most kids at state-run programs are placed there because their parents are not involved--by choice or by state mandate because of abuse charges at home, or incompetence. Once placed there by social workers, they're pretty much on their own. Low wages and poor hiring practices exacerbate the risk of abuse and neglect at these places.
On the other hand, members of the "industry," --private programs--generally serve families that are closely involved, so there is already a monitoring tool in place. Most of the abuse and neglect allegations at these places peter out because they aren't true, or they're ridiculously exaggerated.
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.
This is completely untrue. I spent several years in and out of programs, state and private. In every case the private, non-state regulated programs were much worse. Since a stipulation of the state programs was advocacy of some kind, there was always an out. There was no out in the private programs I was at (provo, wwasp), and no advocate to get in contact with when spending time locked in isolation, for no reason.
Not sure why you are lying about these things, or maybe you just don't know.
-
On 2006-07-06 10:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state.
Not true at all. That's how these places work. Be it physically or mentally or both, kids are broken down. Make no mistake about it. That's how their miraculous "change" is brought about. The industry knows this. That's why they live and work in this insular little world. That's why they can't take any criticism or dissention. Everything runs on this thinly veiled lie that all of what they do is necessary, that there is a need at all for them. Fear, fear and more fear. Play on the fears of the parents, convince them that you have the key to returning their sweet little girl or boy back to them. Can't be done unless you 'regress' someone which is essentially what they're doing. Most of the kids, the VAST majority would grow out of whatever behavior is causing concern for the parents. The rebellion, moodiness, truancy etc. are normal parts of the process of breaking away from their role as the child in the family. The programs seem insistent on creating these tantalizing images of the sweet pre-adolescent child. Tame little Child Creature (Zappa). Ya know, that whole adolescence/pathology thing. THAT view of adolescence is what has to change. Nothing else will until it does."
What you consider scare tactics would never work if the parents weren't scared to begin with. And as a parent (not a program parent) I can tell you, kids can be scary.
It's scary when that lovely child suddenly becomes angry, morose, etc. But the parents who send their kids to programs are beyond that, in my opinion. They're the ones who are able to discern REAL danger as opposed to adolescent angst. They have the courage to swallow their pride and get help. And courage means acting in spite of fear, not because of it.
Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise. Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm.
-
On 2006-07-06 15:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
What you consider scare tactics would never work if the parents weren't scared to begin with.
Yes, parents are scared. ALL parents are scared. It's what makes them easy prey.
And as a parent (not a program parent) I can tell you, kids can be scary.
Yep, me too. Been a kid in a program and have two grown kids, one of which still scares me from time to time. She put me through hell in high school. Don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
It's scary when that lovely child suddenly becomes angry, morose, etc.
Scary yes, but fairly normal.
But the parents who send their kids to programs are beyond that, in my opinion. They're the ones who are able to discern REAL danger as opposed to adolescent angst.
Not in the present climate.
Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise.
Please cite your source for this. I'm just dying to see it.
Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm. "
You have no idea how ironic and absurd that statement is.
-
::troll::
-
Lemme guess, it's The Who's tag-team partner??
-
On 2006-07-06 10:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-07-06 07:22:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"So I was watching Wimbledon today and this got me thinking about the teen-help industry, as most things do. About thirty five seconds into my bout of obsessive navel gazing I found myself pondering the following issue...
The teen help industry is riddled with abuse cases and neglect etc. These events get given a lot of very emotive coverage and people spend a lot of time asking themselves how these things could possibly be allowed to happen in America. Then we get the calls from various quarters for regulations etc.
All of these children are to be mourned and not forgotten about but I wonder if the amount of attention they get deflects people away from the real issue.
By continually focussing on issues of process and procedure we never get around to examining the root concept of the Teen help industry which is the assumption that it is ethically acceptable or even desirable to take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up.
Discuss...and play nice TSW"
MA, the most important point you're missing is that most of the abuse and neglect happens at the programs that are already licensed or are run by states. Here's why: Most kids at state-run programs are placed there because their parents are not involved--by choice or by state mandate because of abuse charges at home, or incompetence. Once placed there by social workers, they're pretty much on their own. Low wages and poor hiring practices exacerbate the risk of abuse and neglect at these places.
On the other hand, members of the "industry," --private programs--generally serve families that are closely involved, so there is already a monitoring tool in place. Most of the abuse and neglect allegations at these places peter out because they aren't true, or they're ridiculously exaggerated.
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.
"
Thankyou verymuch for illustrating my point prefectly. You start buy focusing on emotive issue, attack the credibility of some very good people who are very angry about the way they were treated and then gently gloss over the core issue which is the purpose for this thread. I expect this wasn't a deliberate attempt to direct attention away from my point ( I don't credit the you lot with being that well thought out) but for an off the cuff job it's pretty impressive.
What I'm trying to say is that even if you could take a sullen, angry unco-operative teenager and absolutely guarantee that there would be no physical or psychological abuse (putting aside that a skinner model based program could not work without psychological abuse) permitted by a program whose staff were exquisitely trained and selected then reprogramming another human being would still be an inexpressably evil thing to do. It's a fundamental affront to human dignity for one person to think they have the right to stop someone being who they are. It an act not notably different in a moral context from rape**.
I think we need to stop focussing on abuse cases and dead bodies and start trying to show people that the root concept that supports this industry is rotten
(**both processes essentially revolve around treating an individual as if they exist for your personal amusement regardless of the long term emotional damage inevitably inflicted)
-
On 2006-07-06 16:57:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
(**both processes essentially revolve around treating an individual as if they exist for your personal amusement regardless of the long term emotional damage inevitably inflicted)
"
I must respectfully disagree with this last statement. Not that this doesn't happen, it does. Often. But there are also those deluded souls who truly believe this is OK to do. That the end justifies the means. They're only trying to help, right? They're intentions are good and pure, right? You know what they say about the road to hell, right?
That's why this kind of shit has gone on for as long as it has. When Martin Anderson died I found an article that really explains the phenomenon of these places. The NeoCons like the 'get tuff' approach and the LibTards like the 'alternative school' label. Both sides are sticking their heads in the sand all-the-while patting each other on the back and congradulating themselves on what great humanitarians they are. Scary part is, a great many of them believe their own bullshit.
-
Yeah, I can see that. Good point. It dangerous to treat the opposition as one homogenous mass. There are probably ten different motivations for every dozen people involved. I stand by my correlation of BM=Rape though.
-
Absolutely! I've experienced both and you're dead on.
-
that's something worth exploring. mightyaardvark is my login if you have yahoo messenger
-
My computer's down and I'm using hubby's. He doesn't do the IM thing. PM me if you'd like.
There is one difference I can think of right off the bat. The rape didn't fuck with my head and my soul near as much as the BM facility. At least with the rape I knew what happened to me wasn't my fault. For years after getting out I thought I pretty much deserved whatever I got in there and then had to suffer after, and that was quite a bit. But the whole control aspect of it is identical. Rapists are about control. These places cannot fuction without the dangerous kind of control over a kid. That wouldn't enable them to bring about the miraculous changes they claim to produce. The places do work. They modify kids' behavior alright, but at what price?
-
Your assumption that programs "take a healthy human being, destroy his/her personality and rebuild him from the ground up" is one you seem particularly attached to, so I guess I won't waste the energy trying to convince you that it doesn't apply to many programs, with the possible exception of truly military style boot-camps--and most of those are licensed or run by the state. But you might consider looking more closely at the patterns and practices of private programs.
I don't know about the 'healthy human being' part, but it is not important really. The issue is that the behavior changes are forced onto an unwilling victim. That is the basic, and unethical, part of any of these programs that take kids against their will and hold them against their will.
The very basis of a free, democratic society, is the individual's right to choose. Giving people freedom of choice means taking the risk that some of them will choose to go against the rules. They may suffer the consequences of these decisions, but it is still their choice. If society chooses to intervene in the behavior, it does so as a democratic society.
The basic premise of these programs is that the parents have a right to take all choice away from their teenaged child and 'fix' them with forced psychological behavior modification whether or not the child agrees there is even a problem. The teens are denied their right to choose based solely upon their age, not their competency or level of development. Those who make this decision (the parents) are not required to have any expertise or qualifications for making this decision. There are no checks or balances protecting the teenagers' rights or best interests. The parents are not held accountable to any set of standards or rules regarding this decision.
Programs operate in the same way. There are no standards or rules to which they are held accountable. There are no checks or balances to ensure that their methods are safe or humane. There is no recourse for the imprisoned teenager who must endure the 'treatment' whether or not it is warranted or has any merit or whether or not the teenagers' own identity and core values are aligned with it.
The mind set that supports programs has a theological basis. People who adhere to theological ideologies will hold to their beliefs in spite of the lessons of history, reason, science, and logic. They rationalize, dismiss, attack (verbally and sometimes physically) those that oppose their ideas because these ideologies cannot stand on their own merit.
Those of us who are free thinkers actually have the more difficult task of having to justify what we believe in.
Programs tell their young victims what to believe in and force compliance. Such tactics have no place in a free thinking democracy.
As someone already wrote, both neo conservatives and liberals jump on this bandwagon. The neo conservatives don't mind forcing adherence to their religious based ideology. The liberals tend toward the nanny state which must interfere with liberty to protect us from ourselves. Both are enemies of free will and free thinking.
Discussions of efficacy, available alternatives, abuse, etc are secondary to the inherent violation of a persons' ability to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves, express themselves freely, and choose their own path in life.
-
:nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy:
Ant, ya took the words I was trying to find right outta my mouth.
-
I largely agree with Aardvark (who are you barracking for btw)
It seems that the thing used to sell lots of programmes is that the kid came back " a whole new person" This does seem rather sinister at the very least to me.
The other thing that disturbs me is that many schools often have group therapy component but with kids. The whole point of group therapy as an adult is that you are choosing to go and ultimately choosing what to disclose. Even alcoholics anon lets people just go to meetings and say nothing if they so desire. The thought of forcing kids to confess private things to or infront of their peers is bizarre and morally reprihensible. Particularly if it is becasue they may 'manupulate" a therapist. This indicates to be that eiterh the kid is not mentally ill therefore does not need "therapy" or they are smarter than the quack that they were sent to in the first place!
-
On 2006-07-06 20:45:00, Pls help wrote:
"I largely agree with Aardvark (who are you barracking for btw)
It seems that the thing used to sell lots of programmes is that the kid came back " a whole new person" This does seem rather sinister at the very least to me.
The other thing that disturbs me is that many schools often have group therapy component but with kids. The whole point of group therapy as an adult is that you are choosing to go and ultimately choosing what to disclose. Even alcoholics anon lets people just go to meetings and say nothing if they so desire. The thought of forcing kids to confess private things to or infront of their peers is bizarre and morally reprihensible. Particularly if it is becasue they may 'manupulate" a therapist. This indicates to be that eiterh the kid is not mentally ill therefore does not need "therapy" or they are smarter than the quack that they were sent to in the first place!"
Your ignorance shows again in this matter. Most of the time these so called group therapy sessions are conducted by entry level staff who used to work at Burger King.
-
On 2006-07-06 21:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-07-06 20:45:00, Pls help wrote:
"I largely agree with Aardvark (who are you barracking for btw)
It seems that the thing used to sell lots of programmes is that the kid came back " a whole new person" This does seem rather sinister at the very least to me.
The other thing that disturbs me is that many schools often have group therapy component but with kids. The whole point of group therapy as an adult is that you are choosing to go and ultimately choosing what to disclose. Even alcoholics anon lets people just go to meetings and say nothing if they so desire. The thought of forcing kids to confess private things to or infront of their peers is bizarre and morally reprihensible. Particularly if it is becasue they may 'manupulate" a therapist. This indicates to be that eiterh the kid is not mentally ill therefore does not need "therapy" or they are smarter than the quack that they were sent to in the first place!"
Your ignorance shows again in this matter. Most of the time these so called group therapy sessions are conducted by entry level staff who used to work at Burger King. "
I dont know if what i was trying to say was made clear there. I was reffering to the article in the previous post which once again mentioned that group therapy in behavour modification schools is good for kids who "manipulate" traditional one on one therapists. I was suggesting that for many kids " therapy" was not the answer because they are not in need of fixing! I was agreeing that "modifying" a persons behaviour & personality is as a princiapl highly immoral! I was suggesting that it is not ok to to force people to disclose things to a group & the difference between legitimate group therapy & whatever it is these kids are forced to do is choice. I do not believe that anywhere in that post did I say that the forced disclosures that these kids are put through are done by professionals.
If you want to accuse someone of being ignorant then take the bag off your head and have it out with them!
-
***Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise. Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm.
Precisely the fear mongering that politicians and programs use to sway terrified parents and further their personal agendas. Where did you read this? Which program told you this? Come on anon. Cite your sources. Be 'responsible and accountable' for what spews from your mouth.
-
Excuse me, suicide rates amonst juveniles have been dropping since 1995, crime rates have been dropping since 1994 and juveniles account for only a fraction of drug related hospital admissions.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmales/contents.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~mmales/contents.htm)
Still we are getting diverted from the core point. Even if teenagers were drug addicted, suicide prone hellions it would still be wrong to treat them like this.
-
I have also wondered whether "forced disclosure" makes kids more suceptable to being preyed upon by potenitially perverted adults. It seems like forcing a kid to tell stories about their sexuality is a "safe" way for a pedophile to get some kind of perverse pleasure. "i didnt lay a finger on the kids, i just made them give me a few fantasies" The whole thing seems quite unhealthy.
-
A recent large study (at least 1000, iirc) that applied the diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder to every participant found it occurs in 4% of the population.
That means it occurs twice as often as it's being diagnosed.
It's one of the disorders with the highest risk of suicide.
Suicide rates for bipolars are cut almost in half with treatment. That's proper, competent psychiatric treatment for the medical problem bipolar is, not quack "treatment" from the Programs.
If you want to heavily shrink adolescent suicide rates, find and treat these bipolar kids.
If you want to shrink those rates even more, increase funding for research into bipolar disorder with the goal of developing better treatments that further reduce the suicide rates for treated patients.
Bipolar disorder is highly heritable. More people with bipolar disorder are surviving long enough to have children. Therefore more people are being born with the genes that put them at risk for bipolar disorder.
That's not societal. That's not cultural. That's not anything a Program could remotely fix even if it worked. It's biological.
If we identify the factors that trigger it in susceptible people, maybe we can block the trigger from activating. If we identify the genes, maybe we can come up with gene therapies to protect the people who have it from getting sick--or to arrest the disease's progress and prevent further damage.
Improvements to teen suicide rates will come from medicine.
Program owner/operators are ignorant quacks running a scam to separate gullible parents from junior's college fund. Nothing they do will ever help anybody.
Julie
-
is bipolar the same as clinical or manic depression?
-
Manic depression is a pretty apt description of bipolar disorder. Clinical Depression is a different beast altogether, still not one that can be addresed using behavioural theories.
-
If you consider fearful compliance and bizarre, trained reactions to be healthy, that is.
-
The hardest thing for me is accepting that there is nothing I can do to protect these kids. The best we can hope for is justice after the fact which is rather less satisfying. Justice doesn't get you your childhood back.
Apropos of nothing, It just felt relevant.
-
In an afluent society, that parents and businessmen can create child suffering where it did not exist befor, for cash and amusement.
-
On 2006-07-09 03:40:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"The hardest thing for me is accepting that there is nothing I can do to protect these kids. The best we can hope for is justice after the fact which is rather less satisfying. Justice doesn't get you your childhood back.
Apropos of nothing, It just felt relevant.
"
Are there any kind of freely available proper mental health or couselling services for alumni of BTS & wilderness programmes who feel they are not coping?
-
now then pls help that is a plan!
-
Yes but you can pay those who are relatively well off to create suffering where it did not exist before.
-
On 2006-07-06 15:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise. Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm. "
I'm still waiting for this poster to cite their source for this. I won't be holding my breath. These people never back up what they say. They just spew out a bunch of their opinions and state it as fact but when you challenge them on it, they disappear!
So, I'll be patiently waiting. Waiting for this poster to come back and show me those numbers. :roll:
-
On 2006-07-10 08:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-07-06 15:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
Your premise seems to be that generally, kids are doing fine. The numbers say otherwise. Look at suicide rates and studies on isolation (adults and kids): there is cause for alarm. "
I'm still waiting for this poster to cite their source for this. I won't be holding my breath. These people never back up what they say. They just spew out a bunch of their opinions and state it as fact but when you challenge them on it, they disappear!
So, I'll be patiently waiting. Waiting for this poster to come back and show me those numbers. :roll:"
Woops, mine.
-
On 2006-07-09 06:28:00, Pls help wrote:
"
On 2006-07-09 03:40:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"The hardest thing for me is accepting that there is nothing I can do to protect these kids. The best we can hope for is justice after the fact which is rather less satisfying. Justice doesn't get you your childhood back.
Apropos of nothing, It just felt relevant.
"
Are there any kind of freely available proper mental health or couselling services for alumni of BTS & wilderness programmes who feel they are not coping? "
Yes, depending on where you live.
I'll give my own experience below, but it would apply to any post-program adults having trouble coping. Since they're having trouble coping, traceable to one big earth-shattering experience, just about all of them would meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD.
It's not free, but can be damned close to it if that's what you need.
When I was horribly suicidal and working as a temporary secretary, I couldn't afford jack in the way of treatment.
Lucky for me, I lived and worked in metro Atlanta (Dekalb County, at the time). A number of metro Atlanta counties, and probably counties in other major metro areas, have a county mental health department.
The deal is that if you have mental health problems, they get you in with a real, honest-to-God, ethical therapist. If you need it, they get you in with a psychiatrist, but the wait for an appointment can be kinda long. Then you pay based on a sliding scale that takes your income and figures your ability to pay.
I paid $11 per session some years ago. A girl I know who's parents are just hanging on to their apartment by their fingernails are paying $4 per session. I was an adult, so depending on where you live, it's not only for minors.
If you're sick and you can't afford help, living in a big city's metro area is, hands down, the best option. Metro areas frequently have good social services, but someone who needs them should check on what the services are before they move.
It's technically playing the system, but not really. Shortly after getting good treatment, I was able to get a much better job, with health insurance, which paid my pshrink bills and meant I started paying far more into the system than I ever took out of it. So on balance, Dekalb County made a whopping profit from treating me, and Georgia and the Feds benefitted even more.
They get you coping, you get a decent job and start paying taxes, chances are you don't move, so you pay those taxes in that county, everybody wins.
Julie
-
AB, the poster will not cite anything, because there is no data to support the claim. S/he has probably figured that out by now if s/he went looking for it.
Now, s/he might come back with a quote from a rehab, NIMH, or some such organization that stands to gain from selling "treatment".
Look at these:
Why has the youth suicide rate gone so high in recent years?
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/childhealth ... uicide.htm (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/childhealthmonth/prevteensuicide.htm)
Each year, almost 5,000 young people, ages 15 to 24, kill themselves. The rate of suicide for this age group has nearly tripled since 1960
http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/82.cfm (http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/82.cfm)
Over the last several decades, the suicide rate in young people has increased dramatically.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Sit ... 672P0.html (http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1672/mainpageS1672P0.html)
Just a few of probably millions. They should be fined for printing fraudulent, misleading, fear mongering information- for personal gain.
-
but the suicide rate is down or did i miss something?
-
Yes, the suicide rate has been decreasing for almost a decade. That is not what those who gain from fear would like parents to know. Notice that some of the sites are geared toward teens, but quote suicide stats for 10-24 year olds. If you want stats closer to reality you should go to the CDC and avoid all the other claims.
-
Even if the suicide rate were sky high, & americas children were all budding drug addicts and felons, I think that this debate gets away from the wider philosophical principal of whether anyone has the moral right to force kids to disclose their most private thoughts to their peers & whether or not this actually serves any therapudic purpose.
-
On 2006-07-11 04:20:00, Pls help wrote:
"Even if the suicide rate were sky high, & americas children were all budding drug addicts and felons, I think that this debate gets away from the wider philosophical principal of whether anyone has the moral right to force kids to disclose their most private thoughts to their peers & whether or not this actually serves any therapudic purpose.
"
o/~ When we grew up and went to school
there were certain teachers
who would hurt the children any way they could.
By pouring their derision
upon anything we did
exposing every weakness
however carefully hidden by the kid
But in town it was well known
when they got home at night
their fat and psychopathic wives
would thrash them within inches of their lives
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher leave those kids alone
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. o/~
Just about says it all, doesn't it.
Forced disclosure = sadistic bastards
Julie