Show Posts
1
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / NORTHWEST BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES
« on: May 29, 2004, 12:06:00 PM »
Whiterabbit, you are right in that I did not take the time to look up other threads. I plead guilty to a lack of curiosity about the background of someone viciously attacking my coworkers and myself. Something Animals said made me wonder if the concept of group therapy was new to him/her. (I'll use 'him' from now on, for convenience.)
Watching out for violators is important. Kids, especially kids with the history that many of our clients have, are vulnerable to abuse. I don't object to watchdogs. I object to the blanket assumptions, bigotry, gratuitous name-calling, and profanity-laced tirades against a group of people who are trying to do good things. You normally don't name-call or point fingers--do you ever object to those who do? Do you ever say to someone like Animals, "You know, your approach is counter-productive to our goals and is patently offensive."
I agree that parents should investigate programs thoroughly, and that the internet is a good tool for that. Touring the facility in question is also important. Meeting with the people who will work your kid every day will help show you what kind of person they are and what their approach is. I also agree that outpatient counseling with a good therapist should be tried first.
I disagree with you about the phone call issue. If we let the kids call home 24/7, some kids would never get any therapy. If there is a big need, the therapists can make exceptions. But overall, part of what we do is help families set healthy limits with each other, and help the kids stay focused on their therapy/recovery. I understand that you disagree, I'm just trying to say why we do it this way.
Smack, well, I don't know where you're from, but the law in Oregon is clear. A parent or guardian of a minor child can control who that child can see or talk to. A minor cannot sign themselves out of somewhere their parent has signed them into. We can disagree about whether that is appropriate or fair or right, but it is legal in Oregon. In some, or even most, cases it is against the kid's will. It is not against the law. If you don't like that, work to change the law. You may feel that a kid should have the human right to leave, but he currently does not have the legal right to do so.
Look, I think it's great that y'all are looking out for kids who are in bad and unsafe situations. I know there are a lot of shady and just plain freaky operators out there. My objection was to being insulted, threatened and in general cursed out by someone with no direct knowledge of our program. My mistake was in trying to reach some reasonable understanding with someone who showed to me no interest in being reasonable. My question to the rest of you is this: Where is your objection to Animals' approach? You call me on my statement about group therapy, which is legitimate for you to do. But why do you not call Animals on the things he says? Is he just your attack dog, your bad cop so that you can play good cop? Or is it too difficult to have that conversation with someone when you agree with their underlying point of wanting to protect children? Or maybe you just don't want his vitriol unleashed on you. I wouldn't blame you if that were the case, because it isn't any fun. It doesn't really make for a constructive dialogue.
Well?
Watching out for violators is important. Kids, especially kids with the history that many of our clients have, are vulnerable to abuse. I don't object to watchdogs. I object to the blanket assumptions, bigotry, gratuitous name-calling, and profanity-laced tirades against a group of people who are trying to do good things. You normally don't name-call or point fingers--do you ever object to those who do? Do you ever say to someone like Animals, "You know, your approach is counter-productive to our goals and is patently offensive."
I agree that parents should investigate programs thoroughly, and that the internet is a good tool for that. Touring the facility in question is also important. Meeting with the people who will work your kid every day will help show you what kind of person they are and what their approach is. I also agree that outpatient counseling with a good therapist should be tried first.
I disagree with you about the phone call issue. If we let the kids call home 24/7, some kids would never get any therapy. If there is a big need, the therapists can make exceptions. But overall, part of what we do is help families set healthy limits with each other, and help the kids stay focused on their therapy/recovery. I understand that you disagree, I'm just trying to say why we do it this way.
Smack, well, I don't know where you're from, but the law in Oregon is clear. A parent or guardian of a minor child can control who that child can see or talk to. A minor cannot sign themselves out of somewhere their parent has signed them into. We can disagree about whether that is appropriate or fair or right, but it is legal in Oregon. In some, or even most, cases it is against the kid's will. It is not against the law. If you don't like that, work to change the law. You may feel that a kid should have the human right to leave, but he currently does not have the legal right to do so.
Look, I think it's great that y'all are looking out for kids who are in bad and unsafe situations. I know there are a lot of shady and just plain freaky operators out there. My objection was to being insulted, threatened and in general cursed out by someone with no direct knowledge of our program. My mistake was in trying to reach some reasonable understanding with someone who showed to me no interest in being reasonable. My question to the rest of you is this: Where is your objection to Animals' approach? You call me on my statement about group therapy, which is legitimate for you to do. But why do you not call Animals on the things he says? Is he just your attack dog, your bad cop so that you can play good cop? Or is it too difficult to have that conversation with someone when you agree with their underlying point of wanting to protect children? Or maybe you just don't want his vitriol unleashed on you. I wouldn't blame you if that were the case, because it isn't any fun. It doesn't really make for a constructive dialogue.
Well?