Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: chaking on July 17, 2006, 07:37:27 PM
-
Please see http://http://tbfight.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70 to participate in a scientific survey from the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute @ the University of South Florida.
Cafety.org will also be linking to this survey shortly - -
FYI (for disclosure purposes)
** It should be noted that I, Charles King (tbfight), and Katherine Whitehead (cafety.org) are both on the research team at the Louis de
la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, which is conducting this survey. ***
-
C'mon guys, haven't you learned from Lon Woodbury's horrible ownage (http://http://www.duumvirate.net/pollrape.html) that the Internet is simply not the place to get unbiased survey results? Self-selection, basic dishonesty, and complete lack of verification will make a mockery out of it.
I could vote, and I don't meet the criteria.
So could all of Fornits.
So could the programmies, under multiple proxies.
Don't you understand that this is less than a joke?
-
Lon Woodbury's polls were/are not in the same league as this one. We are not talking about a typical website's poll.
If you want to be pessimistic about the outcome, that's fine, but please don't try and dissuade people from taking part in this important research.
As far as the legitimacy of internet based polls/surveys, see:
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue ... index.html (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_7/cilesiz/index.html)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1&SRETRY=0 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/69500919/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19 (http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/b ... 1/art00254 (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/josi/2002/00000058/00000001/art00254)
and many more which you can find if you care to look...
Btw: Nobody "votes" in this survey...
-
Luke/Paul is gonna be hella bummed by not being able to vote.
-
Its a bunch of bs...went there and looked.
Read their objectives: they are looking for infor to make the programs more saleable. As a parent I would participate in a real survey whose intentions were to actually discover and report the experiences and reasons why these places should be closed down. This piece of crap survey wants to suck you in so they can fine tune the programs and sales pitches. Into the round cyberfile cabinet it goes :roll:
-
"Important research" Well it depends on how you defind "important" as in important for whom. It is important for the pushers of the programs but not for those of us who support shutting them all down. Load of crap ::deal::
-
"Important research" Well it depends on how you defind "important" as in important for whom. It is important for the pushers of the programs but not for those of us who support shutting them all down. Load of crap ::deal::
http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... iew&id=308 (http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308)
Yee Haw!!!! Finally, hot damn! Can't wait for the data come out! Your right, this is imporant reseach, without data we are left doing nuthn but talking on fornits back and forth about this issue.
thank god we will have something more than anecdotes and can finally DO something based on firm research. YAY!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl: :lol: :tup:
Here's to progress, doesnt it feel like its coming finally? breath of fresh air
::cheers::
to everyone working so hard on addressing this issue:
:nworthy:
-
C'mon guys, haven't you learned from Lon Woodbury's horrible ownage (http://http://www.duumvirate.net/pollrape.html) that the Internet is simply not the place to get unbiased survey results? Self-selection, basic dishonesty, and complete lack of verification will make a mockery out of it.
I could vote, and I don't meet the criteria.
So could all of Fornits.
So could the programmies, under multiple proxies.
Don't you understand that this is less than a joke?
:o
Well, I would imagine that someone would have already thought of that issue and figured out a way to fix this. As Charles mentioned, this isn't some po'dunk poll. :o
-
I suppose I don't know who is actually making these comments, and so I might be working myself up over nothing. But its quite irritating to see the response of these few people, considering the amount of time certain other people are putting into actually working the steps to get regulation at these facilities.
-
There is a large faction of program survivors who believe program regulation is worse as doing nothing, and cite the florida boys murder for example. Not taking sides, just trying to let you know what you're up against. I'll go take a look at the survey, see if I can help.
-
Regulation worse than doing nothing?
I could debate that one all night...
For example: the example you used of the boy's death. Is that program still in operation?
-
I should expand:
My view is that all facilites need to have someone looking after them (someone to hold them accountable -in program speak)... Now we can go on and on about how well they are watched and by whom... But that is an entirely separate issue. When it comes down to it, I believe, they need someone there watching.
Also, I did not speak accurately when I said it was merely for regulation. This is a beginners step in awareness and fact instead of hearsay.
I know you said you aren't taking sides, so please don't feel this comment is intended solely for you.
-
Again, not taking sides, but I could make the argument that regulation in Montana, for programs like Spring Creek Lodge, are a total sham. So, since 'regulation' in place, parents take more comfort and trust them more and more placements result, when in reality nothing has changed. In fact, it might have gotten worse, because the regulatory board comprises two 'citizens' and three reps from the industry (ie owners of programs).
Personally I don't really know, and don't really argue for either side. But, like I said, it seems the regulation thing can be used for bad just as easily as good.
-
I completely understand that point; Though, as I pointed out earlier, that is not necessarily an argument against regulation, moreover an argument against the quality of the regulation -- which I believe is a separate issue, and possibly one that can be addressed within the regulatory statutes.
Again to use the example pointed out -- SCL -- Look at SCL compared to TB, or High Impact, or Dundee or the American Samoa one. All of them are in the same organization, and all have closely related owners. They also pretty much go by the same handbook -- Yet if you ask any kid who has been to both SCL and one of the other ones, which one they would prefer -- I guarantee 9/10 say SCL. Granted, SCL has many problems! I'm not excusing SCL at all, I'm just saying that even crappy regulation starts something; gives people a beginning to get something accomplished at; and does make the program a bit more self-conscious of its actions.
It is true that it might make some parents feel as if the program is under more meaningful oversight -- My hope, though, is that if a parent looks into it enough to study the regulation, hopefully they will come across the plethora of information concerning the negative aspects of SCL et al. And I also do not think it has been shown that there is an increase in students when a facility is regulated as opposed to unregulated facilities. So I don't think the argument is really founded in anything other than mere speculation at this point.
-
Again to use the example pointed out -- SCL -- Look at SCL compared to TB, or High Impact, or Dundee or the American Samoa one.
These are also the only programs to come under international media scrutiny, and succesfully be shut down. No regulation was necessary to accomplish that. Would 'regulating' high impact have been better than it's complete removal?
All of them are in the same organization, and all have closely related owners. They also pretty much go by the same handbook
Yeah but their employee pool comes from two different worlds. Americans are aware enough to fear criminal prosecution of child abuse. Third worlders without a fear of this commit abuse much more openly. It's hard to compare which facility is worse, both have caused young girls to kill themsleves, so who are we to say?
Yet if you ask any kid who has been to both SCL and one of the other ones, which one they would prefer -- I guarantee 9/10 say SCL.
There are kids who weren't ever treated bad at TB or Samoa. Some were horribly abused. There are kids who were severely beaten and kept locked up in freezing isolation conditions at SCL. Others weren't touched. Some kids were abused, others weren't. At both facilities.
Like you said, they are owned by the same place. A lot of kids are transfered from SCL to TB and High Impact, so if SCL is regulated, but can tranfer kids to the unregulated facilities, how is this regulation effective at all?
Granted, SCL has many problems! I'm not excusing SCL at all, I'm just saying that even crappy regulation starts something; gives people a beginning to get something accomplished at; and does make the program a bit more self-conscious of its actions.
The regulation is completely non existent. They outvote the 'public' every time. Do you think that stacked vote was an accident? The only thing regulation in this case accomplishes is gives a selling point to the programs. Now they can advertise to be a 'regulated' residential program, etc.
It is true that it might make some parents feel as if the program is under more meaningful oversight -- My hope, though, is that if a parent looks into it enough to study the regulation, hopefully they will come across the plethora of information concerning the negative aspects of SCL et al.
Me too! I wish the parents did the research, but they don't. If they did, they wouldn't have chosen a WWASPS program. Hell, strugglingteens regulars don't even reccomend WWASPS! So, if anything the only thing 'regulation' would do, is give a semblence of credibility to which WWASPS has to say. Again, it works against hte parents, IF the so called regulation is rigged like in Montana.
And I also do not think it has been shown that there is an increase in students when a facility is regulated as opposed to unregulated facilities. So I don't think the argument is really founded in anything other than mere speculation at this point.
Well, there aren't any statistics on anything in this industry. But ask a few program parents, they are presented with two programs, one is 'regulated with state oversight for the well being of the kids' the other is 'unregulated', which one do you think appeals more to them?
Again, I am not taking a firm stance against or for regulation. But I do know the sham in Montana is complete BS, and that is what I am afraid of.
-
Some of what you say is relevant, some isn't --
The czech school was not under international scrutiny when it was shut down - and the others were under 'light' scrutiny, but hardly anything that would force a government into action - It is true, though, that public scrutiny helps in these cases.
The employee pool - people are people - as is evidenced in the case you pointed out earlier in Florida - I can say from first hand experience the climate in TB is much more conducive to violence than it is at SCL, not because of the staff, but because of the lack of oversight and the willingness of people like Jay Kay to permit it. I have been to both, and am well aware of the operations. Of course, comparing, does at times, trivialize another person's experience, so I wouldn't want to get into an over-reaching statement or an absolute - It is, though, pretty evident to anyone who has attended both facilities which has more room for violence.
There is also the aspect of the country it is in obviously. What happens at TB would not make it in the U.S. Why? Because of protective statutes. Which is exactly what we would like to expand on. that's all...
You say there were kids who weren't treated bad at TB or Samoa. That is patently false. Every single kid at these fadcilities had to encounter the same mental anguish as every other kid. You don't get separated from everything you know, and listen to your friends screaming in pain day in and day out, without being treated poorly.
You bring up the fact that SCL might transfer kids to other facilities. What you might not realize is that this can be covered in regulations. Such as: The place the kids gets sent to has to abide by the same child protective laws as the place he came from --just an example --
Do I think the regulation is meaningful? No. I think its a start - Department of Health and Human Services wanted regulation that would have accomplished a good bit more. I think you might have actually liked the Department of Health and Human Services regulations. But again! the point is not it being regulated, but it seems more to be the quality of the regulation. And again! that is a separate issue.
-
Do I think the regulation is meaningful? No.
Then why waste your time fighting for it? For those of us who have been to both unregulated programs and so-called regulated programs, and have been abused in both, your argument really carries little weight. I know a lot of folks have good intentions, however the result is not always what they intended. It's been seen again and again in this industry.
-
You bring up the fact that SCL might transfer kids to other facilities. What you might not realize is that this can be covered in regulations. Such as: The place the kids gets sent to has to abide by the same child protective laws as the place he came from --just an example --
So your solution is to make more rules? What good are rules without enforcement? When I was locked up they didn't follow criminal law, they physically abused kids. So, if staff in American regulated facilities are willing to break criminal law, what good would new regulation do?
Besides, SCL is now already 'regulated'. However, we have absolutely no say in how this operation takes place, remember, we get outvoted everytime, even if you were able to secure all public voting positions. So, do you intend to regulate the regulation? I just don't get it really.
-
Do I think the regulation is meaningful? No.
Then why waste your time fighting for it? For those of us who have been to both unregulated programs and so-called regulated programs, and have been abused in both, your argument really carries little weight. I know a lot of folks have good intentions, however the result is not always what they intended. It's been seen again and again in this industry.
You took my quote out of context; It was referring to montana's in particular, not regulation as a whole. And it was not an absolute statement.
Next poster asks if my solution is to make more rules. First of all, I'm working to make sure kids don't get hurt anymore. period. I have no wonder solution, but I do see a path that looks promising. One way of doing that is, yes, to create more comprehensive rules to govern these facilities. Do you have a problem with that?
Yes, they don't mean anything without enforcement. And your point is?
As I've said 3 times now in this very thread: Enforcement or quality of regulation is a different issue than regulation! If we feel enforcement is lacking, then we should address that in a different manner. If we feel that the industry is nearly completely unregulated (which it currently is), then we also need to address that individually.
-
I wouldn't mind hearing what exactly the alternatives are?
-
I have no idea, I am just throwing up questions to the whole theory of regulation. Maybe it would be a good thing, I don't know. I do believe If an idea is good, it should be able to stand up to criticism. Since the goal is to keep kids from getting hurt, it seems that all that is necessary would be to enforce the existing child abuse laws. In order for that to happen, the kids would have to have access to report abuse. I think that is the problem right there, the kids who are locked up are not considered to have the same rights as adults. You cannot keep an adult locked up against their will without court intervention, and even then, the individual has explicit patient rights, and access to advocates and the police if necessary. The irony though, is since most individuals who are deemed incpable of making these decisions, and is locked up, probably is so messed up they could be abused and not know what recourse to take anyways.
We all know the kids locked away at these camps are coherent, so why don't they have rights? Take the power away from parents to lock their kid up in private jail, close the loophole. This illegitimate industry would collapse overnight. The private kidnapping business would go under immediately, and starting with the least legitimate camps first would slowly fall. Believe it or not, teens who have bad drug problems and are suicidal are not completely adverse to receiving help. They do tend to mind being locked away in a boot camp or torture center like WWASPS though. End forced treatment by parents. In extreme cases, the proper route is in place, you go to a judge and plead your case, as the kid can theirs. This is fair, this is just.
So, my theory of the day for stopping abusive programs, end coercive treatment. If the kid doesn't want to be there, call the parents and tell them the kid is on his way home. It is ridiculous that a 17.5 year old can be locked away against their will just because one parent decides so (in cases of divorce). Kids are people too, give them the same rights everyone else has. If parents think their kid needs to be locked up, they either need to be conviced of a crime, or they need to convince a judge their kid can't make decisions for themselves, or call 911 if their suicidal. Other than that, suck it up and parent, like the rest of us.
-
Again, not taking sides, but I could make the argument that regulation in Montana, for programs like Spring Creek Lodge, are a total sham. So, since 'regulation' in place, parents take more comfort and trust them more and more placements result, when in reality nothing has changed. In fact, it might have gotten worse, because the regulatory board comprises two 'citizens' and three reps from the industry (ie owners of programs).
Personally I don't really know, and don't really argue for either side. But, like I said, it seems the regulation thing can be used for bad just as easily as good.
That's 'self regulation' - in MT, handled by the Dept. of Labor. Let us not confuse semantics with reality and the meaning behind intent. In working to assure safety of youth, efficacy and ethics, the beautiful state of Montana is NOT an example of these principles, period--- it's a joke... see CAFETY's position on that here:
ok, once cafety link is working, I can link it... see the piece titled the Montana Example... not that you need that to recognize the laughable thing called regulation in that state- if you read into comments in the media by ASTART members you'll see explicit commments about this being problematic as well--- I beleive Charley huffine, MD said something about this being a case of the 'fax guarding the hen house'-- see article in New Standard, it's there.
No one thinks that self regulation is a good idea... except NATSAP & (i think) WWASPS. They're part of the problem. I can't speak for ASTART in terms of pointing fingers directly, but certainly the group of people CAFETY represents stands firmly on that. Unregulated is ALWAYS a bad idea b/c of the risk and NATSAP and WWASPS are not in support of regulation and have not provided any data showing evidence based care is happening.
NATSAP can talk innnovation all they want, the bottom line is regulation secures some semblence of rights for youth... not as comprehensively as we (speaking for CAFETY) would like given this new and what Lon woodbury at Strugglingteens.com would call 'innovative' facilites (also newly regualted in some states- where polciy makers are apparently ill-equipped to understand- far as we can tell given lack of data) in Utah and Oregon, but regulation/oversight is a definite step in at least attempting to assure rights are not being violated. Our hope is that at some point the push for evidence based care, as many mental health orgs and even the ABA recently announced, is made a priority as something required of a facility. in other words, if you're producing traumatized kids, you're not doing your job... (hence some value in the survey) ... if you're acutally helping kids you need to prove it... Regualtion as it stands now at least prevents to some degree- to the extent that it can given the utter lack of data- the aggregious violations perpetrated upon young people at many of these ' innovative facilities.
So, don't be misled to think people - the psychologists, Systems of Care advocates and researchers aren't aware of these nuances... it's a complex issue policy-wise, (see article - Exploitation in the Name of Specialty Schooling ) - but the hope lies in this being addressed and it being talked about in academia, among and between people who are in the postion to be taken seriously, as well as among young people coming from these places that want to take some kinds of stand. ( As much as I think that's outrageuous in and of itself, ie. others having to legitime our experience and lend credibility to a cause that should be credible on its own- that's another issue entirely) ... but it's about time and this has merit.
W/o these efforts we'd continue to be easily dismissed as disgruntled. perhaps that's where some of the resentment lies? i don't know.... I just recognize progress being made and there's definite value in that- the changes will absolutely come- I believe that whole heartedly. i'm convinced of that. So long as we can come have people who have experienced harm willing to talk about it.
-kat
::soapbox::
-
What happened in MT was a sham, did anyone read the transcript? i'll see if I can dig up that link as well.. NO ONE OPPOSED! Although, had I known at that time that was even going on (public hearings) I would have done everything in my power. There were no dissenters... no dissenters apparently means no dissent. We all know no effort was made, but that gives us all the more reason to put ourselves out there rather than retreat and find defeat in 'well, it hasn't really worked yet.. nothing has really changed'... it's defies logic to equate a non-occurance as eternal... what ever happened to human agency and strength in number (and data - heheh)
-
So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves. When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.
I don't know... Where is the line drawn? When is the kid hooked on meth or coke or boy or whatever, when is he forced to get treatment? Only when the law says so? I passed every drug test I ever took, and never got arrested for drugs -- does that mean I wasn't in need of some help? no. Should I have been sent to TB? No. But something needed to be done, and I doubt I would have done it.
I'm not in this to shut down all treatment facilites, because my view is that some are beneficial. I do think some have got out of control; or were never in control- and the way you solve that is to regulate it and make sure the enforcement is there. Right now I'm focusing on the regulation aspect.
I don't think it is feasible to try and take away the right of a parent to decide what is best for their child.
As far as regulation standing up to scrutiny. You really can't argue against regulation. That's the problem it seems nobody is getting. You can argue against parts of certain regulation (like you apparently would for the current Montana regulation), but you cannot argue against the concept. Why? Because its the only solution. Whether we are talking about regulating a parent's ability to govern their child, or a child's ability to act for his/herself; it all comes down to some sort of regulation.
All I've heard on this thread is arguments against the enforcement of regulations. That's fine. I don't disagree; they need to be enforced. But you cannot just rely on child protective laws (as is evidenced by our current situation).. there are many reasons why that doesn't work. Regulations need to be in place to make sure practices that aren't necessarily physically harmful, but are mentally harmful are also not practiced. Regulations need to be put in place that would apply the same strict child protective laws to all states that have these types of programs. Secret Pop-in checks need to be instituted to ensure compliance. etc etc etc
Basically, you want to give me a legitimate option other than regulation? Go ahead. But everything I've heard relies on regulatory statutes to be put in place. And all the arguments against, have been misdirected.
Not to mention, this survey is not going to regulate the industry. This is to garner more information so that we can proceed in many different routes. period.
-
I don't think it is feasible to try and take away the right of a parent to decide what is best for their child.
Then you'll always have greedy business men ready to fleece these parents of their cash, and provide substandard care for the kids. You will always have selfish, self absorbed parents who send their kid away for smoking pot and ditching school and don't feel like dealing with it anymore. Coercive treatment breeds violence, and so long as it exists there is no solution.
-
don't know... Where is the line drawn? When is the kid hooked on meth or coke or boy or whatever, when is he forced to get treatment? Only when the law says so? I passed every drug test I ever took, and never got arrested for drugs -- does that mean I wasn't in need of some help? no. Should I have been sent to TB? No. But something needed to be done, and I doubt I would have done it.
What do you think people do with their loved ones when they are over 18 and need treatment?
-
So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves. When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.
I think the age of consent needs to be lowered, personally- within certain contstraints of course. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Defying parents if they are irrational is not a bad thing... each person needs to be asses differently. I'm against institutionalization period, unless the person is a threat.
I agree with Charley on this one. - you say, would i have checked myself in and respond 'no'...well, at a certain point you have some rational sense, talking would have helped... but no one changes by force... and if they do, it's only superficial until the external regimine is removed.
http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=35 (http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=35)
-
I don't think it is feasible to try and take away the right of a parent to decide what is best for their child.
Then you'll always have greedy business men ready to fleece these parents of their cash, and provide substandard care for the kids. You will always have selfish, self absorbed parents who send their kid away for smoking pot and ditching school and don't feel like dealing with it anymore. Coercive treatment breeds violence, and so long as it exists there is no solution.
Yes, you are right. But not because of what i said. You will always have greedy buisnessmen trying to get everyone's money in a capitalistic society, period. There is no easy way around that. How do you deal with that? Regulation.
-
don't know... Where is the line drawn? When is the kid hooked on meth or coke or boy or whatever, when is he forced to get treatment? Only when the law says so? I passed every drug test I ever took, and never got arrested for drugs -- does that mean I wasn't in need of some help? no. Should I have been sent to TB? No. But something needed to be done, and I doubt I would have done it.
What do you think people do with their loved ones when they are over 18 and need treatment?
This is a side issue. But to expand, I believe from experience that nothing can be done unless the adult allows it to be done or there is evidence of the abuse. As a child, a parent has a certain responsibility to ensure the safety of the child. If it is known that the child has gone off the edge, then I think its the right of the parent to separate the child from that element, at least long enough to break the physical addiction. I think there are proven methods to deal with this too, and I would sumise that those should be looked into and followed.
-
So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves. When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.
I think the age of consent needs to be lowered, personally- within certain contstraints of course. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Defying parents if they are irrational is not a bad thing... each person needs to be asses differently. I'm against institutionalization period, unless the person is a threat.
I agree with Charley on this one. - you say, would i have checked myself in and respond 'no'...well, at a certain point you have some rational sense, talking would have helped... but no one changes by force... and if they do, it's only superficial until the external regimine is removed.
http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=35 (http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=35)
I don't have enough information to say whether the age of consent should be lowered or not. I do think that would be much more difficult to persuade people of, than regulating the industry as a whole. Although I've heard Washington State does have a good model for age of consent (something like 14?)... So it might be worth checking out. But on a federal level, that might be a very hard proposition to pass.
And as for forced therapy. Obviously that doesn't work. But I do believe there is a need to seperate people who are dangers to themselves (in reality, not the alleged 'he will die otherwise' crap), and those who are physically addicted to substances. They need separation for a time so that they may regain some "free will" and not "addicted will"...
-
But I do believe there is a need to seperate people who are dangers to themselves (in reality, not the alleged 'he will die otherwise' crap), and those who are physically addicted to substances.
This is already in place, but they don't send kids to programs, they send them to psychiatric care units.
-
Yes, you are correct.
-
Also, I do suggest reading the link Kat posted up a few posts back... It has Dr. Charley Huffine explaining his position very well.
I believe if you look at what he says, it does hold true to what I am advocating.
-
So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves. When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.
I think the age of consent needs to be lowered, personally- within certain contstraints of course. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Defying parents if they are irrational is not a bad thing... each person needs to be asses differently. I'm against institutionalization period, unless the person is a threat.
I agree with Charley on this one. - you say, would i have checked myself in and respond 'no'...well, at a certain point you have some rational sense, talking would have helped... but no one changes by force... and if they do, it's only superficial until the external regimine is removed.
http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=35 (http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=35)
I don't have enough information to say whether the age of consent should be lowered or not. I do think that would be much more difficult to persuade people of, than regulating the industry as a whole. Although I've heard Washington State does have a good model for age of consent (something like 14?)... So it might be worth checking out. But on a federal level, that might be a very hard proposition to pass.
And as for forced therapy. Obviously that doesn't work. But I do believe there is a need to seperate people who are dangers to themselves (in reality, not the alleged 'he will die otherwise' crap), and those who are physically addicted to substances. They need separation for a time so that they may regain some "free will" and not "addicted will"...
Federal would interfere with state sovrienty, as I understand it this would not happen... but a state to state effort to that end wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO...
Although, maybe there's hope- I have zero working knowledge of the law, this is pure speculation...
The argument that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment(2) when it enacted Title II of the ADA is based on the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).(3) In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to enact civil rights statues only if (a) the statute is designed to remedy a history of unconstitutional conduct and (2) the remedy contained in the statute ? for example, requiring states to make reasonable accommodations ? is "proportionate" to the history of constitutional violations.(4)
Relying on City of Boerne, states have argued that Title II is not designed to remedy a record of unconstitutional discrimination by states against people with disabilities. The opponents argue that there is no such history, despite Congressional findings to the contrary. According to the opponents, there may have been discrimination, but the discrimination did not violate the constitution or was not widespread. Moreover, the opponents say, even if there was a record of unconstitutional discrimination, the ADA is not a "proportionate" response. Congress "went overboard" and imposed obligations on states that are "excessive."
Opponents acknowledge that, when Congress legislates to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, it can outlaw conduct that is not itself unconstitutional and impose requirements not contained in the constitution itself. However, they note, Congress can do so only in limited circumstances. Congress can "prohibit a somewhat broader swath of conduct" than that prohibited by the constitution, but only for the purpose of remedying or deterring unconstitutional conduct.(5)
http://www.bazelon.org/issues/disabilit ... tmemo.html (http://www.bazelon.org/issues/disabilityrights/resources/garrettmemo.html)
-
This is already in place, but they don't send kids to programs, they send them to psychiatric care units.
That's not true... plenty of suicidal kids are sent to program... case in point- yours truely! Or Pauls kid- part of ASTART, who ultimtely commited suicide there... extreme negligence on their (the program's) part. See Ryan Lewis - Alldredge Academy.
-
But I do believe there is a need to seperate people who are dangers to themselves (in reality, not the alleged 'he will die otherwise' crap), and those who are physically addicted to substances.
This is already in place, but they don't send kids to programs, they send them to psychiatric care units.
substance abuser arent' sent to psych, unless they're dual- then it's off to MICA place.... but not always, not in my expeirience anyway, we had girls coming of meth, they were all messed up.... their cure=exercise. Maybe for meth medical detox isn't necc. But pure substance abuse isn't a psych placement, it's a detox/rehab. placement.
-
You are right kat, I would argue though that even though kids were sent to our facilities for said problems, this would not have been accepted by the state... just guessing though...
-
Federal would interfere with state sovrienty- would never happen... but a state to state effort to that end wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO
True...Since it might be inconceivable, though, to expect all states to adopt such a resolution... I think maybe a combination of regulation that states something along the lines of George Miller's EICA Act of 05 (i.e. The state receiving the child must hold true to the standards of the state the child is being received from) and a good number of individual states passing age of consent similar to Washington would work well in conjunction with each other.
-
You are right kat, I would argue though that even though kids were sent to our facilities for said problems, this would not have been accepted by the state... just guessing though...
Well, turning a blind eye by not ensuring this is not occurring and not following up, not requiring anything essentially of these facilities makes it appear as such... but my guess is that youth have to be hospitatlized if they are considered a suicide therat.
anywhere in th US
-
Officially considered a threat. yes. But we both know officially is not the only way for someone to be a threat. And I don't recall too many kids sent to the programs we were, who were sent from the state after trying to commit suicide? I could be wrong, as I haven't looked into any statistics on this lately.
-
.... I haven't looked into any statistics on this lately.
b/c there are none... heh.
Sure, person can be a threat unbeknownst to others... I suspect a good number (not the majority far as I can tell) of kids have at least a history of depression or suicidal ideation and are still sent to these programs... Not to say this makes them a threat, bt certainly a potential threat to themselves.
-
The argument that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment(2) when it enacted Title II of the ADA is based on the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).(3) In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to enact civil rights statues only if (a) the statute is designed to remedy a history of unconstitutional conduct and (2) the remedy contained in the statute ? for example, requiring states to make reasonable accommodations ? is "proportionate" to the history of constitutional violations.(4)
Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, the director of the Center on Children & the Law at the University of Florida, stated, "The constitution has been interpreted to allow teens effectively to be imprisoned by private companies like [escort services] and private schools like [unregulated "specialty boarding schools"]---as long as their parents sign off. If these were state schools or state police, the children would have constitutional protections, but because it is parents who are delegating their own authority, it has been very difficult to open the door to protection of the child (Labi, 2004, 79).
-
keep those responses comin'!!