Can anyone help me find information that defines what 'abuse' consists of in our current ethical standards for these programs? Any resources would be helpful.
Define "our". Lots of people have different opinions, even here, on what constitutes abuse and so on. I'd say it's better to just states what happened and let others judge whether it was abuse or not. Are dog cages at High Impact or the Hobbit at SCL(A) abuse? Most people would agree so. Are LGATs and confrontational attack therapy abusive? I'd say so. Others wouldn't... but if you're looking for a mission statement of some sort... maybe it's best you write one. I'm not sure anybody has done anything like that.
Well, by 'our' I mean some legislation that outlines certain conditions of abuse or ethics violations. I just thought there might be something that say would have stict guidelines for what is considered an abuse of say sleep deprivation, isolation, verbal attacks, the size of the dog cage.... I didn't really know what to expect.
It is a closed environment completely cut off from the outside world ( the one I was in, at least ). No talking to non-indoctrinated people. No privacy, at all. This is abusive to a developing teen, who in most cases has not been convicted of any crime. The law has not caught up with science in this area. It is possible to cause MASSIVE psychological damage to a person at this fragile stage of development, which is why only licensed psychologists should be able to provide this kind of therapy. This kind of damage would be invisible to any patrol officer. Also, much of the physical abuse takes place in small rooms with limited people involved, who are all indoctrinated into the program, by the time the police showed up there would be no evidence or (willing) witnesses.
Very incisive observation. And nicely put! Indeed, the law has not caught up to science with regard to what can damage a developing psyche. But then again, not all psyche professionals are of one mind about this.
I myself also have some deep reservations as to what exactly is on the agenda of many of these professionals and specialists in relevant fields. Some of them do not appear to have their client's interests at the fore, but rather the interests and needs of school administrations, local politics, Big Pharma, and the approval or acceptance of their circle of peers. Thankfully, this last incentive can at least work both ways.
I also think that was well put Shadyacres. I think many people are under the impression that if a program doesn’t help someone it is at worst not harmful to go through, but I would submit that the Double Bind can be a psychologically traumatizing situation for a child that can alter them for life.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&hilit=double+bind%3A+mind+controlThe double bind was originated as a theory of schizophrenia, has been proven to produce dissociated states in people in controlled studies and is currently still regarded as providing a means to understand the development of psychosis in children with sociopathic parents. Double binds have also been explored for particular use in therapy, very much in the context of the old circle of chairs we are all used to.
Here is the basic double bind formula. In some fashion I think it can provide a guide to what precipitates psychological harm, and abuse.
• a) The victim of double bind receives contradictory injunctions.
• b) No metacommunication is possible
• c) The victim cannot leave the communication field
• d) Failing to fulfill the contradictory injunctions is punished
• e) an intense relationship, e.g., in family life, captivity, love, loyalty,
I think this also is a reason for why forced therapy is wrong altogether. It inherently imposes conflicting demands ‘take responsibility for your progress in therapy, and do it because I tell you to, or you will be punished.’ The intense relationship portion is presumed to be the reason the double bind has such a powerful effect, and I think the TTI’s manipulation of interpersonal communication with parent and child can be a cause for serious harm.