RMA staff I remember from RMA, you post yours from CEDU

[Whooter]

Whooter from my experience working in programs I noticed a couple of things.  Parents (1) physically abused their children (2) verbally abused their children (3) sexually abused their children (4) abused drugs (5) abused alcohol (6) were going through a divorce (7) didn't spend enough time with their children ( failed to supervise their children on a consistent basis (9) failed to enforce logical rules in the home [up for debate] (10) failed to consequence their children within reason [not talking about torture etc.] and (11) failed to act as good role models.  As a result, the child says fuck it, I'll party hard, skip school, steal cars, burn latrines, blow up mail boxes and the whole nine yards  Often adults cannot connect the dots.  I am not saying the above applies to you but only you can answer that.  Some parents choose to step up to the plate, man up and tackle the problem head on.  Others take the easy way out, don't exhaust every option in the book and take the easy way out by sending their child to a program.  Again I don't know if this applies to you, only you can answer that.

Joel where did you get this information?  You never provided a link or citation....I will answer you but you need to live up to your own standards.  Answer the following and then we will talk



•   (1) What was the Parents First and Last Name
•   (2) What type of Language did they use?
•   (3)How do you define Sexual abuse?
•   (4) How did you determine that drugs were abused?  Was there a test involved?
•   (5) How much alcohol was consumed?
•   (6)Who initiated the divorce (father or mother)?
•   (7) How much time did they spend with their children and how do you define “enough”?
•   (8)Can you provide a link indicating their consistency in this area?
•   (9) Can you provide an example of illogical Rules?
•   (10) Which consequences did they fail to enforce?
•   (11) Can you provide a link to a good role model?



...

[maruska]

Ok, I apologize, Whoother, I should have not be so blunt with you. It is always such a sensitive topic,when it comes to our own children .
I just want to tell you this: my daughter put us through hell...in comparisson to your daughter she is a spitfire:) Yet we never, in a million years would consider to drop the ball and let anybody else raise her....

It is probably a cultural difference. And maybe that is the reason we do not have such schools and programs in our country. We do need them.

Thankfully You didnt have to raise an at-risk child.

I dont think it is a cultural difference at all, Maruska.  Many people in American look for solutions and seek help where needed.  If we cannot solve our problems within the family we look outside the home for support.  If it doesn't exist then we invent it.  I am sure you have kids living on the streets, entering prison and not contributing to society in your country.



...

And you know this how? Do you want to compare notes whose daughter was more at risk? LOL

I know you do not want to hear that , but it is possible to raise children without this industry. And succesfully.
Otherwise all European teenagers would be dead or in jail...they are not, trust me on that:)

Oh, no doubt, Maruska.  Approx. 99.999% of our teenagers are raised without the help of programs and we do a good job here.   You have kids in Europe who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc. like most other countries.  So your raising kids at home method (without the help of the industry) is not 100% successful.  I think we can agree there anyway.



...

Are you saying that you do not have kids who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc ? Really?
I think you mentioned somewhere here on Fornits the number of children living in the street in the USA, and it was a shocking high number.

So ...I really do not understand where are you going with this?

[Whooter]

Are you saying that you do not have kids who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc ? Really?
I think you mentioned somewhere here on Fornits the number of children living in the street in the USA, and it was a shocking high number.

So ...I really do not understand where are you going with this?

And you know this how? Do you want to compare notes whose daughter was more at risk? LOL

I know you do not want to hear that , but it is possible to raise children without this industry. And succesfully.
Otherwise all European teenagers would be dead or in jail...they are not, trust me on that:)

Oh, no doubt, Maruska.  Approx. 99.999% of our teenagers are raised without the help of programs and we do a good job here.   You have kids in Europe who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc. like most other countries.  So your raising kids at home method (without the help of the industry) is not 100% successful.  I think we can agree there anyway.


Until 100% of the kids are safe then we need to keep finding solutions.  Raising kids at home and not seeking outside is not 100% effective.



...

[maruska]

Are you saying that you do not have kids who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc ? Really?
I think you mentioned somewhere here on Fornits the number of children living in the street in the USA, and it was a shocking high number.

So ...I really do not understand where are you going with this?

And you know this how? Do you want to compare notes whose daughter was more at risk? LOL

I know you do not want to hear that , but it is possible to raise children without this industry. And succesfully.
Otherwise all European teenagers would be dead or in jail...they are not, trust me on that:)

Oh, no doubt, Maruska.  Approx. 99.999% of our teenagers are raised without the help of programs and we do a good job here.   You have kids in Europe who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc. like most other countries.  So your raising kids at home method (without the help of the industry) is not 100% successful.  I think we can agree there anyway.


Until 100% of the kids are safe then we need to keep finding solutions.  Raising kids at home and not seeking outside is not 100% effective.






...

I could agree with that. When help is needed , it should be (and it is)  available.


I am afraid we do not agree what HELP means:)

[Whooter]

Are you saying that you do not have kids who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc ? Really?
I think you mentioned somewhere here on Fornits the number of children living in the street in the USA, and it was a shocking high number.

So ...I really do not understand where are you going with this?

And you know this how? Do you want to compare notes whose daughter was more at risk? LOL

I know you do not want to hear that , but it is possible to raise children without this industry. And succesfully.
Otherwise all European teenagers would be dead or in jail...they are not, trust me on that:)

Oh, no doubt, Maruska.  Approx. 99.999% of our teenagers are raised without the help of programs and we do a good job here.   You have kids in Europe who are living in the streets, in jail and who have died from drugs, neglect etc. like most other countries.  So your raising kids at home method (without the help of the industry) is not 100% successful.  I think we can agree there anyway.


Until 100% of the kids are safe then we need to keep finding solutions.  Raising kids at home and not seeking outside is not 100% effective.






...

I could agree with that. When help is needed , it should be (and it is)  available.


I am afraid we do not agree what HELP means:)

I agree.



...

[Anne Bonney]

After you post the links/citations, Anne, I will post the link to where you  admitted yourself here on fornits that programs are helpful in most cases and that you had embellished many of the events that you claim occurred inside the program.

Ok...here ya go. All the quotes below can be found in this thread... viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30485&hilit=JRC  You may disagree that you were defending them, but you asked for citations and agreed to provide the citations where I "admitted" that I exaggerated and that programs helped kids.  So, g'head.....cite away.

Who gives a shit a what alternatives methods are used? What I want to know is what is going to be done to stop hooking kids up to mobile electric fences and shocking them till they smell like fried bacon.

This shouldn't be about "exploring options".

It should be about stopping something that is wrong, immediately.

Fuck our society in the shitter if we've gotten that far gone that stopping something like JRC requires a committee and a blue ribbon panel followed by a conference wrapped up with 39933 page report.

All of us can go right to hell, and probably will be, if this sort of apple polishing bullshit is endorsed while kids are being zapped silly.

No compromises.. Shut JRC down, and Throw that asshole Matthew Israel into prison with a sign around his neck that says, "Child Abuser".

Look Che, you cant just stop Chemotherapy because you cant stand the sight of kids vomiting and their hair falling out.  You should read up on the pros and cons of this place.  Take a look at the quality of life these kids have.  Its near zero....Its no life being restrained 24/7 and drugged out to the point where you are drooling all day.  If this gives kids a chance at a better or near normal life then why deny them that?  Most of them choose the GED and before any child can be subjected they need to go before a judge along with advocacy groups and independent psych sign off.

Read up on it... thats what I am doing.

Oh, but it most certainly is! Now, if you really had been reading up on this place instead of playing around with your baseless chemotherapy analogies, Whooter, you would know that a lot of parents of self-harming autistics just don't send them to JRC anymore! Big surprise! Apparently, there are other alternatives!

There.. thank you.  Since you reacted and called the analogy baseless instead of arguing against it shows me that it was effective and understood.  We both know that they are both therapies which cause pain and from a distance appear to be very abusive.  If you performed a therapy on a child 100 years ago that caused the child to vomit and the kids hair fell out you would be hung from a tree.

From my reading autistic children are still being sent to the center.  If this isn't the case anymore I would like to see the link.  If the center has open beds and can help some less severe children then I don’t see why they shouldn’t allow them to be accepted and helped at the center.  I could see your concern but you filling in a lot of information that is not there.

But besides that the issue is “shock treatment”.  Not all the people being treated at the center receive shock treatment and before anyone can they need to have a hearing before a judge, meet with advocacy groups and see a psychologist to determine if this type of treatment would be beneficial or warranted. I dont see how, with the present screening criteria, an at-risk youth could be exposed to shock treatment.

But that is why we are all here to get answers and find out what they are doing and to whom and how effective it is.

If you sedated the child with the behavior problems and restrained her she would probably live a long life but her quality of life would be near zero.  If you did nothing the child would probably injure herself severely.  If you tried shock treatment the child may respond and be able to live a long a happier life.

I think it is a good parallel and doesn’t make it easy to conclude that shock treatment is inhumane considering the alternative paths.

I am just trying to gain an understanding as to why people here object to it.  Some thoughts:

So its not strictly that it harms the person, but rather that it is done to alter their behavior?

 So some here feel harming someone to try to cure cancer is okay?  What if the chemotherapy also altered the childs behavior.  Would that be okay?  If the child became afraid to go outside because she was bald and became self conscious of her appearance.  Would this altered behavior be okay?

Lets ask ourselves…..Is it okay to alter a persons behavior via medication instead of shock therapy?  What if the medication had to be administered via needle (which is like a bee sting) would that be okay?  Would the harm being inflicted outweigh the benefits?

What if the person choose to have the shock therapy and realized there would be a bee sting effect involved?  Would you object to the use on that level?

What if not altering the childs behavior meant that he/she would harm themselves seriously or someone else?

We know that these kids came from restraints 24/7 and or medicated to the point of drooling.  So their quality of life was very low.  So we cant just ignore the fact that if the doors close that these children will return to restraints and medication.  I am sure their are groups of people who would be against physical restraints and call them abusive and would rather see these kids being able to walk freely and just as easily take the position:  "We dont care what happens to these kids as long as they are not restrained,  Primum non nocere", and turn a blind eye to shock treatment like you are to Restraints.

I think we can establish that abuse has occurred at this center.  But it has not been establish that the treatment is abusive.  It is described as a bee sting.  We have heard that children have been burned by the treatment, but it has not been established that every kid is burned.  Maybe this was an error.  People get mistakenly burned by radiation treatment also, but not all people do.

I dont think it is fair to place the burden on Dr. Isreal to find an alternative either... he has a solution and has moved forward with it.  The whole scientific community bears the burden to search for an alternative.

I see what you are saying.  To see these kids who are banging their heads so hard on the floor that their eyes come loose from their heads and severe retinas and then watch a group become outraged because this same person receives a bee sting shock which will allow him to live freely and visit their favorite restaurant on their own I don’t see the scales tipping in favor of allowing the self abuse as the humane choice.

From the silence (here) I think this reality has sunk in and the ones that just simply aligned themselves behind a few reports of abuse are starting to rethink their position because the argument against this shock treatment seems very weak in light of the benefits.  Some say they don’t like it because it burns them and others say that they are shocked 24/7 but if asked if the burns were not typical or that the shocks averaged once per week then many here would still be against it why?  
So this tells me that many here really don’t know why they are against the therapy they just enjoy being with a crowd maybe.  I am surprised that so many here on fornits advocate physical restraints and medication vs therapy.  If we were discussing restraints in a Therapeutic Boarding school then the majority here on fornits would be against it so why are restraints a better alternative at JRC?  Go figure.

You got yourself caught up into many lies here Anne and you are now trying to deflect and spin it once again.  If you have proof of what you say about me then just post it here.  If you dont have proof then just admit that you lied and we can move on.

Ball's in your court asshole.  I never lied about a thing.

[Whooter]

After you post the links/citations, Anne, I will post the link to where you  admitted yourself here on fornits that programs are helpful in most cases and that you had embellished many of the events that you claim occurred inside the program.

Ok...here ya go. All the quotes below can be found in this thread... viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30485&hilit=JRC  You may disagree that you were defending them, but you asked for citations and agreed to provide the citations where I "admitted" that I exaggerated and that programs helped kids.  So, g'head.....cite away.

Okay so I followed you link and the first post I come across which was mine said:

"I haven’t formed an opinion,myself.".....  Doesnt sound like a defense to me.  You confuse an open minded discussion with defending a position.  It is threatening to you when people can think for themselves and view both sides of the issues.

If people openly question whether or not a program is abusive or not doesnt mean they are defending the process.  They are shinning a spot light on it an looking at it objectively, thats all.

Now when you find those posts of mine that you claim I support all these terrible places and where I said I was this Reuben guy and that I work for the industry just provide us with the links and we will take a look at them.



...

[Whooter]

I think this is a good exercise for you, Anne.  As you search for those posts you will be forced to realize that you were wrong and that they don’t exist.



...

[Anne Bonney]

After you post the links/citations, Anne, I will post the link to where you  admitted yourself here on fornits that programs are helpful in most cases and that you had embellished many of the events that you claim occurred inside the program.

Ok...here ya go. All the quotes below can be found in this thread... viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30485&hilit=JRC  You may disagree that you were defending them, but you asked for citations and agreed to provide the citations where I "admitted" that I exaggerated and that programs helped kids.  So, g'head.....cite away.

Okay so I followed you link and the first post I come across which was mine said:

"I haven’t formed an opinion,myself.".....  Doesnt sound like a defense to me.  You confuse an open minded discussion with defending a position.  It is threatening to you when people can think for themselves and view both sides of the issues.

If people openly question whether or not a program is abusive or not doesnt mean they are defending the process.  They are shinning a spot light on it an looking at it objectively, thats all.

Now when you find those posts of mine that you claim I support all these terrible places and where I said I was this Reuben guy and that I work for the industry just provide us with the links and we will take a look at them.



...

As I said, you may not agree that you were defending them or the procedures, but that's how I see it.  You agreed to provide a link to where you believe I "admitted" to exaggerating and that programs were helpful.  I'm sure I will disagree with you on that as well, but you agreed to cite posts that you believe I stated those things in.

I'm waiting.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

As I said, you may not agree that you were defending them or the procedures, but that's how I see it.  You agreed to provide a link to where you believe I "admitted" to exaggerating and that programs were helpful.  I'm sure I will disagree with you on that as well, but you agreed to cite posts that you believe I stated those things in.

I'm waiting.

You might have thought that's what you said but lets take a look at the actual quote in reference to me:

"...You advocate sending them to these places for virtually anything. You also go out of your way to defend or minimize or justify even the most heinous actions and places."

You havent provided proof of this yet.

You make these statement knowing I advocate for a third party sign off on all program placements.  The entire thread on JRC was attempting to understand if shock therapy has any value or is helpful.   It just bugs you that I can think openly and you are forced to follow the group think here.  Therefore you view any open-minded discussion where a person doesn't agree with you as a defense for the industry.



...

[Anne Bonney]

As I said, you may not agree that you were defending them or the procedures, but that's how I see it.  You agreed to provide a link to where you believe I "admitted" to exaggerating and that programs were helpful.  I'm sure I will disagree with you on that as well, but you agreed to cite posts that you believe I stated those things in.

I'm waiting.

You might have thought that's what you said but lets take a look at the actual quote in reference to me:

"...You advocate sending them to these places for virtually anything. You also go out of your way to defend or minimize or justify even the most heinous actions and places."

You havent provided proof of this yet.

You make these statement knowing I advocate for a third party sign off on all program placements.  The entire thread on JRC was attempting to understand if shock therapy has any value or is helpful.   It just bugs you that I can think openly and you are forced to follow the group think here.  Therefore you view any open-minded discussion where a person doesn't agree with you as a defense for the industry.



...

I knew you'd pussy out.

Man up.  I cited where I believe you were defending the indefensible......the procedures used at JRC.  Provide where you even THINK I said that I exaggerated or that programs were helpful.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Anne Bonney]

Anne Whooter has been utilizing this tactic since he was called out like the little turd he is several pages ago for spitting out numbers.

He's been doing it since he's been here.   I knew he'd couldn't/wouldn't be a man about it.  I said that he "defends the indefensible", which is an opinion, and I STILL provided the quotes where I believed he was defending JRC and their practices. He doesn't agree that he was defending them, but that's not the issue. He outright LIED and said that I wrote something I never did and now backpedals and spins when asked to back it up.  All par for the course for him and his ilk and further proves that you really can't believe or trust a goddamned thing he says.

[Whooter]

Just in case there is any confusion lets take a look at the original post:

"...You advocate sending them to these places for virtually anything. You also go out of your way to defend or minimize or justify even the most heinous actions and places."

You havent provided proof of this yet.

You make these statement knowing I advocate for a third party sign off on all program placements.  The entire thread on JRC was attempting to understand if shock therapy has any value or is helpful.   It just bugs you that I can think openly and you are forced to follow the group think here.  Therefore you view any open-minded discussion where a person doesn't agree with you as a defense for the industry.



...