Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > News Items

AARC Branching Out Pulling Back from the Abyss

<< < (2/2)

Rachael:
I already mentioned this in another thread, but I'll say it again.

I was forced to stand dripping wet and cold in only a towel in front of an oldcomer and staff member till I signed the forms.

At least I knew at the time that such coercion invalidated anything I signed. And anyway, you can't sign away your right to lay criminal charges for abuse that occurs later anyway.


This article just makes me so angry - it is clearly describing abuse and coercion and yet seems to have no problem with it at all.



Rachael

Anonymous:
Among the many lies that miller newton told in new jersey one of the most egregious was that his patients were primarily people who needed his treatment because there problems were "hard core"  and they had failed at other treatment options.  When pressed he backed up his lie by citing what the patients themselves were compelled to make up (admit) at the time of their admission or the stories they made up later because that was the only way to get out.  The reality was that the patients included some kids that were addicted to drugs and many more that needed to be in school and had no need for in patient treatment for anything.  I thought of that when I read the article above because I am suspicious of the decsription of the aarc population.  Careful scrutiny of the TRUTH about new patients is critical and one ought always be suspicious of reports from facilities like aarc that have an incentive to make the condition of their new patients as awful as possible because it makes the cure all the more impressive.

Anonymous:
This is to follow up on my last post concerning the admission policies at AARC and my effort to compare it to the lies told by Kids about the backgrounds and drug use history of the patients admitted to Kids in New Jersey.  Because of the similarities between the programs and the efforts of aarc to say it is different it is always important to focus on the substance and not the advertisements.  I looked at the AARC website.  It describes itself as a facility for people that are chemically addicted to drugs.  That is a strong statement.  Either it is or it isn't.  Who makes that determination?  Does that mean that every new patient has failed multiple drug screens?  How is it measured?  If it is measured by the "confessions" of its patients it is suspect because what the "Kids" experience teaches is that patients will confess to all sorts of things they did not do for a variety of reasons in that kind of coercive environment.  
Any study of aarc's efectiveness should include a VIGOROUS analysis of its patients prior drug use in the most specific terms.  
GIven the Kids experience skepticism is a good starting point.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page