Much has been written here lately about compromising, about what it means to be a real advocate and a lot of talk about boycotts of advocate organizations.
For many people, there is no dilemma about compromising -- it's as easy as 'just say no' to programs and those who refer kids to them. That's an easy thing for many of us to agree to. But some people believe that in some cases when dealing with serious mental health issues, a short-term stay in a residential treatment facility -- a
real treatment facility with doctors, licensing, etc. -- might be required to stabilize a person who is in immediate danger.
Is it really true that a person cannot be a youth advocate, be against the unregulated 'troubled teen' program industry, and still recognize that in some extreme cases, a short-term residential stay in a real treatment center might be necessary to save, for example, a suicidal person's life? The question doesn't just apply to youth, but to adults as well.
I was on msnbc.com earlier today and saw an ad for SAMHSA, which apparently has some kind of media campaign underway to reduce the stigma associated with mental health disorders. Good for them, I thought, and I clicked on the link to see where it led. I quickly ended up on their Mental Health Service Locator page:
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/database ... earch.aspxSearch the state of Utah and see what comes up -- a lot of places whose names Fornits readers won't recognize, some of which might be real treatment facilities (or maybe not, who knows?), but also a couple familiar names like Provo Canyon School. I saw that and thought WTF is this? The U.S. government can't even distinguish a medical treatment facility from a quack behavior mod facility?
I searched my own home state, city and surrounding 'burbs and found a couple places I recognize -- places I thought might be real treatment facilities. Then I googled them and found links to dirt on some of them -- newspaper articles from former staff making allegations of abuse or neglect, etc.
So what can I conclude? That all residential treatment is bad? I don't believe that's true. But what do people do when a loved one, whether a youth or an adult, is in a seriously bad way and needs (and wants) professional help? Outpatient treatment is the usual recommendation, but there are some quack outpatient programs too.
The problem, as I see it, is that regulation and licensing are no guarantee of quality care. Whether a facility is located in a big city and operated by a major health care corporation, or is just some mom & pop operation running out of a run-down mansion in Nowheresville, Utah -- either way, there is no assurance that a patient will get help rather than abuse or neglect.
Which is all the more reason why
nobody is truly qualified to recommend a residential treatment facility to another person. I applaud the efforts of all advocates (however you define that) to make things better and to publicize known abusive programs. It's very discouraging to see someone attacked for their lack of extremism in fighting this evil. But I also understand the temptation, when dealing with someone who has to choose between the lesser of various evils, to try to tell them what you think you know and hope that they only make a "bad" choice instead of a "really bad" choice.
