Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Deborah on August 16, 2003, 09:19:00 PM
-
I was looking around on the Utah Human Services Site and found some interesting stuff.
Deborah
This link takes you to a decent summary re: Parent Referrals. -WWASP beware, they got your number.
http://www.wildernessprograms.org/Artic ... rences.htm (http://www.wildernessprograms.org/Articles/ParentReferences.htm)
Methods By Which Programs Profit From Failure
http://www.educationoptions.org/program ... ailure.htm (http://www.educationoptions.org/programs/articles/ProfitFailure.htm)
Give your feedback about a program- this site SAYS it is not affiliated with any program and uses the info provided by parents to rate programs.
http://www.educationoptions.org/program ... edback.htm (http://www.educationoptions.org/programs/ProgramFeedback.htm)
How programs rate, according to the surveys:
http://www.educationoptions.org/programs/ (http://www.educationoptions.org/programs/)
Then we have a summary of Rob Cooley's report on the Safety of Wilderness Programs. Woops, they failed to mention that 3 teens died at his Catherine Freer Wilderness Program shortly after the study was released. Inspite of that, both his programs come in with 5 Stars each!!! I guess no points are deducted for deaths.
http://www.wilderness-programs.org/ProgramSafety.html (http://www.wilderness-programs.org/ProgramSafety.html)
Hmm, Skyline Journey gets 4 Stars, even though they had a death due to medical neglect. It's also not mentioned that their license was revoked and they are still under investigation.
Vision Quest got only 2 Stars. :cry: VQ leads the industry in deaths, a dozen or so, yet they still get two stars. Truly Amazing!!
Guess that says alot about Paradise Cove which came in with a whopping 1 Star!!
And, suprisingly enough, even though all the "experts" list two red flags for parents being- death and lawsuits; there are NO links to sites that list either...like
http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.c ... a2003.html (http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/Agenda2003.html)
What's the rationale? Would that just be too shocking for parents? Do they think deaths and lawsuits are not important for parents to consider?
Deborah
_________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The Dangers of Isolation, Coercion and Torture
http://www.jinxmagazine.com/cia_torture.html (http://www.jinxmagazine.com/cia_torture.html)
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-08-16 18:21 ]
-
Deborah,
Your posts are so informative, thank you. Curious about the last link you put up about teenadvocatesusa. Last year they used to have articles on WWASPS and now I cant find them there. I have sent people there to find the stories and they are gone. First Boarding School Truths, then Intrepidnet and now this. Does WWASPS control all of the internet? I hope you can help us out.
Erin
-
I don't know Erin. I noticed some things were missing after the redesign, but at the time, WWASP was the least of my concerns. I don't even remember what was there. She may have had space considerations? Or perhaps she deleted info that was covered well by other sites.
Her focus seems to be on deaths and lawsuits... the important things.
You can email her from her site re: WWASP material. Have you not heard that Intrepid has been restored? Your old link will take you to a WWASP site. The new link is:
http://www.intrepidnetreporters.com/Tee ... nhelp.html (http://www.intrepidnetreporters.com/TeenHelp/teenhelp.html)
Deborah
-
I found the link related to profiting from failure interesting
here is a snippet of recomendations:
Combined with the lists of red flags that may indicate a program is abusive or dangerous this is good food for thought.
The practice of profiting from failure seems to be growing so much that consumers, referring professionals and some industry leaders are commenting that youth programs are becoming a "rip-off industry." In many cases a program will profit if they fail your child or your child has problems beyond the resources of a program.
Consumers and professionals should avoid programs that have contracts and policies that create leverage in favor of a program profiting from their own failure. Here are some warning sign and steps you can take to protect yourself.
Be cautious and seek qualified consultation if you intend to enroll your child in a program that is likely to recommend one of their programs next. Most programs refer to their "family" of programs exclusively and make minimal effort to refer students to other programs that would be more appropriate.
Ask the program if they pay incentives to their staff when they make a successful referral to a programs in their "family" of services.
Read the contract and give it to a qualified attorney for review. Sign no contract that allows a program to keep your tuition or charge you the balance of your tuition if your child becomes ill, is expelled or runs away.
Do not enroll your child in a program that has runaways and is not required to take students back if they keep your child's tuition and deposits. Ask the program how many runaways they have a month or per year (verify this by calling local law enforcement).
Put all verbally expressed exceptions to the contract in writing. Write a letter of understanding if necessary or write the exceptions directly on the original contract.
Do not sign a contract, make payment or agree to pay for services not rendered in advance if the program does not offer external appeal or binding arbitration regarding requested exceptions. The program should state in writing that the remaining tuition and deposits will be refunded if a qualified professional determines that your child is not or was not benefiting from that program.
Never sign a contract unless the contract states that the well-being of the child is paramount and that no contractual obligation supercedes that child's health and emotional well-being.
Never sign a contract that potentially allows the program to withhold your child's school credits or degree until you pay for services that were not rendered.
Do not enroll a child in a program that does not explicitly outline the basis of the exceptions to the contract that would require a refund or would void your contractual obligation.
Do not use your credit card to make payments beyond the initial payment. If you use your credit card, inform your credit card company that you do not authorize further charges to the school without your permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Thank you Deborah. I have emailed that site and it bounces back. I really feel that the more information out there on Wwasps the better. I thought the site had the death of the girl in TB and other lawsuits aginst WWasps listed. You are right that is the most important things, but so is getting as much word out as possible. I am glad you found Intrepidnet. I just find it so odd that the articles are disappearing. It is never old news when kids are involved so I cant see it disappearing for that reason. I am just hoping WWasps didn't have anything to do wiht it as a threat of a lawsuit. Scaring the little people into shutting up. What you all do with Straights is so spectacular. Keeping your vioces heard. That is what we need too. Thanks. Erin
-
Might want to ask Sue about the disappearing act. Rumor has it that the old site from the deceased was bought by WWASP and Sue has some part in it somewhere down the line.
:wave:
-
I am not sure what Anon is talking about, I was referring to Deborah about teenadvocateusa website and the disappearance of the WWASPs stories, death, lawsuits. Maybe since Intrepidnet is back up the others will to. Erin
-
Erin,
Deaths, including the one at TB, are still listed under "Holy The Children" at:
http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/tribute1.html (http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/tribute1.html)
Did you use: teenadvocatesusa@hotmail.com
Deborah
-
Thank you Deborah. I am not the best on the computer so I really thank you for that. Yes, that was the email I used. I will try again becuase I think itis important to have the stories up there. No matter how old they are it shows a pattern of abuse. Thanks again. Erin
-
The term is SLAP suit. WWASP has enough money and enough lawyers to pursue frivilous lawsuits that leave the target miserable and impoverished. Scientology does exactly the same thing. Most people will oblige a letter of demand and remove the material rather than risk getting hit.
The big open secret here is that if WWASP or their affiliates ever do actually file such a suit, then they open themselves up to the discovery process. If the one target doesn't have the funding to make the most of that, well there are some hundreds of other individuals and probably a few foundations and non-profits who would be willing to help.
So, next time you get a letter of demand to remove info about WWASP, please get the word out and investigate your options before complying.
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
--Frederic Bastiat -- 1801-1850
-
That is very interesting. Do yo uthink that happened with that website? I know it had so much more.
-
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/obh ... sions.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/obhicdiscussions.html)
On January 9, 2003, the quarterly meeting of the Outdoor Behavioral Health Industry Council included regular working committee discussions, as well as guest speakers who discussed their areas of expertise with OBHIC members. The content of these presentations will be summarized later in this article
Medical Doctors Describe Ways to Better Screen for Risk Factors
A panel of three physicians who are experienced in wilderness and sports related medical issues qualified in the field of sports medicine discussed the question, ?Why do kids who pass physicals still die in programs? Are there things that we should be aware of that we don?t currently assess??
The panel consisted of: Dwayne Roberts, MD, CCFP, CCFP (EM), CAQ Sports MED, Director, Utah Valley Sports Medicine Fellowship, Utah Valley Regional Medical Center, Edwin Weigh, PA, Medical Consultant for the Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Expeditions; and Dr. Keith Hooker, sports physician, emergency room doctor, mountain climber, one of the founders of the Aspen Program, and a medical consultant for many wilderness programs
To begin the discussion, Dr. Hooker explained there is no cost-effective way of screening all the potential risk factors in applicants of wilderness programs; even major sports teams do not use expensive tests unless an applicant?s case history indicates the need for further testing. Dr. Roberts then described a relatively simple initial screening form, used both for sports teams and extreme sports competitions, that is based on published medical standards. They feel this same examination form is an appropriate tool for medical screening of applicants of wilderness programs, since these programs are LESS PHYSICALLY DEMANDING than high school or collegiate sports [Who determined that?], and certainly less demanding than extreme sport competitions.
This screening tool, called the Preparticipation Evaluation, is described in a 33-page monograph with the same name, which states: ?The PPE has been in place for decades as an integral part of competitive sports. In fact, of the 51 state high school associations governing interscholastic sports (50 states and the District of Columbia), only one does not officially require a medical evaluation before a student can participate in high school athletics? In 1996? an American Heart Association (AHA) consensus panel developed recommendations specifically concerning cardiovascular screening to be included in the PPE. This was a major step forward in that a leading national subspecialty association achieved consensus on specific recommendations to improve the detection of cardiovascular abnormalities during the PPE?a major goal of the PPE is to identify athletes at risk for cardiovascular catastrophe. This has proved to be difficult at best. The evaluation currently recommended by the AHA, consisting of certain historical information and findings of the cardiovascular exam, has the potential to identify some, but not all, athletes at risk.? Further information about the PPE can be obtained at: http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/199 ... glover.htm (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1999/08_99/glover.htm).
Although the monograph points out ?the difficulty of detecting certain conditions that preclude sports participation,? the doctors on the OBHIC panel explained that question #5 on the PPE is considered to be the most important, cost-effective way for becoming aware of possible undiagnosed cardiac problems. These potential cardiac problems could either be due to an incomplete development of the heart, or due to problems of conductivity, the electrical activity involved in maintaining the beating of the heart. Conductivity problems are particularly troublesome, since they do not show up on an autopsy, but could responsible for cardiac arrhythmias that are the cause of a death.
?Yes? answers on any of the subcategories of question #5 indicate the advisability of further tests before clearing an applicant for participation. It was also emphasized that it is important that the professional doing the examination is fully aware of the level of activity for which the applicant is being screened. [Important, but if Wilderness is less stringent than high school sports, and the screening is adequate for that, why emphasis this?]
Both the medical panel and the PPE monograph described ?the (medical) history as critical in identifying athletes who may require further, more directed examinations.? In addition to the answers to question #5 on the PPE, knowledge of the applicant?s medical history, along with that of the mother and father is considered to be the most effective screening method for ruling out risk factors; 90% of potential medical problems can be identified in this way. This information is particularly important, it was explained, because even expensive tests like the echo-cardiogram do not show all kinds cardiac conductivity problems, though a ?stress-echo? can be used to show some conduction problems.
The standard of practice is that if the PPE indicates potential cardiac problems, then a cardiologist needs to clear the person for participation. Also, the parents may need to sign a release of liability. It was felt that the parents should have to prove that a child is safe to go on expedition, if problems show up on the form; it should not be the responsibility of the program to conduct further tests in these cases.
The panel explained this screening is especially important because other factors can cause physical interactions. Stimulants, both prescription, such as Ritalin or Adderol, and non-prescription, such as methamphetamines, as well as antibiotics, can interact with anxiety and a high level of physical activity to increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias, especially in the presence of undiagnosed cardiac problems. They also identified triptolines, a form of anti-depressants, as having a potentially dangerous interaction when these other factors are also present.
Emergency drugs used in the field can also cause dangerous interactions, especially when undiagnosed cardiac rhythm problems are present.
It is important for programs to consult the same type of charts that pharmacists consult, if they need to administer emergency medication in the field to someone who is on prescription medication. [What emergency drugs might be used in the field?]
Dr. Hooker stated that in addition to cardiac problems, a few other conditions that would not be acceptable in the wilderness include: Seizure disorder, orthopedic problems that would keep the applicant from hiking, ?sugar? disorders, such as diabetes and hypoglycemia, and asthma. Also, if there is a history of mononucleosis within the past year, it could have infected the heart or brain, causing further risk with increased physical activity. The presence of long-term alcohol problems in adult wilderness program participants can also greatly increase the risk of medical problems in the field. It was also pointed out that there might be different exclusions for sports than in the wilderness, because the wilderness is less of a controlled setting. Also, if there has been ?heat stroke? or cold injuries in a person?s history, their system is damaged forever, and close monitoring is advised.
Another potential problem is being extremely overweight. The Body Mass Index (BMI), based on a ratio of height and weight, is a very simple measure that has a high correlation with risk for various conditions, as well as being a performance indicator. For example, the ?IRON MAN? data shows that if a person?s BMI is just above average, there is no chance of that person being among the top one third of the finishers in that competition.
Another cause of potential medical risk in the field is electrolyte imbalance, which was identified as being more problematic than dehydration, and takes longer to reestablish proper balances. Electrolytes are especially needed for endurance events. If a person is complaining of dizziness, nausea, lightheadedness, they are kids at risk. [Duh, Ian August was given water-someone else's because he had none- even though regs suggest electrolyte drinks.] The advice is to listen to them, and back them off from activity. It is a ?salt issue.? Various forms of effective electrolytes were discussed, from tablets, bouillon cubes, Gatorade, to V8 juice. Also, it takes a period of hours to restore imbalances, so it is important to monitor electrolytes, as well as water, to keep hydrated. The observation was made that kids who get in trouble from a medical standpoint are the ones who are pushing themselves too hard.[ :lol: :lol: :lol: Pahleeeeez!!] An important medical history question is to ask whether they have ever been treated for being dehydrated? Also, having an infection with a fever puts a person at risk, because they can?t control their body temperature well.
In terms of complications resulting from drug use prior to entering the wilderness, it was pointed out that the most dangerous time is the first 72 hours. The acute withdrawal phase can be dangerous, and must be closely monitored. Hiking hard and low hydration in combination with stimulant use all create risk, though the first 24 hours are considered the worst risk. After that, it has moved out of the system.
In addition to some simple guidelines, for example, ?exercise is almost as good as prozac for depression, so is being an appropriate weight,? they concluded by stating that outdoor behavioral healthcare is rewarding, but risky work, yet statistically is pretty safe; by far safer than letting the kids remain on the street, doing their usual activities. [Of course, The window of loss theory]
Table of injuries and fatalities:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/opinion/OBHICtable.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/opinion/OBHICtable.html)
Notice stats are only given for '98 and '99.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-07-07 09:28 ]
-
Ya know, I could accept the "window of loss" if we were talking about accidents. Real accidents of the unforeseeable type. But the deaths that have taken place have taken place due to extreme negligence; extreme ignorance and extreme callousness. None of these deaths were an accident. All were preventable with just normal, average knowledge and precautions.
You can't screen a person and know they are going to die of heat stroke and dehydration days later. Nor can you tell in advance that someone is going to have an acute abdomen a week later. And who can predict in a health screen that someone is going to be starved and exposed to extreme elements to the point of death?
Health screens are important, but even the best would not have prevented even one of the deaths that have taken place in these programs.
-
Excellent point!!