Coercive "therapy"

[teachback]

It's not just as DESIRE not to get caught, but an appreciation of the CONSEQUENCES of getting caught.  I think it is an important lesson.
When you are in a regular boarding school, of course you might want to drink in the dorm.  You also might think you can do it without getting caught.  The important thing to learn is that the consequences of getting caught are not worth doing it, even though you want to.  It never mattered to me that my son WANTED to drink, drive the cars without a license or skip school, what mattered to me was that he couldn't appreciate the consequences of these actions.

I agree Charly but is coercing them into that situation right in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Karen, you sicken me on a personal, fundamental level.

If I was your son I would have put a heavy-duty pneumatic nailgun to the back of your head long ago.

Maybe then you could appreciate the consequences of your actions.

[Charly]

And, Lactose, you're speaking as one who knows so much about all of it?

Yes, putting a kid into a program is coercion. Once in, the level of coercion is what needs to be examined.  It can be abused- or not.

[RobertBruce]

Them kids dont know whats good for them!1 Some kids need a wake up call before things get out of control!!! Suicide, drugs, sex, ecstacy, drunk driving , do you think life is safer than a program???
You all live in a fantasy world where kids want to get help and dont die on the street from drugs and alcohol.!!!

Actually we've already proven a kid is more likely to end up being killed or killing himself in the private theraputic sector than he is in the public sector.

Head on over to the private therpautic sector versus public sector thread to see the data for yourself.

[RobertBruce]

Karen all thats going to result from a desire to do things conflicting with a desire to avoid the consequences is becoming a kid who is smarter about getting away with things.

Thats all I learned at HLA.

[AtomicAnt]

It's not just as DESIRE not to get caught, but an appreciation of the CONSEQUENCES of getting caught.  I think it is an important lesson.
When you are in a regular boarding school, of course you might want to drink in the dorm.  You also might think you can do it without getting caught.  The important thing to learn is that the consequences of getting caught are not worth doing it, even though you want to.  It never mattered to me that my son WANTED to drink, drive the cars without a license or skip school, what mattered to me was that he couldn't appreciate the consequences of these actions.

I suppose this is one approach and I agree it is necessary to teach kids about potential consequences, I disagree that this is how we should teach kids to make decisons.

Ideally, I want my son not to do these things because he holds the values that these things are wrong to do, not because somone else has told him no, but because he has made that decision. I believe that children who value themselves are less likely to engage in self-destructive behavior.

The diffiuclty Charly, is what should you teach your child when you think the rules are wrong?

Do we tell our kids to shut-up and obey them anyway? Do we say it is okay if you don't get caught and inform them of the consequences? The cliche answer is to work the democratic process to change the law, but let's face it, I don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of doing that.

I have no problems with a kid having a glass of wine with dinner. In our culture, it is normal to go out and get drunk at a party. In Europe and other cultures, public drunkeness and making a fool of onseself is frowned on. Here it seems like we glorify it and then wonder why teens go and do it. Let's do away with alcohol laws completely and teach our kids how to drink (and behave) with moderation.

The problem with legal restrictions (the nanny state) is that if you treat your citizens like children that need nannys, you will end up with citizens that act like that children.

I found myself in a bit of pickle with my 10-year-old. My ex, my son, and I were in a Spanish restaurant. My ex ordered half a pitcher of sangria. My son wanted a taste. I let him taste it. I broke the law.

He wanted his own glass. I informed him he could not have his own glass because the restaurant could lose their liquor license and we (Mom and I) could get arrested for providing alcohol to a minor.

I think this incident is an example where the State is interefering too much with my parenting. I'm trying to teach my kid moderation and appreciation and risking jail time for it. That's just stupid. My son is only 10 but sees the stuipidity in it, too.

So, as a teen, my son will be in the difficult position of believing there is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation, but that because of some unfair laws, he is not allowed to drink at all. Let's see how that plays.

[Charly]

AA- I agree with much of what you wrote.  However, one thing we have to learn is that there are rules that are set and whether or not any of us agree with them, they need to be followed or there will be consequences that we don't want.  I worked for a company where the CEO threw a tantrum one day because people were drifting in after the designated start of the work day.  He issued an ultimatum that we ALL had to be through the door by 8am.  We all bitched and complained- after all, many of us stayed WAY later than "quitting time", traveled on business on weekends etc.  However, as our immediate boss said, "A CEO has a right to make those rules, so work with me on this!"

I don't object to underage drinking, but I fully understand how a boarding school has to have rules about that.  I expect my kid to realize that as well and obey the rules if he wants to stay in the school.

[AtomicAnt]

AA- I agree with much of what you wrote.  However, one thing we have to learn is that there are rules that are set and whether or not any of us agree with them, they need to be followed or there will be consequences that we don't want.  I worked for a company where the CEO threw a tantrum one day because people were drifting in after the designated start of the work day.  He issued an ultimatum that we ALL had to be through the door by 8am.  We all bitched and complained- after all, many of us stayed WAY later than "quitting time", traveled on business on weekends etc.  However, as our immediate boss said, "A CEO has a right to make those rules, so work with me on this!"

I don't object to underage drinking, but I fully understand how a boarding school has to have rules about that.  I expect my kid to realize that as well and obey the rules if he wants to stay in the school.

I'm glad you mentioned about the CEO's ultimatum. We have had this discussion at work as well. Most of us work more than 40 hours each week and so managers let it slide if someone runs an errand making it a long lunch, or leaves a few minutes early with a good reason. We agreed that this has to be a two-way street. If our CEO demands we are all in by 8:00 AM, then we are leaving at 5:00 PM, period. You cannot fire someone for leaving on time, and an uderstaffed department is not our problem. No one should feel like the boss or company runs their life.

This goes back to my statement about treating adults like adults. If your going to run a by the book rules game, you will end up with children as employees. The good employees, with a sense of self-esteem, will go somewhere else.

To a degree, it is different with kids. We are trying to teach them good habits and we don't trust their judgement about these things. Besides, it is one thing for me to be late for work when I pretty much set my own schedule. It is quite another to be late for, or miss a class (scheduled event). Let's just avoid the zero-tolerance nonsense so that we don't end up with neurotic kids.

That was my reasonable response. The anarchist in me doesn't care about set rules that must be followed if I don't agree with them. In that case, the only thing I can do wrong is to get caught. Then I must weigh the perceived value of breaking the rule against the possible consequences for getting caught.

Speeding and pot are the two examples that come first to mind. I have not yet had the discussion with my 10-year-old, but the biggest problem with pot is not the danger from the drug, but the consequences of getting caught. I don't smoke pot. Too risky. I drive too fast; along with most everyone else.

[teachback]

So let's stay on track here.

The thread posed the question concerning coercive therapy.

[AtomicAnt]

Charly,

I just wanted to add a note on drug testing and other forms of spying on people; going back to my comments about the nanny-state.

If integrity is what you do when no one is looking (stupid cliche, really), then how do you expect kids to learn it and have it if they are never given the opportunity to experience it?

If we want to treat our children to be trustworthy, we must trust them. Nothing tells a child that you don't trust them better than spying on them and drug testing them.

I am against these programs because they send the wrong message, they are about control more than anything else, and they just ooze lack of respect for childrens privacy.

Aren't we supposed to be children to be respectful? Can we do that it if we don't respect them?

[AtomicAnt]

So let's stay on track here.

The thread posed the question concerning coercive therapy.

Point noted.
Anne Bonney's postings pretty much say it all, so what is the question?

Is it, Do programs use coercive persuasion?

Or is it, Is it moral to use coercive persuastion?

My answer is yes and no respectively.

[Anonymous]

Psychological coercion is an act of violence.

[teachback]

Psychological coercion is an act of violence.

Excellent point, my dear Watson.

[Anonymous]

Psychological coercion is an act of violence.

Excellent point, my dear Watson.

Why thank you, kind sir. But in all honesty, you should thank my parents for raising such a wonderful child. Their phone number is 619-232-0349, ask for Stevey or Jojo and tell them Johanas told you to call. They'll get it.

[Karass]

I think there is a difference between "coercive therapy" and "coercion to get someone into therapy." Coercion can take many different forms -- anything from attempts to persuade & peer pressure to actual physical coercion (escorts or kidnapping).

Most people would agree that If the therapy is genuine and the person chooses voluntarily to participate, there's no problem.

But what if he or she doesn't believe there's a problem, doesn't believe he needs therapy, etc.? Is it wrong or immoral for friends, family, or significant others to try to persuade, to try to point out all the things that seem so obvious to them, but to which the 'troubled' person has turned a blind eye? At what point does it cross a line of being "too coercive"? And what do you say to someone who ultimately finds value and relief from genuine therapy, but who was strongly pressured to give it a try in the first place? Should their loved ones have just left them alone and allowed their suffering to continue, because "coercion" is always a bad thing, no matter what the outcome?