Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Public Sector Gulags
New York State shutting state facilities?
mark babitz:
Parents often negate the problems and causes of their kids troubles and blame them on anything but themselves. People by nature hate to admit being wrong and over doing something. The kids are the best resource to truth.They really have no reason to hold back or embellish with others that were in Elan or any place like that.The fact is we as survivors like them, do believe the stories because all of us were in a story like that one time. :rocker: :jamin: :rocker: :rasta: :rasta: :cheers:
Whooter:
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study. I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free. They are very expensive. Aspen chose to have the study done externally.
Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field. If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area. In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it. I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not. Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.
I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study. I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here. But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
@ psy and others, As far as asking the kids what their experience has been I think many of you know that I believe the more information a person can have the better equipped they are to make a good decision. I recommend parents read here on fornits as well as contacting and visiting the programs and speaking to families who have had kids attend the programs. They should talk to as many people as possible before making a decision.
...
Ursus:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study. I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free. They are very expensive. Aspen chose to have the study done externally.
Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field. If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area. In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it. I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not. Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.
I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study. I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here. But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
--- End quote ---
:roflmao: This is just like the tobacco industry's Altria Group hiring an "outside firm" -- comprised of former employees who still work with and support their former employer -- to do a "study" on the alleged lesser harm of "light" cigarettes. Jeezum! Would YOU believe them?
When all is said and done, it's pretty clear that this is just yet another advertising gimmick, one that cloaks the "info" with dubious legitimacy.
Altria got hauled to court for the fraudulent nature of just that bit of advertising. Perhaps Aspen should be dealt with similarly.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Ursus" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study. I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free. They are very expensive. Aspen chose to have the study done externally.
Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field. If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area. In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it. I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not. Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.
I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study. I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here. But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
--- End quote ---
:roflmao: This is just like the tobacco industry's Altria Group hiring an "outside firm" -- comprised of former employees who still work with and support their former employer -- to do a "study" on the alleged lesser harm of "light" cigarettes. Jeezum! Would YOU believe them?
When all is said and done, it's pretty clear that this is just yet another advertising gimmick, one that cloaks the "info" with dubious legitimacy.
Altria got hauled to court for the fraudulent nature of just that bit of advertising. Perhaps Aspen should be dealt with similarly.
--- End quote ---
Well, I think we all could agree that those tobacco people (researchers) should be hauled into court for that, Ursus. Having the tobacco company hire an outside firm to conduct research is the right thing to do. But having the researchers on the tobacco companies parole would be fraudulent, no doubt.
But as far as research groups go it would be difficult to find any successful researcher (in any field) who doesn’t have a background or experience in the area they are researching.
It is best to have researchers who use to work in the field they are researching it just makes sense. Now like you said if the people doing research for Canyon Research were also getting paid by the industry (on their parole) then I would see a reason for concern. But this isn’t the case.
Again I understand why information favorable to the industry doesn’t get discussed here and more energy is put into discrediting it than analyzing the results.
...
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "wdtony" ---Whooter wrote:
"No they didn’t take this from the private sector. The state/court system is not likely to give up control and the parents are not the childs advocates in the public sector. It is tough on parents to have to turn over their parental control to lawyers and state employees. That is why I always advocate that if the parents can afford it they should keep their kids out of the court system and get them the help they need, out of pocket, thru a private Boarding school. In many cases they can have their child see a private therapist which adds an extra dimension and they have a little more control over when the child comes home."
It is tough on parents to give up control, but not as tough as a child who has been stripped of his or her rights and sent away while having no legal procedure to protect them. Parents, in many cases (if not most) are just as big a part of the problem as the children. Sometimes the entire problem stems from the parents themselves. In these cases, should the kids receive "therapy"? And if so, for what reason? I have no problem with a kid being allowed to live away from the family for a short period of time as long as that child ALWAYS has the option to control where they are staying and always has open communication to complain to authorities if there is any abuse. And I agree with blombrowski that placement should be close to home if there is no other option than placement, preferrably in the same state. Once a parent has made the decision to send their child away, they have essentially given up control over their child anyway. Why would it be a bad idea to give that child the ability to obtain legal representation and advocacy? The parents are paying either way.
Maybe we are focusing on the children too much here. A family problem should be treated as such, with the parents taking the majority of the responsibility for the family problem. When an assessment is conducted on a child, wouldn't it be wise to assess the problem from the standpoint that the parents may be the largest contributing factor (or, at least "a" factor) to the dynamics of the child's "bad" behavior? A family assessment instead of an individual assessment seems more appropriate. This would also aid in any counseling the child received in the future. No matter where you send the child, the family will likely be unchanged when the child returns. And this is why I often side with blombrowski and his thoughts on the family approach.
--- End quote ---
I think I am the first ones to agree that in most cases it is not just the kids problem but rather a family issue. To send the child off to be fixed without taking a look at the root cause(which could be the home environment) is just not going to work long term.
If the family is indeed the problem or part of the problem then removing the child from the situation is probably a good thing. The Missouri Model does this also and the therapist works with the family at home to try make the necessary changes so that the child returns to a healthy environment. The program my daughter attended did just this. They worked with the child individually and also with the family and made recommendations as to what should be changed in the childs home situation to assist with a smooth transition home…. (in my case it was a bumpy transition period but they have improved themselves since then)... this has actually become one of the programs strengths where as it use to be their weakness in my opinion.
...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version