Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: psy on June 23, 2009, 05:14:32 PM
-
What would you say? If there is even a chance that one or two people in the audience will listen, that their hearts can be changed... What would you say?
-
What would you say? If there is even a chance that one or two people in the audience will listen, that their hearts can be changed... What would you say?
NATSAP speech
Beginning: fuck you
Middle: fuck you
End: fuck you
-
5 Mins ago:
Ginger: Ok, here's an idea. How about we start a thread "What would you say to NATSAP if you had the chance" and build a brief, simple argument from there?
Me: LOL. Ok. Sounds good. most responses will border on "fuck you" but something serious might come out of it.
-
Some people feel that regulating programs is like sugar-coating a turd. Not knowing much about NATSAP and similar organizations, I am not sure what I think about the regulation thing.
-
Not talking about regulation. More like making a case that treatment without consent is wrong, talk about thought reform and why it doesn't work in the long run, etc, and seeing if it can be said in such a way that even a small minority might listen. See if some can be talked out of what they're doing. Is such a thing even possible, and if you had a chance to take your best shot at it, what would you do?
-
Basically, NATSAP is a trade organization that promotes and lobbies for the troubled parent industry. They're not a regulatory body, having no authority nor interest in regulation. And why address them at all? It would be like volunteering to do an introduction at a fucking open meeting next Friday. But we have been invited and I'm considering possibly taking up that invitation (provided they pay for transport, lodging, dinner and copious amounts of strong drink afterward)
First thing that occurred to me was an old tagline. "The TC method is effective. Not the least bit therapeutic nor conducive to community building. But very, very effective!" Maybe somebody's got a better idea and/or more enthusiasm for making that appearance.
The other question would be how would one go about trying to actually get it through these people's heads that their lifelong and life encompassing devotion to saving the chiiiiiiildren has actually done far more harm than good?
Personal anecdotes? I don't find them to be very compelling, just emotionally potent. But TC proponants just eat that shit up! So maybe a short list of tragic true stories like this one would be good
When Straight could not get Nancy to confess to being the addict she wasn't they took her into a time-out room and spat on her, screamed at her, told her she was fat and ugly and not pretty like her sister. They bent her finger back so far they broke it. Unable to extort a confession from Nancy they finally released her. Nancy turned to alcohol after her treatment and one night ten years later she took off all her clothes for all the world to see her "fat, ugly" body and jumped 10 stories to her death. A tattoo on her wrist read DISCIPLINE.
Or my own sad tale of a family estrangement, years of nightmares and other PTSD symptoms? Nah, that just proves I "should have worked my program" right? That's what my family would say if they were there.
But I'm much more inclined to go with a more objective sort of argument based on peer reviewed studies and serious research like this anyway.
[quote"Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph. D., and Richard Ofshe, Ph. D."]
The Majority Reaction
Degrees of anomie. The majority reaction seen in people who leave thought reform programs, almost regardless of the time spent with the group, is a varying degree of anomie -- a sense of alienation and confusion resulting from the loss or weakening of previously valued norms, ideals, or goals. When the person leaves the group and returns to broader society, culture shock and anxiety usually result from the theories learned in the group and the need to reconcile situational demands, values, and memories in three eras -- the past prior to the group, the time in the group, and the present situation.
The person feels like an immigrant or refugee who enters a new culture. However, the person is reentering his or her former culture, bringing along a series of experiences and beliefs from the group with which he or she had affiliated that conflict with norms and expectations. Unlike the immigrant confronting merely novel situations, the returnee is confronting a rejected society. Thus, most people leaving a thought reform program have a period in which they need to put together the split or doubled self they maintained while they were in the group and come to terms with their pre-group sense of self.
Induced Psychopathologies
Reactive schizo affective-like psychoses. These occur in individuals with no prior history of mental disorder and from families free of such history, as well as in individuals with no prior history of mental disorder, but whose families have members with affective disorders.
These psychotic episodes vary in length from days to nearly a year's duration, with most ranging from 1 to 5 months. The decompensation typically occurs in immediate response to a peak stress-inducing experience. Strong affective components, mostly of a hypomanic or manic quality, are noted near and after the decompensation. These components appear related to the behavior modeled in the group and to attitudes advocated by the group. Certain programs appear to interact with personal histories and situational properties of the group to produce depressive reactions.
Posttraumatic stress disorders. This type of disorder is described in section 309.89 of the DSM-III-R.
Atypical dissociative disorders. This type of disorder is described in section 300.15 of the DSM-III-R.
Relaxation-induced anxiety. This is a type of atypical anxiety if one uses DSM-III-R classification, but is best described in the recently growing reports appearing in research literature.
Miscellaneous reactions. These include anxiety combined with cognitive inefficiencies, such as difficulty in concentration, inability to focus and maintain attention, and impaired memory (especially short-term); self-mutilation; phobias; suicide and homicide; and psychological factors affecting physical conditions (described in section 316.00 of the DSM-III-R) such as strokes, myocardial infarctions, unexpected deaths, recurrence of peptic ulcers, asthma, etc.[/quote]
That's about as far as I've thought it through. Anybody else? Seriously.
-
I would like to say something like this:
Good morning ladies and gentleman. I would like to warn you up front that my views are a bite unorthodox. I was asked to speak here to lend an alternative point of view vs the boilerplate speeches you are accustomed to just prior to breaking for a delicious free lunch.
Let me start by asking how many in this room had attended a program as a child? Thought so. How many of the NATSAP board members do you think attended a NATSAP certified program? My research revealed that none had attended a program. Your research claims that the higher echelon programs have upwards of 95% of graduates attending the college of their choice. So wouldn’t it behoove this board to chase down and hire a few of these well educated people to serve and add value from the grass roots firsthand experience level?
I would like to ask each of you to look at the person to the right and the left of you and notice how they are dressed. Now ask yourself if these people dress like this everyday? Do they (or you) wear tuxedos or $5,000 gowns around the house on Saturday mornings or any regular part of their week? Probably not. Everyone is dressed up to put their best foot forward and put on a show, we all know it is not the real you…no offense intended.. my self included, I usually only wear jeans. So based on this don’t you think that a 2 hour walk through of a program who has had 3 months to prepare for your visit is evidence enough to win your seal of approval? Do you really believe you are seeing the day to day operations of a program this way?
I have to tell you that I have seen these programs after the balloons, rented help, linen table clothes. catered food and carefully hand picked teenagers are taken away. There is a dark side that none of you will ever see. A dark side that isn’t spoken about because it doesn’t exist in words and a description by me would not even scrape the surface. This dark side is so ingrained and orchestrated that it has become a culture for all those who are employed that even they themselves don’t realize they are living a lie and planting the seeds of abuse.
(Okay, you can start it now jim). The children in the slide show you see behind me have all attended a NATSAP program. The ones with a blue back ground are still suffering from depression. The ones with a red background have taken their owns lives. All of them (or their families) have agreed to have their photos displayed here today and what they all have in common is that they were all abused in NATSAP certified programs. You will not see the same photos twice we were able to acquire 160 photographs. I have met all of them or their families. That one there is Sarah (pause that a second jim).. isn’t she adorable. Sarah adored her father and unfortunately died after a long bout with cancer. Sarah was 10 at the time and her mother remarried a year later. Sarah was repeatedly raped by her step father starting at age 12 and it continued for 3 years. Some of the rapes were so violent that scaring occurred which may prevent her from having children of her own. Sarah kept this hidden and eventually was too ashamed to attend school or face her friends any longer and she lost that spark that most young people have and deserve. After finally confronting her mother the step father convinced the mother to send her away to avoid court action. They chose the safe haven of a NATSAP program which accepts kids from out of state. Remember her face because I will speak about her in a second.
Ladies and Gentalemen these places that you are putting your seal of approval on are abusing our children even as we are sitting here enjoying the aroma filling the room with baked stuffed crab and lobster. These words make you uncomfortable as I can see and I don’t mean to dampen this fine event but someone has to stand up and say this to you.
Let me ask you.. what is abuse? Beating children, waterboarding, locking kids in cages. Whipping them? Yes that is one form, but in my right hand I am holding up 3 NATSAP certified programs which took young children under their wing with the promise to protect them and help them through a rough period in their life and within a week being there the staff forced them to stand up in front of strangers and describe how they were raped… all the intimate details. These details by the way were typed up and handed off from the programs therapist to the staff so that they could keep her honest. After these children had exposed their shame and horrors they were called whores and forced to wear a sign indicating their mistakes until such time as a staff member took pity on them and allowed them to take it off. One of these children was Sarah. I am not a therapist and I don’t know about you but I was sick to my stomach when I read this and it changed me forever. This was a “Therapeutic” School !!! NATSAP certified.
In my left hand I have a list of children who suffered so badly at the hands of NATSAP certified programs that they took their own life. Children who had suffered the type of ridicule as I described earlier and some even worse.
What would drive you to donate to and support a program which furthers this type of abuse on the future youth of America? Every time you donate a dollar to this place your name is forever engraved on the horrors NATSAP supports and when this rock is finally flipped over and the underbelly is exposed you will not be able distance yourself or clean off the blood and your children and grandchildren will know that you supported this”Good Housekeeping Seal” and they will ask you why you didn’t take the time to find out what your money was going towards supporting?
Although I have only raise $14,000 I am gather donations to someday build a permanent structure dedicated to those who supported and donated money towards this industry which abused children under the guise of therapy in Washington DC. If you wish to check to insure we have your name spelled correctly you can speak to myself or my assistant Megan over there.
On the table behind me I have a book for everyone to read called "Help at Any Cost" by Maia Szalavitz and a list of program graduates who would be willing to speak with you about their experiences. I have to warn you that they are not all highly educated like you are lead to believe, if any of you strolled through the programs library or checked the teachers credentials you may understand why I say this. But you need to be prepared that the language may be harsh but do your best to listen to their experience through their words and put your offense aside for a few minutes. Mia Szalavitz has agreed to speak to any one of you if you wish to learn more about their experience and I have provided her number and email inside each book.
I see that I am be signaled that lunch is ready. Thank you for your time… don’t forget to pick up your copy of “Help at any cost” and the list of graduates if you feel you need further first hand information.
-
But we have been invited and I'm considering possibly taking up that invitation (provided they pay for transport, lodging, dinner and copious amounts of strong drink afterward)
Tis strange but true. And i'm up to the invitation as well, provided they're willing to cover the ticket. If nothing else, it shoudl be a surreal experience, and perhaps, just perhaps, it might help the industry members to see their critics as human, and not just as "druggie fuckup program dropouts with a grudge". Maybe, just maybe, they might see where some of us are coming from.
I'd say an education based approach might be the best, combined with some philosophy... perhaps a bit of personal anecdote used to illustrate exactly why their methods "work" and what's really going on behind the scenes in the heads of the kids they claim to care about.
-
3 NATSAP certified programs which took young children under their wing with the promise to protect them and help them through a rough period in their life and within a week being there the staff forced them to stand up in front of strangers and describe how they were raped… all the intimate details. These details by the way were typed up and handed off from the programs therapist to the staff so that they could keep her honest. After these children had exposed their shame and horrors they were called whores and forced to wear a sign indicating their mistakes until such time as a staff member took pity on them and allowed them to take it off. One of these children was Sarah. I am not a therapist and I don’t know about you but I was sick to my stomach when I read this and it changed me forever. This was a “Therapeutic” School !!! NATSAP certified.
:timeout: Sounds very "Straight-like."
-
What is it.. like an NATSAP convention or something? What is it's purpose?
Who will be in the audience? Did they say why they were giving you an invite?
This could possibly be pretty cool, huh?
Paul
-
[Ackbar]IT'S A TRAP![/Ackbar]
-
I see where you folks are coming from here but I have a different view of NATSAP.
I see them as apologists and defenders of sick people that run abusive programs and are therefore, domestic terrorists.
I would not want to speak to them because I don't think anything beneficial would be gained.
What would be better is to hear the FBI reading the members of NATSAP their miranda rights.
-
I would not want to speak to them because I don't think anything beneficial would be gained.
Perhaps not, but if even one reconsiders, I think it's worth it. If even a few go just a little bit easier on the kids or respect them a bit more, I think it's worth it. I, too, am skeptical as to how much good it would actually do, but I can't see much harm coming out of it either. Lots of these people have lived in the same bubble we were in and some might not actually be fully aware of what they're doing; they're just following instructions blindly. Injecting outside opinions they may not have heard could have interesting results. What if some start to question whether what they're doing is actually helping the kids and start to rethink what they're doing, or perhaps, what they, themselves went through once upon a time?
Again, it can't hurt, so why the hell not?
-
I would not want to speak to them because I don't think anything beneficial would be gained.
Perhaps not, but if even one reconsiders, I think it's worth it. If even a few go just a little bit easier on the kids or respect them a bit more, I think it's worth it. I, too, am skeptical as to how much good it would actually do, but I can't see much harm coming out of it either. Lots of these people have lived in the same bubble we were in and some might not actually be fully aware of what they're doing; they're just following instructions blindly. Injecting outside opinions they may not have heard could have interesting results. What if some start to question whether what they're doing is actually helping the kids and start to rethink what they're doing, or perhaps, what they, themselves went through once upon a time?
Again, it can't hurt, so why the hell not?
No, I don't suppose it could hurt. If a small minority did listen and changed their position, would they have any power to oppose those who would not listen? who are the few at the top? That is who we would need to convince. But as I said before, I consider NATSAP domestic terrorists. I do not think their opinions will change.
Don't go on what I say though, I don't know enough to make a strong argument anyway. I thought I would answer the original question despite my lack of knowledge.
-
No, I don't suppose it could hurt. If a small minority did listen and changed their position, would they have any power to oppose those who would not listen? who are the few at the top? That is who we would need to convince. But as I said before, I consider NATSAP domestic terrorists. I do not think their opinions will change.
Yeah, but you can't kill em all, so you might as well try to change a few hearts and minds. What if some program owners actually listened to arguments about informed consent and decided their programs should be fully voluntary, open, and transparent. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's worth a shot.
-
Well, I believe it is all about money and power so if you can convince them that they will make more money using informed consent, voluntary treatment, they might go for it. But I don't think they have hearts.
-
Hi.. I would like tt participate in the thread, but it is hard to know what to say when you do not know who you are addressing, and what the purpose of the whole thing is.
Paul
-
Hi.. I would like to participate in the thread, but it is hard to know what to say when you do not know who you are addressing, and what the purpose of the whole thing is.
Paul
I'm not sure if you are asking what NATSAP is? Or the audience /members of the conference? Maybe this will help. Otherwise, just disregard.
http://www.natsap.org/conference.asp (http://www.natsap.org/conference.asp)
-
http://www.natsap.org/overview.asp (http://www.natsap.org/overview.asp)
Overview
The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP) was created in January of 1999 to serve as a national resource for programs and professionals assisting young people beleaguered by emotional and behavioral difficulties. The Association is governed by an elected, volunteer Board of Directors comprised of representatives from the NATSAP membership.
Membership In NATSAP
Membership in NATSAP is voluntary and is renewed annually. Our members include therapeutic schools, residential treatment programs, wilderness programs, outdoor therapeutic programs, young adult programs and home-based residential programs.
NATSAP requires the members of our organization to be licensed by the appropriate state agency authorized to set and oversee standards of therapeutic and/or behavioral healthcare for youth and adolescents or accredited by a nationally recognized behavioral health accreditation agency and to have therapeutic services with oversight by a qualified clinician.
NATSAP's Role In Placement
NATSAP members are independently operated and owned; therefore, NATSAP does not provide placement services.
Each young person has his or her own specific needs that must be determined in detail before placement in any program is appropriate. Since NATSAP has no means of determining the needs of young people whose counselors or families may be using the NATSAP directory and information on members, NATSAP does not recommend specific programs.
Information About Our Members
NATSAP publishes a directory annually to inform professionals, programs, and families about the many residential placement alternatives available to help struggling young people.
Listed alphabetically, the schools and programs in the Program Directory are diverse. The directory's listings offer a wide range of programmatic types, lengths of stay, and services to meet the needs of a variety of troubled young people.
Matching the services of a particular school or program to the specific needs of a young person is arguably the most important decision that will ever be made on behalf of that young person. The NATSAP directory is not intended by itself to supply enough information to make a placement. NATSAP encourages programs, professionals, and families to have appropriate academic and psychological testing conducted and to use multiple informational resources before suggesting or pursuing a placement for any young person in any program.
Professionals and parents seeking information on placement for a young person experiencing difficulties have access to the NATSAP Directory on this website. Searching the directory will return each relevant program's basic information, including contact sources.
Short Version
NATSAP = gimmick
-
What is the point of speaking to them? Do you really think they'd care what was done to you or what you have to say? I don't think so. I think they'll say that while YOU may not have responded well to their therapies 1,000s have, they'll say that what you hear on the net are exaggerations, and while there are isolated cases of abuse, they are rare. What they always say. These peoples' aims are money and power (over the individual) nothing else. They don't care.
-
I would go. Why not?
I would say this ;
America is a modern western democracy that believes in the rule of law and that all citizens have a right to due process. Thus by definition incarceration of any citizens particularly those who are underage, without trial or due process should have absolutely no place. It is bad enough that this industry is legally allowed to exist but the fact that it is large enough to have it’s own trade association is frightening.
For those of you who claim that you run a humane school or programme I congratulate you and ask the following questions. Do your children have free access to a phone line from their first day there? Can they send and receive mail without inspection from whoever they want from day one? Do they arrive at your facility having made it clear that they wish to attend? Are they somewhat aware of what an average day consists of before arriving? If you have answered yes to this question I would assume that they were not send to a wilderness program first and forced to choose between sleeping in the woods or attending your facility. Do your students have an option to go home for major holidays? Are those on medication consulted and given input into the program of medication they are on? If you are a school do your students get the option of playing team sports against other schools? Do they leave the school for field trips regularly? If they are over fifteen may they leave the school in small groups on weekends for at least a few hours at a time? Are students who fulfil the legal age requirement allowed a part time job for a few hours a week if they desire? If so do they get to keep all of the financial proceeds? May relatives come and visit and take them on outings during non school or therapy hours? May they choose to opt out of any therapeutic sessions that they feel are not beneficial to them? May they opt out of any religious ceremonies or bible readings without fear of penalty? Does your school refrain from corporal punishment? Does it refuse to restrain anyone or make them exercise as punishment?
If you have answered no to any of these questions you should take a long look at why. Because what you are running is a private jail. It may be physically nice to look at. But it is still a jail. You have no moral right to do this and with adults you have no legal right. While the state can try and minimise the harm you are doing by enacting laws that prosecute the most notorious abuses that have occurred within this industry, it seems it can’t convince the community that this practice is wrong. But it is. And anyone who makes their living in this way should be ashamed. So I urge you to stop. Stop preying upon worried parents, stop locking up their kids.
-
Bob and Inculcated, Thanks.
What I really wanted to know is who would be there and what the whole thing is about, but the people who have this info and started this thread apparently do not want to answer. Although it would be very tempting, it probably would not be worth it.
All the same, from what I have seen of what this stuff is about, I think I may lean towards agreeing with other posters
In fact, there is probably a better chance of them rubbing off on you, then you rubbing off on them.. That s just my point of veiw anyway. Thye base their careers on their point of veiw. I could be wrong, but I would say that the more friendly they are to you, the more cause for concern. You have to watch yourself that YOU do not start to slip.
I do think it is a very cool thing that Fornits was invited, though. It shows that they are getting noticed, and that the opposition, so to speak, feels their impact.
Congrats.
Paul
-
Well, there is good reason in the experiences of those gathered here to be skeptical.
I hope not to such a degree as pragmatism blurs into pessimism.
I think of the ripple effect of one person being reached by being reached out to and of what they in turn may share with others or spare a child from.
That said, my intuition would advise a healthy dose of paranoia. That, (should they choose to accept NATSAP’S invitation) Psy and Antigen would do well to bring security reps. as their plus ones.
-
I don t think that they will physically hurt them.. I only think that thye will try to sneakily draw them towards compromise.
Paul
-
and the thing about sneaky is that it does not appear sneaky
-
I don t think that they will physically hurt them.. I only think that thye will try to sneakily draw them towards compromise.Paul
I’m sure NATSAP as an organization poses no physical threat, and that there would be many among them who would want to influence Fornit’s administrators to compromise their respective causes.
That’s nothing to back down from. Such a challenge is an opportunity.
and the thing about sneaky is that it does not appear sneaky
…and the wonderful thing about Tiggers is that Tiggers are wonderful things… Oh, don’t mind me and the free association…I’m tweaking my meds.
:nods:
:rose:
-
I hear ya.. I know what you are saying, and again, I am not sure that I am right.
My point is this- Do they really care what Fornits has to say. I doubt it.. unless they know something I don t know, which is why i made my inquiries b4 waisting the time trying to write a post wiuthout knowing what iit is all about and who you are talking to.
So now if they do not really care, why invite them. Look, there are challenges everywhere! I can t seem to look iny possible direction, without seeing infintie amounts of challenges, but you have to pick your battles.
I do not know anything about this. I am going with what little I could gather from this boards.
If it were me.. I don t know... Maybe I d go... But only if I was ready and prepared.
Anything like this can go either way. You would have to be dead on focussed, and confident.
You would have to know what you are going say, and have only that in your mind. You are going to be smiling with and shaking hands with these people prior to going up b4 them and telling them that their whole lives is a joke.
I would probably have to include something like " Many of the people working in these programs may be redeemable, but your programs are not!" How do you think they would respond to that? Honestly, I could put a hole in the room, that would probably have these fuckers crying at night.
But that is me.. That is what I think I can do. Someone going, in my opinion, should have that mindset, before going, because the ripple effect that you speak of works in both directions!
Basically, you have to be like a trojan horse. They have thought far ahead. You have to think further ahead.
But again, I am not even completly sure what I am talking about, becuase I do not know who is being addressed and whose interests are involved here.
Paul
-
I would use concrete examples of situations that their members have been involved in. Psy, you're in an ideal position to speak from your personal experience at Benchmark. There are examples such as what happened with Mount Bachelor Academy that are well documented. This is where it would be really helpful to have a lawer, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist speaking with you to put a lie to the fact that what they do is acceptable, either as treatment or under the law. Have your references ready.
Put them on the spot to defend their practices.
Ask them what research they have to show the long-term impact of their "treatment".
Referencing the C.S. Lewis quote, there are certainly robber barons in this industry, I suspect that most however are those that torment with the approval of their conscience. I think you can at least make a dent, at a minimum get a few programs to rethink their practices and make the experience of the youth in their "care" a little less traumatizing. At this point a good chunk of the industry are third generation disciples of Lifespring and twentieth generation disciples of Boys Town. They do what they do because they don't know another way, or it affects their bottom line too much to do otherwise.
The previous posters are right, they'll view this as opportunity to convince you of their rightness, their acknowledgement of their previous trangressions, how they're "different" than the abusive programs. Stick to the facts and your experiences.
-
I don’t see how anyone could convince someone like psy or antigen of the “rightness” of this system. In their shoes I would go as far as to acknowledge that not every school or facility tortures and starves or beats kids, though so many do, but that is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not it is ok to detain a citizen, particularly an underage one without trial for any length of time. It is not. International law says it is not. Every other comparable western democracy in the world says it is not. When he shut gitmo, Obama himself said it is not.
You can have a prison that is like the Bellagio but if those there are there against their will and someone is limiting their access to the outside world, or forcing them through therapeutic processes that they want no part of or drugging them against their will, then it is not OK. This is really a simple concept & I would love to see the looks on the faces of the NATSAP people if someone went to their convention and calmly stated this.
-
I don’t see how anyone could convince someone like psy or antigen of the “rightness” of this system. In their shoes I would go as far as to acknowledge that not every school or facility tortures and starves or beats kids, though so many do, but that is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not it is ok to detain a citizen, particularly an underage one without trial for any length of time. It is not. International law says it is not. Every other comparable western democracy in the world says it is not. When he shut gitmo, Obama himself said it is not.
You can have a prison that is like the Bellagio but if those there are there against their will and someone is limiting their access to the outside world, or forcing them through therapeutic processes that they want no part of or drugging them against their will, then it is not OK. This is really a simple concept & I would love to see the looks on the faces of the NATSAP people if someone went to their convention and calmly stated this.
I agree with you 100 percent. I really couldn t agree more. In fact, almost everyone agrees with you, excpet that there are 2 underlying issues.
The first is children. Do the rights of a person necessarily belong to children always? To many they do not. Daytop never tried to hold adults. they hold children though.
And it usually is not the programs holding them, it is something else holding them there- their school, their parents, the law, etc.
As far as the international law thing, there are many similar places in as far as I know, every country, and most of them are worse then the ones here, so this is just another example where people do not see that as applying to this situation.
The other issue, is drug- addicts. many people think that they are getting what they deserve, and do not care about life anyway. Of course, you and I know this is false.
That which you said should be stated there, is not new to them, and they will have one million and one responses.
I do not think that they could really change Psy or Antigen's mind either. I do not know much of Psy, but Antigen would probably die for beliefs IMHO.
Again, I do not know what they were invited for, but I just don't see that they would invite them, in hopes that they could be proven wrong. It just does not make any sense to me whatsoever.
Maybe this goes real good. they are told that they had an impact on many people. It went so good, they will continue to invite them to other engagemnts. Is this an accomplishment, or they just moving closer to them...
This is in their house, at their request. i am just curios of their motive. Honestly, I do not care what they do. they are adults, and they can look after themselves. I was just voicing an opinion and got swept in this dialogue, after deciding not to post anything.
Now, from what I have read, their will be program leaders there. Is it possible to get something across to some of them perhaps.. Again, I do not know the situation. Perhaps, this organization agrees with many of Fornits ideas, or is tired of getting a bad rap, and has the same hopes as those , that Fornits-staff can convey an idea to some of these people. I don t know.
Either way, I think it is good that Fornits caught their attention. I think that that is a very big deal.
Paul
-
I would use concrete examples of situations that their members have been involved in. Psy, you're in an ideal position to speak from your personal experience at Benchmark.
The irony is that if I did, it would likely be in front of Benchmark staff, Jayne, and dozens of ed-cons. Anybody have a bulletproof vest I can borrow?
Ginger suggested I start this thread to brainstorm some ideas, some of which we've already discussed. Oz has some great suggestions, and with permission, i'd like to use some of that if and when we speak.
-
sorry, i disagree with oz girl's "definitions" - they do not define the problem. many programs do not have fences or walls or forced PHYSICAL incarceration yet do trememdous damage to kids.
-
sorry, i disagree with oz girl's "definitions" - they do not define the problem. many programs do not have fences or walls or forced PHYSICAL incarceration yet do trememdous damage to kids.
I said portions. Her long list of questions, specifically. Thought reform, informed consent, social structure of a program, power imbalance, ethics of disclosure, LGATs, and self determination would be included as topics as well.
-
Psy and Antigen would do well to bring security reps. as their plus ones.
If Myself or Antigen get knocked off, it'll look real real bad for them (sort of making martyrs out of us, which they don't want). It's more likely they'll try and spy on us in order to try and blackmale us (which is sort of pointless since there is nothing we have to hide).
-
Could Fornits folk speaking at a NATSAP conference be twisted into the idea that Fornits folk believe that NATSAP is legitimate?
Example:
I was once put on an advisory board for our county school system after I got out of KHK as a student advisor. I went to all of the meetings only to realize that nothing I said carried any weight and I was only there to give the appearance that the teenage population had a voice about what went on with county/school politics. I was used to make the board appear more inclusionary and any input I gave was laughed at and shot down behind the closed doors of the meetings.
If you go, you will be on their turf, so to speak. They will have all of the control as far as I can tell. It would be like agreeing to go on the "Rush Limabaugh show" in which every time you would try to make a valid point, your audio feed would be cut off and a long rant diverting from your point would redirect the attention from anyone smart enough to question. At such a venue, there is no fair debate because the discourse is controlled by one side. At the end of the day, NATSAP can then claim that you were invited by them which can be used as ammunition to show just how fair they are and if you complain about not being given a fair shot at explaining, you will be ridiculed and laughed at as the radicals they wish to portray you as.
I would be very careful and learn the details about whatever invitation was extended by them. I would say it is more likely they are setting some type of trap rather than wishing to hear your perspectives. Fornits is hurting their bottom line and they want you to go away. If they can't force you, maybe they'll try another tactic. Someone previously mentioned Fornits being a trojan horse but it sounds more like the trojan horse has already been offered by NATSAP.
Any attempt to communicate with Fornits will only be set up for their benefit, remember that. Their goal is not to improve anything for kids. If that were the case, I doubt they would ask people from Fornits. I think this is an attempt to silence critics and exposers so they can increase enrollment and profit margins.
-
All the same, from what I have seen of what this stuff is about, I think I may lean towards agreeing with other posters. In fact, there is probably a better chance of them rubbing off on you, then you rubbing off on them.. That s just my point of veiw anyway. Thye base their careers on their point of veiw. I could be wrong, but I would say that the more friendly they are to you, the more cause for concern. You have to watch yourself that YOU do not start to slip.
That's good advice, but I don't think that's very likely. I already know what they believe and why they believe it. It's they who label us druggies and so forth. If we come off as sane and make arguments they understand... open their minds a little... who knows. Let's not forget most of these people live in their own little bubble. Our goal would be to punch a few holes and inject some new ideas.
-
Could Fornits folk speaking at a NATSAP conference be twisted into the idea that Fornits folk believe that NATSAP is legitimate?
Fornits, itself, is a forum. If Antigen and myself appear, it will not be in an "official" capacity as some sort of Fornits Official Ambassadors... Just as posters... Just like anybody else here. Any attempt to paint Fornits itself as having an opinion on anything is absurd... Just as absurd as claiming a blank piece of paper has an opinion. They could try, but it would fail, and we'll leave it at that.
-
I hear ya.. I know what you are saying, and again, I am not sure that I am right.
My point is this- Do they really care what Fornits has to say. I doubt it.. unless they know something I don t know, which is why i made my inquiries b4 waisting the time trying to write a post wiuthout knowing what iit is all about and who you are talking to.
So now if they do not really care, why invite them. Look, there are challenges everywhere! I can t seem to look iny possible direction, without seeing infintie amounts of challenges, but you have to pick your battles.
I do not know anything about this. I am going with what little I could gather from this boards.
If it were me.. I don t know... Maybe I d go... But only if I was ready and prepared.
Anything like this can go either way. You would have to be dead on focussed, and confident.
You would have to know what you are going say, and have only that in your mind. You are going to be smiling with and shaking hands with these people prior to going up b4 them and telling them that their whole lives is a joke.
I would probably have to include something like " Many of the people working in these programs may be redeemable, but your programs are not!" How do you think they would respond to that? Honestly, I could put a hole in the room, that would probably have these fuckers crying at night.
But that is me.. That is what I think I can do. Someone going, in my opinion, should have that mindset, before going, because the ripple effect that you speak of works in both directions!
Basically, you have to be like a trojan horse. They have thought far ahead. You have to think further ahead.
But again, I am not even completly sure what I am talking about, becuase I do not know who is being addressed and whose interests are involved here.
Paul
Very good advice nonetheless.
-
Referencing the C.S. Lewis quote, there are certainly robber barons in this industry, I suspect that most however are those that torment with the approval of their conscience. I think you can at least make a dent, at a minimum get a few programs to rethink their practices and make the experience of the youth in their "care" a little less traumatizing. At this point a good chunk of the industry are third generation disciples of Lifespring and twentieth generation disciples of Boys Town. They do what they do because they don't know another way, or it affects their bottom line too much to do otherwise.
This is the core of what Antigen and I were discussing earlier. The robber barons are out of reach. The ones that torment with the approval of their own conscience can, in theory, be affected if they start to view what they are doing as at least in part just plain wrong. We want to cause them to question and to doubt what they "know" to be true.
-
I just can't seem to get away from the notion that NATSAP isn't going to be swayed by reason. I don't think you can sit down with terrorists and say," hey guys, here's why what you are doing is wrong". I don't think they hold capacity to understand a point of view they don't already have. If they are aware of Fornits, they are aware of the widespread abuse that they protect and would have done something about it by now.
If anything, it seems that NATSAP wants to learn from you how to better hide from....well, people like you/us as well as the public.
Will any media be there? Would you be given an allotted amount of time to make your case? These things would change my opinion completely.
-
Psy- Sure take what you want from it. That would be great.
Paul St John- You raise some interesting points. Of course children to not share all of the rights of adults because they don't have the maturity to handle the responsibility that goes with it. But to me this is exactly why this industry is so very wrong because it abuses the responsibility that we hold as adults. I think in s way it also makes encourages a certain lazyness when it comes to adult responsibility. The idea that a parent has a kid that they are struggling with and that in some cases the school community is struggling with & they can warehouse them for a fee to be fixed is distasteful to me. I think adult owe their kids more than that.
Good parents and even regular boarding schools occasionally ground teenagers for a few weeks or remove priviledges like cell phones and video games but this is different to isolating them for extended periods of time. Usually even a grounded kid goes to school or if they are boarders still get to contact family unmonitored and uncensored.
I am not aware of any other countries in the oecd or the western democratic world that do have private for profit places like this that parents can independently send kids to. I know of dictatorships like china that have military boot camps, or of developing countries who have places like this opened by US citizens for mainly American students. Having said that I fear that this concept can spread which is why I think it is important to raise the issue of international law.
As to drug addiction I understand why parents feel they should do whatever it takes to get their kid sober on one level but then on another i don't get why isolation from family is seen as the answer. If mine were dealing with either a mental illness, eating disorder or an addiction so great that they had to live in some sort of hospital or institution for a time, I would feel the need to visit them more not less. I would want the whole family and most of their friends giving them as much love and support as necessary. I would want close knowledge of exactly what sort of therapy they were getting and how they felt the were doing. This cant happen if they are locked away.
-
I just can't seem to get away from the notion that NATSAP isn't going to be swayed by reason. I don't think you can sit down with terrorists and say," hey guys, here's why what you are doing is wrong". I don't think they hold capacity to understand a point of view they don't already have. If they are aware of Fornits, they are aware of the widespread abuse that they protect and would have done something about it by now.
If anything, it seems that NATSAP wants to learn from you how to better hide from....well, people like you/us as well as the public.
Will any media be there? Would you be given an allotted amount of time to make your case? These things would change my opinion completely.
Natsap is worse than any "terrorist." A lot of the so called terrorists have some pretty reasonable grievances.
If any "activist" goes their presence will be used to make NATSAP look like it is addressing the “abuse problem.” And by extension you will give NATSAP integrity of some kind. These people have their own agendas. Why further them?
On the other hand, if anyone wants to go armed with powerful explosives, or fast acting poisonous gas weaponry, or can figure out how to poison the catering.....
-
On the other hand, if anyone wants to go armed with powerful explosives, or fast acting poisonous gas weaponry, or can figure out how to poison the catering.....
Which, like terrorism, would do anything but generate sympathy for a cause. Can't kill em all. Might as well try to convince them to at least open their minds a tiny bit about some critical issues. I don't expect it to end the industry or even convince anybody to quit their job, but if it makes the life of even one kid easier, I think it's worth it.
-
WD tony i dont think convincing them is really the test here. Of course none of those assholes are going to turn around, admit they are wrong and close their schools and programs. But they have asked for a representative to give a view so I say give it to them. Who knows, maybe there will be parent in the audience who was already sceptical. Even if this is not the case just calling them on their own bs would be fun.
-
Geeezzz... Personally, I think they are just fishing for expression of what our points of contention are, so that they can articulate refuting arguments. It'll all appear later as a watered-down "Essay" on Struggling Teens with a title like "Troubled anti-program activists weigh in with suggestions." I can't really see any good coming out of it, at least not in the foreseeable future (maybe I'm just real down on everything tonight).
On the other hand, it'll send a bad message if nobody goes, given that an invitation was extended. So... it would be probably be best to go. Btw, who was invited? Ginger? Or fornits personages in general?
-
Geeezzz... Personally, I think they are just fishing for expression of what our points of contention are, so that they can articulate refuting arguments. It'll all appear later as a watered-down "Essay" on Struggling Teens with a title like "Troubled anti-program activists weigh in with suggestions." I can't really see any good coming out of it, at least not in the foreseeable future (maybe I'm just real down on everything tonight).
On the other hand, it'll send a bad message if nobody goes, given that an invitation was extended. So... it would be probably be best to go. Btw, who was invited? Ginger? Or fornits personages in general?
I mostly agree with you Ursus. And I like the way you put it. It is unclear as to what the details are, such as who was invited or what the whole plan will be. I can see how it might be "fun" to go and speak out at them but I don't think it would be effective in stopping this abusive industry or saving even one kid. It may hinder efforts to save kids, who knows?
I do disagree with you on one point though. I don't think it would send a bad message if NATSAP's request was denied. I think it would send a message to them that "those Fornits people asked to attend" are intelligent enough not to fall for their trap and that we don't negotiate with terrorists. If anything, NATSAP should be invited to hold a press conference where the alloted times are equal and a fair, unbiased look at the facts can be attained. But they will never agree to that.
I don't know why certain individuals were invited, but we do know that these NATSAP people are NOT to be trusted. Come on people, where is that post-program caution that has amplified our intuition? Sometimes people change and sometimes people can "get along", but NATSAP and the like are not those people. Program directors and those who protect their illegal activities are the exact people who cannot change, but only appear to change. They are mentally ill, sociopaths or have some psychological impairment that prevents them from applying reason. On top of that, they are very intelligent and therefore dangerous. So, no I do not trust them at all.
I do not agree with any illegal activities or violence suggested earlier in this thread. Even if it is a joke or blowing off steam, this is not a tactful way to communicate frustration. I would also encourage people to refrain from any of these activities. This type of action will not help to eliminate abuse in programs and would most probably create a radical image which can only be of benefit to these programs.
If anyone goes, proceed with caution, say very little and have a plan, A, B, C, and D before you go. I agree with what Mr. Lombrowski wrote. Be prepared with professionals that can scientifically support your concerns, if you go. You guys are smart and will know what to do, I am confident of that.
That's all I can think of right now. Good luck in any event!
Goodnight'
-
If you have an opportunity to speak at NATSAP, do it.
The people you need to get to are the edons, more than anything. They are the ones the parents listen to.
Don't believe you are not having an effect. There are TBS's who are already changing thier programs to disinclude old synanon stuff and to add only licensed therapists because of your watchdog work. Places where they don't "accept" everyone and refer students elsewhere if they don't feel they can handle them, where the students are free to leave if they do not want to commit to staying, regardless of whether or not the parents want them to stay.
You want to get to the NATSAP people, because they are the ones the adolescent psychiatrists send the parents to see when it is determined the child needs a placement. You may not get rid of programs, there is a percieved need for them in this country where parents can be sent to prison for thier children being overwieght or having a beer party at thier house, but you could effect the methods of treatment, which are already changing at the 'better' places, and that might be a valuabe goal, to start with.
Stay with the facts and the research--no emotional appeals. Psy, in particular, is very clear on the origins of the less effective treatment methods and the discredited nature of a lot of those methods.
The next group you need to find a way to address is the adolescent psychiatrists, because regardless of what you might think, they really are refering kids to these places, and you need to make it clear that many do not have lisenced therapists on board, though, these days, many more do.
Good luck. I don't believe you will get rid of TBS's, but I do believe you could have an effect on the treatment methods, and I believe your work already has influenced some programs in a positive way, to include lisenced staff and to get rid of restraint, and at least some of the double-bind, break them down techniques from the past.
-
Oh, and pys--as they move more and more towards regulating these places, I really hope you will involve yourself in this, as a professional.
I know that outsider status can be really appealing, and I really do 'get' that, but I also think involving yourself on the inside, getting legitimate political power, which obviously, you have already gotten a certain amount of respect, and you two ought to consider getting involved politically from the inside to effect real change in this industry. Children cannot speak for themselves, politically. Parents, by the time they are being refered to these places by psychiatrists are absolutely desperate and therefore really cannot speak for themselves. Somebody who is calm, educated and dispassionate could really have an incredible effect on the nature of these places and on what is being offered, as well.
I know you probably want to believe you can eliminate the TBS's completely, but I don't believe it can be done. There is a long tradition of super-successful leaders emerging from military schools (where they were sent for being discipline problems as kids). I think this is simply the "military school" of the times, and people like you could really change things.
-
Oh, and pys--as they move more and more towards regulating these places, I really hope you will involve yourself in this, as a professional.
I don't support regulation as I think it'll provide a false sense of security and legitimizes forced treatment (among other reasons). What I support is the absolute abolition of forced treatment (meaning fully informed consent) wherever it is and regardless of age.
Think about it. In most states, minors can refuse medical treatment without consent. The only reason why programs are permitted to do this is because they like to pass themselves off as "boarding schools" or their "therapy" as "education". They want to have the best of both worlds and skate around the law.
This isn't even touching on the fact that, regardless of ethics, forced treatment just plain does not work in the long term. These program (often unwittingly, since they've forgotten where they learned their methods) practice thought reform, not therapy, which produces dramatic short term results, but in the long term, often leave significant permanent scarring. Let's not forget that the results of these "treatments" don't only affect minors. They last long into adulthood as these kids grow up.
-
I have no interest, at all, in arguing for or against these places. I am aware that incredible damage has been done here, and nobody needs to read this forum for more than about five minutes to realize a lot of these poster's are adults and that they are still in pain over what happened to them at these "schools." That's not why I posted.
I posted simply because I can see that you are already making a difference, even if it is not the way you want to make a difference, and just to encourage you to continue. (Though I really doubt you need my encouragement for that, anyway.) Also, I know that powerful people, who effect real change, frequently work both inside and outside of systems. I 'get' your perspective, however, and I do believe that forced treatment assists noone.
I think, however, you are sometimes misguided and believe it is only edcons who are referring to these places and it is not. Pychiatrists, well-respected pyschiatrists, refer to them, as well. Granted this is to "schools" where kids can leave and places where they are not "held," but some of these places where kids do get kicked out pretty regularly, still use at least some of the methods you abhor (rightfully so), and these were the institutions I was thinking you might infuence and already have begun to influence.
Whether or not these places will all ultimately shut down is up for debate, though very improbable, honestly, however HOW they operate and how they treat, seems to be something they are beginning to reflect on, to at least some extent, and partially because of the work you have done, collectively, to get this in front of congress and the senate and state agencies, as well.
good luck with your mission. I'm sure if anyone can make that happen, it would be you guys.
-
I think, however, you are sometimes misguided and believe it is only edcons who are referring to these places and it is not. Pychiatrists, well-respected pyschiatrists, refer to them, as well. Granted this is to "schools" where kids can leave and places where they are not "held," but some of these places where kids do get kicked out pretty regularly, still use at least some of the methods you abhor (rightfully so), and these were the institutions I was thinking you might infuence and already have begun to influence.
Calo parent? I sense something slithery...
Psychiatrists also refer to lock down "schools." We do not influence these groups to change their methods; we make it more difficult for them to get away with their methods, because our numbers make it impossible for them to effectively deny their existence, which leads to successful lawsuits which, every 30 years or so, leads to a closing. Then the staff-cult disciples pick up and start a new gulag in which they claim everything is different and do the whole thing over again.
-
I think, however, you are sometimes misguided and believe it is only edcons who are referring to these places and it is not. Pychiatrists, well-respected pyschiatrists, refer to them, as well.
It depends on what you mean by "well-respected" (Fr. Phil, for example, is not actually a licensed shrink), but yes, I do realize this. Mostly, it's out of ignorance. I agree that they need to be better educated. School guidance counselors would be another good target for education.
-
Think about it. In most states, minors can refuse medical treatment without consent. The only reason why programs are permitted to do this is because they like to pass themselves off as "boarding schools" or their "therapy" as "education". They want to have the best of both worlds and skate around the law.
This isn't even touching on the fact that, regardless of ethics, forced treatment just plain does not work in the long term. These program (often unwittingly, since they've forgotten where they learned their methods) practice thought reform, not therapy, which produces dramatic short term results, but in the long term, often leave significant permanent scarring. Let's not forget that the results of these "treatments" don't only affect minors. They last long into adulthood as these kids grow up.
Granted this is to "schools" where kids can leave and places where they are not "held," but some of these places where kids do get kicked out pretty regularly, still use at least some of the methods you abhor (rightfully so), and these were the institutions I was thinking you might infuence and already have begun to influence.
Whether or not these places will all ultimately shut down is up for debate, though very improbable, honestly, however HOW they operate and how they treat, seems to be something they are beginning to reflect on, to at least some extent, and partially because of the work you have done, collectively, to get this in front of congress and the senate and state agencies, as well.
The difference between forced treatment, lack of informed consent, and thought reform may be merely academic, if you happen to be a kid that was severely damaged by one of these programs or "schools." In fact, sometimes the more subtle way of doing such business results in greater damage than a more overtly abusive program could effect. I'll tell you flat out that had I gone to a WWASPS or similar type of program, I would assuredly have been far less messed up -- and still am, to this very day -- than I was and am as a result of where I ended up going, which was Hyde "School."
-
Guest--
I'm not a "calo" parent.
I'm a mental health professional. I do not refer to these "schools" nor do I refer to edcons who refer to these "schools." "First do no harm."
But, the truth is that some do, and not the unlicensed or un-credible, either. There are some pretty well-respected psychiatrists who recommend placements at these places, out of ignorance, as psy pointed out.
The first time I ran across these places I was actually hoping to find a placement for a couple of kids who imo were not mentally ill, but they were acting up in self-destructive ways. The parents were not abusive or even neglectful, just ill-equiped to handle some very bright, very sensitive kids who were not fitting in very well at the local school or in the local community. I knew all they needed was some time to grow up and a little bit of homework supervision. A colleague recommended a TBS. I can say that I when I looked into what these places were doing, I thought it would be damaging and recommended some normal boarding schools for them, the kind with a telephone in the room and christmas and spring and summer breaks. It turned out just fine.
That was when I first encountered this industry. Since then, though, I have really become aware than my colleagues do refer. And I'm really not talking about mail order psy D's here, either, I'm talking full on, highly ranked medical school graduates. This is the only reason I feel speaking to these kinds of groups would be useful.
As a mental health professional I wish they were better regulated and overseen though, mostly just because as the laws become harsher and harsher regarding holding parents legally responsible for adolescent acting out, these places become attractive to people who would never have considered them even twenty years ago. So, to me, it's very frightening. I'm glad you will be heard. I hope you will find a way to be heard even more often by people who make these kinds of choices when it comes to kids.
That's all.
As I said, good luck. I hope maybe you could do more than a law suit every 30 years. Maybe now that Congrss and the Senate are looking into it more closely, you can have some better result.
I won't be back. I have my own work to focus on and I'm not a vested party in this conversation. I'll keep giving my negative opinion to my colleagues. You keep giving yours.
-
I won't be back.
See. That frustrates me to a certain extent. Sometimes it seems as if half the time an interesting, well educated poster comes on here, it's only for an all too brief period of time. Regardless... I appreciate your encouragement, input and the good you have done by educating your colleagues.
-
Btw, who was invited? Ginger? Or fornits personages in general?
Ginger and myself. We have to arrange and fund transportation ourselves, though, so it's not like they're giving us anything in return or in any way compensating us (I just want to make that clear). If you're willing to come, though, it might be possible to arrange that. Your knowledge and research on the history of TCs is second to none. Even if you're not able to attend, I'll definitely be asking for your input.
-
I do disagree with you on one point though. I don't think it would send a bad message if NATSAP's request was denied. I think it would send a message to them that "those Fornits people asked to attend" are intelligent enough not to fall for their trap and that we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Talking to/with is not the same as negotiating. If information can be shared that can reduce harm to the kids even a little without compromising anybody's values, it's worth doing.
-
For whats its worth:
Well, I will not name names, but I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
The University of Michigan is also well respected in the mental health field. The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think. If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
-
I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
Bullshit
The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think.
Bullshit
If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
Bullshit
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
Bullshit
-
Well then, reject the info and keep your hands over your ears, singing La La La as loud as you can and continue down the same path you have been going the past decade.
Hows that been working for you so far?
-
"I will not name names but I can tell you this is happening" is an immediate red flag. What is your statistical sample? How many people have you talked to? Because I've read enough Fornits to know that the words "my shrink recommended" almost never enter into it.
If real psychiatrists were actually referring to these hellholes en masse, we would see some gloating of it from the programmie side of things, naming names to promote themselves. We don't. We see uneducated edcons, not even claiming to have a lot education most of the time, receiving kickbacks instead. So all we have is your naked word that this is happening, in contradiction to all available evidence and common sense.
The education level of programmies is no greater than it was 20 years ago in the slightest. Diploma mills, unrelated degrees ("divinity", lol), and complete undereducation remain the norm.
There are no "people at the top" when it comes to this, by the way; real psychiatrists don't rank themselves and the APA has actually issued statements AGAINST this kind of "treatment". CAFETY link (http://http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=35)
Your attempt to redirect the energy of Fornits, which is apparently hurting you a LOT, has failed. Try again next universe.
-
Well then, reject the info and keep your hands over your ears, singing La La La as loud as you can and continue down the same path you have been going the past decade.
Hows that been working for you so far?
Let me translate: "La La La" = "Ha Ha Ha" Guess Who? (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16007&start=3750#p335137)
Just log in for Chrissakes, Who.
-
We see uneducated edcons
My point exactly. That is you only focus. Yes they do the lions share of the placements but the credibility is coming from top people in the field who are promoting Therapeutic Boarding Schools as a solution to dealing with “at risk” youths. If you really believe that uneducated edcons are driving this industry then you are missing the boat big time.
-
We see uneducated edcons
My point exactly. That is you only focus. Yes they do the lions share of the placements but the credibility is coming from top people in the field who are promoting Therapeutic Boarding Schools as a solution to dealing with “at risk” youths. If you really believe that uneducated edcons are driving this industry then you are missing the boat big time.
Man, The Who is in such a rush to post about himself in his thread that his spelling and grammar fell apart in this other thread he's trying to troll at the same time. Tighten up, Who. You can do better than this. "You're missing the boat"? WTF?? You traded in "Raped kids are funny" for "You're missing the boat"? Dude, you're losing it. You have a rep around here to live up to, man. This don't cut it.
-
For whats its worth:
Well, I will not name names, but I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
The University of Michigan is also well respected in the mental health field. The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think. If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
I am curious ... why the University of Michigan? Is it an academic center you are most familiar with, or is it specifically Michigan for other reasons? I am not a mental health professional, so I really have no clue. I can see that they certainly have a vast medical system...
This may be a bit of a stretch, and perhaps but of peripheral relevance, but I did find it interesting that the Research Center for Group Dynamics (originally at MIT) set up shop at the University of Michigan after Kurt Lewin died... And that the social psychology program of Michigan's Department of Psychology was housed within the RCGD 'till about 14 years ago...
At the time Kurt Lewin died, if I recall correctly, he and the RCGD were in the middle of setting up National Training Labs in Bethel, Maine. That project continued after his death. NTL has enjoyed considerable collaboration and philosophical alliance with the Tavistock Institute in the UK. Tavistock, if you recall, is where the first intentional therapeutic communities are alleged to have been created, i.e., during the Northfield Experiments (1939, 1942), for the purpose of returning psychologically scarred soldiers back onto the battlefield, rather than home on psych leave.
lol... Talk about TC origins...
-
For whats its worth:
Well, I will not name names, but I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
The University of Michigan is also well respected in the mental health field. The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think. If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
I am curious ... why the University of Michigan? Is it an academic center you are most familiar with, or is it specifically Michigan for other reasons? I am not a mental health professional, so I really have no clue. I can see that they certainly have a vast medical system...
Is it of potential relevance that the Research Center for Group Dynamics (originally at MIT) set up shop at the University of Michigan after Kurt Lewin died? Or that the social psychology program of Michigan's Department of Psychology was housed within the RCGD 'till about 14 years ago?
Ask if her name is "Anne" or "Ottawa5". Will she name those names
-
I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
Bullshit
The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think.
Bullshit
If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
Bullshit
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
Bullshit
Gues, guest speaks the truth. I was refered (to my death) by acredited, properly educated srhinks.
-
For whats its worth:
Well, I will not name names, but I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
The University of Michigan is also well respected in the mental health field. The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think. If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
I am curious ... why the University of Michigan? Is it an academic center you are most familiar with, or is it specifically Michigan for other reasons? I am not a mental health professional, so I really have no clue. I can see that they certainly have a vast medical system...
Is it of potential relevance that the Research Center for Group Dynamics (originally at MIT) set up shop at the University of Michigan after Kurt Lewin died? Or that the social psychology program of Michigan's Department of Psychology was housed within the RCGD 'till about 14 years ago?
I actually don’t know, I am not a mental health professional either. I believe it is well respected and prominent. I have spoken of my contact at University of Michigan to others in the field and the response and conversation that develops lends me to believe that it is a center for the field (one of many maybe) but a center and important one none the less. I don’t have many friends in the field but have noticed that when I mention I have a relative who has a private practice, is a professor and lectures at the university of Michigan I get a response which leads me to the above conclusion. Someone in the field may know the answer. Maybe it is his name and not the University which seems to demand attention.
Any readers want to respond, or maybe Dysfunction Junction would know. I would be curious to know more myself.
-
For whats its worth:
Well, I will not name names, but I can tell you that top Adolescent and child mental health professionals from the University of Michigan and affiliated colleges support, recommend and openly speak of Therapeutic Boarding Schools as viable solutions to families with children who fall within the “at risk” category.
The University of Michigan is also well respected in the mental health field. The people who recommend these places are not the back alley rubber stamp doctors that many think. If you look at the credentials of the directors of programs 20 years ago and then look today you will see that their education level has risen considerably are more respected by their colleagues and have moved towards a more clinical approach in their program modeling.
In order to effect change in this area you need to get the ear of some of these people at the top.
I am curious ... why the University of Michigan? Is it an academic center you are most familiar with, or is it specifically Michigan for other reasons? I am not a mental health professional, so I really have no clue. I can see that they certainly have a vast medical system...
This may be a bit of a stretch, and perhaps but of peripheral relevance, but I did find it interesting that the Research Center for Group Dynamics (originally at MIT) set up shop at the University of Michigan after Kurt Lewin died... And that the social psychology program of Michigan's Department of Psychology was housed within the RCGD 'till about 14 years ago...
At the time Kurt Lewin died, if I recall correctly, he and the RCGD were in the middle of setting up National Training Labs in Bethel, Maine. That project continued after his death. NTL has enjoyed considerable collaboration and philosophical alliance with the Tavistock Institute in the UK. Tavistock, if you recall, is where the first intentional therapeutic communities are alleged to have been created, i.e., during the Northfield Experiments (1939, 1942), for the purpose of returning psychologically scarred soldiers back onto the battlefield, rather than home on psych leave.
lol... Talk about TC origins...
BETTER QUOTE. I think Ursus went back in to edit and got quoted before his edited submit.
-
Ask if her name is "Anne" or "Ottawa5". Will she name those names
You're thinking of Anne From Minnesota (ST name for Ottawa5). She was a big CEDU fan before she got her license to practice (assuming she's telling the truth that she actually has one). She's also a big fan of Landmark Forum (EST), though considering how much she was a fan of Mel Wasserman's seminars, there is really no surprise there.
-
I know I said I would not be back, but that was primarily to avoid this kind of thing. However I really think it's important to clarify some things here.
1. This business is not being "promoted" by psychiatrists on any level as the best solution for "at risk" teens.
2. The Cafety post, while good, is not really a statement by the APA condeming TBS's, but types of treatments and tortures...
3. Some of these places have pyschologists on board who are fully affiliated with the APA.
4. The APA is an organization which NEEDS to be educated about what these places really do and the types of "therapies" they use and the discredited nature of these therapies, which is why I hope people like Psy and now, I think, Ursus, really need to be out there doing some educational work, citing studies, in as dispassionate a way as possible. The less emotion the better in this case. And no words like "bullshit" because they make you less credible, whether they should or should not.
5. Nobody is referring anyone "en masse" anywhere. Psychiatrists do not make placements all the time, or even all that often, so there is no way they could be driving this business. I was simply saying they sometimes do. Sometimes. In my opinion, that's too many times.
But don't turn this into some kind of thing where people are not trying to say this is a good solution to teen issues, because I don't really think anyone is on record here saying it is.
The other thing, to the antagonistic poster. I'm sure you felt offended, but it is really important to remember here that these are people who have been damaged in unimaginable ways by this industry. Some of them seem to have lost thier lives to this. Of course they are angry and suspicious. It only makes sense.
I hope you guys will put together as much relevent scientific evidence as you can, as many case studies as you can get ahold of, and get this information out there in the most professional and credible way that you can. In addition to everything else you are doing, I think it would help your cause.
Now, I really am leaving. (Unless someone tries to turn this into some sort of endorsement or something. In which case I suppose I'll be back to be clear again that I am a NO! vote on this stuff.) And a yes vote at the very least for exceeding stringent oversight.
-
4. The APA is an organization which NEEDS to be educated about what these places really do and the types of "therapies" they use and the discredited nature of these therapies...
My guess is that the APA is a hard nut to crack. Perhaps not even crackable. If they were split down the middle when it came time to absorb the info Margaret's Singer's group was going to present on cults, my guess is that they will be similarly divided when it comes to this stuff. Which is, I might add, probably not a mere coincidence.
-
Does anyone here remember that poster named Paul?
-
Does anyone here remember that poster named Paul?
I do, seems like it was just two pages ago...
-
Does anyone here remember that poster named Paul?
I do, seems like it was just two pages ago...
Why do you ask?
-
What would you say? If there is even a chance that one or two people in the audience will listen, that their hearts can be changed... What would you say?
That the industry they represent should be working towards its own obliteration and, until that day comes, their members must adhere to best practices, human rights (youth and people with disabilities), rights under IDEA (least-restrictive), and not accept any young person that can receive services in the community (which should be most every youth). If they need money, they should go in the business of helping kids in their community. Institutionalization, regardless of the title, is archaic and dated and violates both the right of youth and those with disabilities.
-
(http://http://pl.b5z.net/i/u/6070324/i/Inert_Suicide_Vest_-_Type_1_thumb_ezr.JPG)
Just my .2 cents.
-
At the time Kurt Lewin died, if I recall correctly, he and the RCGD were in the middle of setting up National Training Labs in Bethel, Maine. That project continued after his death. NTL has enjoyed considerable collaboration and philosophical alliance with the Tavistock Institute in the UK. Tavistock, if you recall, is where the first intentional therapeutic communities are alleged to have been created, i.e., during the Northfield Experiments (1939, 1942), for the purpose of returning psychologically scarred soldiers back onto the battlefield, rather than home on psych leave.
lol... Talk about TC origins...
Coincidentally or not, Straight, Inc. set up shop in Detroit in the `80's and continued on as the spin-off program, Pathway Family Center. Tavistock ties into St. Pete College in that that is where both Miller Newton of Straight, Inc. infamy and Allison Pinto of ASTART (formerly of the Tavistock Inst.) both made camp.
But back to the question. Why go at all? Maybe just to give Jaynie Longnecker nightmares. LOL Or maybe to give it a try addressing the program operators directly and also finding out what really goes on at these conferences. Who knows? January is a long way away and, despite Ken's wishes, I'm not all that sure that the rest of NATSAP would welcome our presence anyway.
-
Ask NATSAP about these if you get the chance. Doesn't placing a kid in a program without due process and with little to no interaction essentially fit the definition of "abandonment"? Is NATSAP supporting or providing this scenario by promoting programs? Also by allowing parents to "neglect" their child, isn't NATSAP aiding in providing an environment where parents do not have the ability to insure the safety and welfare of their children? In other words, might NATSAP be held accountable for turning a blind eye? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, ask any judge.
Juvenile Law:
"ABANDONMENT-The most common legal grounds for termination of parental rights, also a form of child abuse in most states. Sporadic visits, a few phone calls, or birthday cards are not sufficient to maintain parental rights. Fathers who manifest indifference toward a pregnant mother are also viewed as abandoning the child when it is born."
Juvenile Law:
"NEGLECT--Parental failure to provide a child with basic necessities when able to do so. Encompasses a variety of forms of abuse that do not require the element of intent."
I think it is important to bring up the efficacy of these programs and the scientific studies, or lack thereof, to back up these claims of efficacy. It is important to identify what the exact treatment methods are and why they are used. If there is no scientific basis for these methods, there is reason to investigate further.
-
Who knows? January is a long way away and, despite Ken's wishes, I'm not all that sure that the rest of NATSAP would welcome our presence anyway.
You were invited by Ken Huey?
-
So maybe a short list of tragic true stories like this one would be good
That's exactly what I'd do. Set everyone up with a laundry lists of stories of the peoples whose lives have been destroyed by these places, all under the pretense of kids whose lives could have been saved if only theyd been locked up and abused. Once you have everyones attention with tragedy after tragedy, fess up that they were all kids who did attend these gulags, and they were all harmed by it. Close your comments with something along the lines of, "I'm sure many of you will say, "Those were exceptions to the rule. The few who fell through the cracks. Our treatments are effective, and do save lives." If that's the case I'll look forward to seeing your independent clincial study proving as much. You've had 30 years. Isn't it about time?" Then maybe for good measure drop the mike on the floor and walk off.
-
Robert "I'll lick your balls and sniff your shit pipe" Bruce could represent fornits at the NATSAP conference.
-
So maybe a short list of tragic true stories like this one would be good
That's exactly what I'd do. Set everyone up with a laundry lists of stories of the peoples whose lives have been destroyed by these places, all under the pretense of kids whose lives could have been saved if only theyd been locked up and abused. Once you have everyones attention with tragedy after tragedy, fess up that they were all kids who did attend these gulags, and they were all harmed by it. Close your comments with something along the lines of, "I'm sure many of you will say, "Those were exceptions to the rule. The few who fell through the cracks. Our treatments are effective, and do save lives." If that's the case I'll look forward to seeing your independent clincial study proving as much. You've had 30 years. Isn't it about time?" Then maybe for good measure drop the mike on the floor and walk off.
Ironically, I think some of the audience might respond to a certain degree of confrontation...
-
I would do what the lawyers did with KIDS of NJ... argue from a malpractice standpoint, cause it IS malpractice. There is a legal precedent for it, and can definitely be applied to the TTI.
I would also appeal to their pocketbooks. In this case, you definitely do NOT get what you pay for. It's fraud, plain and simple. Misrepresentation and lies about what your child is going through.
In addition, evidence will have to be presented that are more than personal anecdotes. Attrition rates and the like. That's a tough one, and will most likely require years of research... which can't be pulled together in enough time.
You can't argue from the childrens' rights standpoint. That's a gray area and subjective to most, and it's difficult to get anyone to listen when it comes to emancipation of any demographic. Fact is, most people don't care about children's rights, especially when it comes to the rights of teenagers, because they are fucking aliens from hell. Children are property until they are 18, and even then, the adult schools can find ways around that. The fact of the matter is, the fight against the TTI is regarded as nothing more than special interest when it comes to those who have power to do something about it. We can't rely on legislation, we must appeal to the consumer, i.e. the parents.
BTW, my fiancee and I might try to get down there for the conference. It's a long shot, though. Depends on if she feels like driving the distance.
-
General Session: NATSAP and representatives of CAFETY/A-START debate the preferred role of the federal government and current legislation.
http://cafety.org/events/details/3-Inde ... tion_(IECA (http://cafety.org/events/details/3-Independent_Educational_Consultants_Association_(IECA))_Annual_Conference
:jerry:
-
Questions:
Is this event open to the public? I think I might like to attend.
Will Psy and Ginger be able to debate? Will anyone else who has been in a program be able to comment?
This seems to be a completely different event compared to what was described earlier as something between Fornits folk and NATSAP alone. This changes everything as far as the dynamic of the meeting and who will be involved.
No one mentioned this type of event being a debate. Is this something entirely independent of what was being discussed or is this the larger picture of what was being discussed?
Will this be covered by any media outlets?
-
I would start off by saying, "Good afternoon NUTSACK." - The Who
-
Questions:
Is this event open to the public? I think I might like to attend.
Will Psy and Ginger be able to debate? Will anyone else who has been in a program be able to comment?
This seems to be a completely different event compared to what was described earlier as something between Fornits folk and NATSAP alone. This changes everything as far as the dynamic of the meeting and who will be involved.
No one mentioned this type of event being a debate. Is this something entirely independent of what was being discussed or is this the larger picture of what was being discussed?
Will this be covered by any media outlets?
HI everyone.
To clarify any misconception, this is a proposed and tentative schedule.
In response to questions above, I would think anyone could come, you'd just have to register. Its a conference, most conferences charge a fee ranging from $200 to $400 per person. I would think the same would apply to this one, though I don't know the costs.
Participants and the people sitting on the panel are part of the people involved in the initial proposal, talks and advocacy efforts, you would have to ask the people involved in organizing the conference about including other participants.
Yea, this is unrelated to Fornits, fornits being a forum with a bunch of people with a bunch of different views - meaning this was in the works before Mike made his inquiry and a very different effort in that CAFETY is an organization with a strategic plan and policy agenda developed by reaching a consensus among its members... So, anyone can comment generally speaking, as individuals. We all are entitled to share our opinions, of course, and is done with regularity here! But this conference session isn't a public hearing, so to speak.
I think CAFETY will have some kind of vid documentation of the event, mainstream media probably wouldn't be interested... not sure it'd be appropriate for a conference. But, who knows? Its all in the planning stages.
Anyway, it would great to get some feedback and hear what others may think make valuable talking points, beyond the usual CAFETY talking points. Some of them are listed below - but also include some things mentioned at the Capitol Hill Briefing in Feb 2009 (more on that here: http://cafety.org/events/archives-confe ... ry-19-2009 (http://cafety.org/events/archives-conferences-and-events/725-astartcafety-capitol-hill-briefing-dc-february-19-2009) ) along the lines of continuum of care, thought reform, parental education, and youth being partners in their own care:
http://cafety.org/images/stories/docume ... tation.doc (http://cafety.org/images/stories/documents/Presentations/Capitol_Hill_Feb_2009/brian%20lombrowski%20capitol%20hill%20presentation.doc)
Access to advocates
The right to due process/Ban on Escorts
Alternatives to aversive behavioral interventions
Alternatives to restraints and seclusion
Routine reporting of abuse in residential treatment programs
Federal government oversight and regulation of residential treatment programs
Ratification of the Children's Rights Convention
Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol
Lower the Age for Consent to mental health treatment
http://cafety.org/policy-briefs (http://cafety.org/policy-briefs)
In solidarity,
kat
-
Does anyone here remember that poster named Paul?
What's up?
-
Kat. The IECA conference you speak of is a different event. The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.
-
Questions:
Is this event open to the public? I think I might like to attend.
Will Psy and Ginger be able to debate? Will anyone else who has been in a program be able to comment?
This seems to be a completely different event compared to what was described earlier as something between Fornits folk and NATSAP alone. This changes everything as far as the dynamic of the meeting and who will be involved.
No one mentioned this type of event being a debate. Is this something entirely independent of what was being discussed or is this the larger picture of what was being discussed?
Will this be covered by any media outlets?
HI everyone.
To clarify any misconception, this is a proposed and tentative schedule.
In response to questions above, I would think anyone could come, you'd just have to register. Its a conference, most conferences charge a fee ranging from $200 to $400 per person. I would think the same would apply to this one, though I don't know the costs.
Participants and the people sitting on the panel are part of the people involved in the initial proposal, talks and advocacy efforts, you would have to ask the people involved in organizing the conference about including other participants.
Yea, this is unrelated to Fornits, fornits being a forum with a bunch of people with a bunch of different views - meaning this was in the works before Mike made his inquiry and a very different effort in that CAFETY is an organization with a strategic plan and policy agenda developed by reaching a consensus among its members... So, anyone can comment generally speaking, as individuals. We all are entitled to share our opinions, of course, and is done with regularity here! But this conference session isn't a public hearing, so to speak.
I think CAFETY will have some kind of vid documentation of the event, mainstream media probably wouldn't be interested... not sure it'd be appropriate for a conference. But, who knows? Its all in the planning stages.
Anyway, it would great to get some feedback and hear what others may think make valuable talking points, beyond the usual CAFETY talking points. Some of them are listed below - but also include some things mentioned at the Capitol Hill Briefing in Feb 2009 (more on that here: http://cafety.org/events/archives-confe ... ry-19-2009 (http://cafety.org/events/archives-conferences-and-events/725-astartcafety-capitol-hill-briefing-dc-february-19-2009) ) along the lines of continuum of care, thought reform, parental education, and youth being partners in their own care:
http://cafety.org/images/stories/docume ... tation.doc (http://cafety.org/images/stories/documents/Presentations/Capitol_Hill_Feb_2009/brian%20lombrowski%20capitol%20hill%20presentation.doc)
Access to advocates
The right to due process/Ban on Escorts
Alternatives to aversive behavioral interventions
Alternatives to restraints and seclusion
Routine reporting of abuse in residential treatment programs
Federal government oversight and regulation of residential treatment programs
Ratification of the Children's Rights Convention
Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol
Lower the Age for Consent to mental health treatment
http://cafety.org/policy-briefs (http://cafety.org/policy-briefs)
In solidarity,
kat
Kat,
Thank you for answering my questions and explaining what this conference will entail. I am very interested in discussing many of the talking points you mentioned above as well as general views held by CAFETY and ASTART. Personally, I do not care for NATSAP.
I would hope that CAFETY could collect video coverage of this conference for informational purposes and for posterity.
I am hopeful that this will be a good vehicle to start making changes to a largely broken and corrupt teen-help industry.
Tony
-
Kat. The IECA conference you speak of is a different event. The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.
So does this mean that NATSAP is scrambling to save themselves or just trying to get into bed with any organization against institutionalized child abuse?
I do hope this isn't a ploy to legitimize themselves as a bonafide trade organization as mentioned earlier. I liked what I heard in one of the congressional hearings where George Miller aksed what exactly NATSAP did? I remember hearing someone say repeatedly that NATSAP was essentially giving the "good housekeeping seal of approval" and that NATSAP was giving this false sense of accountability.
Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.
-
Kat. The IECA conference you speak of is a different event. The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.
Thanks Mike! I didn't see any of the specs posted here, sorry for confused interjection - is this a general presentation? That's fantastic news. Would love to hear more details.
On to a quick brainstorm response to your question!
I suggest a significant change in policy as far as membership w/in NATSAP. Some policies I think make basic common sense are posted above. Those not posted above would be having members change program policy to ensure youth voice is heard, true individualized care is achieved (not a one size fits all program), maybe suggesting youth advocates as a rule for all programs, and that member programs accept youth only close to home (at least in the same state!)
I would explore other trade orgs that are considered youth friendly (AACRC) and find out what makes them so - (even if by my own standards, are still not youth friendly enough if not blanketly discriminatory, depending on your position on residential care) and see about adopting similar policies.
Ask them to become signatories of the Building Bridges Initiative.
Beyond abusive institutionalization, I think discussing over/Inappropriate institutionalization would be very important. Yes, you talk about consent I think, but beyond that is, even if a child wants to be locked up b/c they're 'encouraged' to be, the question is also whether or not they can be served in their community, and even, I would argue separate is not equal. So, in other words, institutionalization is to be avoided at all costs and NATSAP needs to get with the times and abide by what consumers of mental health tx have been arguing since the 1970's, if not earlier: integration, not segregation. At 13 I knew I needed help, I was very unstable, and for some time I thought I had to be taken away from my family and was crazy - as such, needed to be taken away from the community. I fully disagree with this now, and disagree with this approach for other youth in similar positions, particularly given what I now about community based services that exist (that not enough families use/know about now). My family was nuts, its clear I could have been helped at home. If my parents didn't get it together, doubtful they would have, it would have been useful to learn to cope and have some one help make sense of my home life and normalize my responses to such an environment and help cope/change my belief system/biological response. All this to say, NATSAP should be a org made up of community base programs, with very few res tx programs.
I think the BBI would be helpful as guiding principles and noting some points made (linked above) on Capitol Hill info re: continuum of care would help make this point. They could potentially change culture of the industry changing their membership criteria (and way they ensure these are met) by choosing to represent programs that subscribe to those principles and are carefully attuned (as in aware that its crazy) to the crazy speak of Rudy Bentz or Randall Hinton or willfully ignorant speak of Lon Woodbury (as in NATSAP would be aware that some stakeholder in the industry just like to talk out of their ...) of the industry - basically up their moral code, ethical standards and knowledge base expectations.
Beyond that, don't have much. Hard to have a discussion about residential care, when they so clearly represent programs that misuse it and its so deeply embedded in their culture. I think pitting some programs against other may be key, shame can be a powerful motivator for change. Much as the way the UN operates...
Finally, if you see John Mercer of MMS, can you tell him I said 'Yup, you were right. Accountability IS key!'
-
So does this mean that NATSAP is scrambling to save themselves or just trying to get into bed with any organization against institutionalized child abuse?
I do hope this isn't a ploy to legitimize themselves as a bonafide trade organization as mentioned earlier. I liked what I heard in one of the congressional hearings where George Miller aksed what exactly NATSAP did? I remember hearing someone say repeatedly that NATSAP was essentially giving the "good housekeeping seal of approval" and that NATSAP was giving this false sense of accountability.
Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.
I don't know what their deal is. What CAFETY has in the works differs greatly from what Mike (and Ginger?) is to participate in, from what I gather. I don't see any specs on it, so hard to say...
My sense, though, is that they probably think it would behoove them to reply to educational efforts (presumably what Mike is doing) or debates, particularly given that CAFETY will be working to educate the ed cons not in the know (and the few that may be ethical) and is advocating strongly for a change of IECA policies that have helped sustain innappropriate/abusive institutionalization... but I don't see that NATSAP is particularly inclined to get involved. They'd rather everyone disappear, is my sense. If Mike has reached out to them and communicated with them further, directly, he may see things differently, though.
I sill think they see as 'noisy complainers'.
-
Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.
Well. It's not NATSAP itself I hope to reach. Rather those few "Moral Busybodies" in the audience.
-
Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.
Well. It's not NATSAP itself I hope to reach. Rather those few "Moral Busybodies" in the audience.
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
-
One thing I'd really like to know is... who broached the issue of an invitation first? Mike/Ginger? Or someone from NATSAP? And if the latter, which person would that be?
-
One thing I'd really like to know is... who broached the issue of an invitation first? Mike/Ginger? Or someone from NATSAP? And if the latter, which person would that be?
Excellent questions.
And if it was someone from NATSAP, did they also extend the invitation to CAFETY/ASTART first?
-
One thing I'd really like to know is... who broached the issue of an invitation first? Mike/Ginger? Or someone from NATSAP? And if the latter, which person would that be?
Excellent questions.
And if it was someone from NATSAP, did they also extend the invitation to CAFETY/ASTART first?
Oh no, NATSAP would never reach out to CAFETY! Ha, that would be that one bright day in the middle of the night. IECA certainly didn't reach out to us either, fyi. People in power don't usually reach out to the disempowered... The only folks who have specifically solicited us has been the National Association for Regulatory Administration (NARA) which was great. That should be a fantastic conference to be a part of.
I've met a few NATSAP leaders at the American Psychological Association conference- Jan Moss and.... I'll have to look to see who the other person was. It was difficult to stand in the same room as her without displaying my clear feeling of disgust and disdain. At that time, I had to walk away and let others do the talking. This was in 2005, maybe 2006, I think, when they were clearly interested in dismissing the problem and their role in it and completely negating the experiences of the pple who attended the abusive programs they represent. I was too angry at that time to be coherent in front of people like them.
It is a little bit like engaging the enemy, but for me it was difficult b/c the guy that ran my program and was extremely abusive was a founding member, on the board and well respected. So its a bit strange, to try to convince pple who simply don't believe the survivor experience as valid and they are the leadership!
Reaching out to IECA was different, though they too would seem to represent the enemy. Their leadership is receptive to change, though, and doesn't seem entirely invested in remaining part of the problem. That is critical. Whether or not this will result in substantive change remains to be seen. I had connected with Mark, their ED, simply to convey to him my concerns about the ed con who sent me to MMS. BACKSTORY (skip if you'd like): I had called her for some info on my record and we got to talking. It became clear to me she was as ignorant as they come. Worse, dismissive and basically she said that regulation would hinder programs by making them cost prohibitive, that people who run programs/therapy groups don't need a mental health degree, she wanted to know if I had found God, suggesting I was in the wrong for feeling outraged and said that she would send me my information only if I promised not to use it against 'her firends' at MMS. So, of course I had to do something - if my ed con represented even a small fraction of ed cons (likely that and more), that meant hundreds/thousands of kids were basically effed.
I went to file a complaint and began a dialogue with Mark about potential policy changes and educational efforts that were important to the members of CAFETY. He was open to hearing us out and we submitted a bunch of docs on de-institutionalization, community care, the bit of data we have on the scope of the problem, GAO reports and our position papers. Brian met with him and formalized the proposal for their conference. Some discussion was had about how these would take shape, including a proposed NATSAP debate, and so that's where we stand now...
I feel more comfortable having a mediator, even if it's IECA, than going directly to NATSAP at this point because it doesn't seem they're ready... but.. perhaps that's irrelevant? Or, even better, perhaps not reality! I guess we'll see! Of course some members will be open, and I think Mike is on point with that as a focal point. I think we could shame and create enough of a rift to weed the good guys from the bad... if nothing else. I'd like to see their entire org reshaped. You can't just represent a bunch of business served consumers without having consumer input. That's so... 1950's... 1960's.. 1970's. Its done. We've learned much from people who have paved the way long before I came around (such and UNSUP - Tina Minkowitz) ... Just more work needs to be done.
They did spend 30k lobbying, I'd like to know what their position is on H.R. 911. No love has been shown as far as I know.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/client ... &year=2009 (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?lname=NATSAP&year=2009)
-
Kat,
Thanks for all of the information. It really does help to better understand your situation as well as a little history for people like me who don't know what is being done at the level you are at.
So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.
Yeah, I didn't care for Jan Moss when I watched the Hearings. She was just a mouthpiece/apologist sent to deflect attention away from NATSAP as being in any way responsible for what programs do. If memory serves, she was "let go" from her position at NATSAP soon after her representation.
You wrote:
I went to file a complaint and began a dialogue with Mark about potential policy changes and educational efforts that were important to the members of CAFETY. He was open to hearing us out and we submitted a bunch of docs on de-institutionalization, community care, the bit of data we have on the scope of the problem, GAO reports and our position papers. Brian met with him and formalized the proposal for their conference. Some discussion was had about how these would take shape, including a proposed NATSAP debate, and so that's where we stand now...
This sounds very effective and is probably the best route to go.
Personally, the most damaging aspect of my program experience was the thought reform. If I were to address anyone of importance about residential teen programs, I would stress the unseen damage caused by thought reform techniques. It isn't the easiest topic to discuss but to me, at least, it is very important to walk people through the process that occurs over time and how the child's identity is destroyed and remolded. Cults and psychological POW tortures should be given as examples and set side by side to known, present day program techniques. A few examples are Biderman's Chart of Coercion, Margaret Singers six conditions for thought control and Robert J. Liftons documented observations of POW's from the Korean War that had been brainwashed.
I have been told that my description of how the thought reform process worked on me as a teenager is very compelling. If this is what I can offer to a discussion, so be it.
-
So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.
They didn't. Ken Huey invited Ginger and I after our first conversation. He claims he got a lot out of it and felt many of the member schools/staff could benefit from our opinions. I was skeptical at first but after talking to Ginger about it at length, we decided some good might come out of it (mainly the fact that some are moral buzybodies and not robber barons). After that, we told Ken we accepted and he contacted NATSAP. Apparently we have to write some outline within the month on what we will be speaking and from there, NATSAP will make it's final decision. We started this thread to brainstorm.
-
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
Receptive? Not entirely sure. They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept. His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment... even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.
-
Reaching out to IECA was different, though they too would seem to represent the enemy.
It's a choice between those who imprison and "treat" kids without trial and those who deal in human trafficking. Personally, i'd wager the NATSAP conference would have a higher moral buzybody to robber baron ratio. IECA sounds more cutthroat to me, as if they're really just after the money.
-
So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.
They didn't. Ken Huey invited Ginger and I after our first conversation. He claims he got a lot out of it and felt many of the member schools/staff could benefit from our opinions. I was skeptical at first but after talking to Ginger about it at length, we decided some good might come out of it (mainly the fact that some are moral buzybodies and not robber barons). After that, we told Ken we accepted and he contacted NATSAP. Apparently we have to write some outline within the month on what we will be speaking and from there, NATSAP will make it's final decision. We started this thread to brainstorm.
Well, that is a great start. I am assuming that if something in your proposal/outline doesn't jive with their idea about how this conference should go, they might just retract the invite.
Sounds like a good opportunity. I guess none of us can know the outcome of all of this but it certainly seems to be worth a shot.
And I do agree that there are probably some of the upper echelon that are only concerned with the profit margins. Maybe it is possible to convey the tragedy and get through to a person or two.
Good luck no matter which way the wind blows. Keep brainstorming. But between you and Ginger, I think you two know what points to talk about without anyone's help. It's probably just a matter of how to present them and timing.
-
So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.
They didn't. Ken Huey invited Ginger and I after our first conversation. He claims he got a lot out of it and felt many of the member schools/staff could benefit from our opinions. I was skeptical at first but after talking to Ginger about it at length, we decided some good might come out of it (mainly the fact that some are moral buzybodies and not robber barons).
I asked you if Ken Huey invited you before, and you ignored my question .
Strange.
-
I asked you if Ken Huey invited you before, and you ignored my question .
Strange.
Cause Ginger already answered that in her post. It's not a secret or something. Read more carefully.
-
(http://http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee288/Kroger_143/MOTIVATIONAL%20POSTERS/caption_deception.jpg?t=1246610032)
-
Could be, but I can't think of a convincing reason not to do it. It's not like they're going to gun us down on stage.
-
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
Receptive? Not entirely sure. They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept. His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment... even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.
Ken Huey of West Ridge Academy?
-
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
Receptive? Not entirely sure. They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept. His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment... even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.
Ken Huey of West Ridge Academy?
Ken Huey of CALO, though he might have been at West Ridge prior to starting CALO.
-
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
Receptive? Not entirely sure. They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept. His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment... even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.
Ken Huey of West Ridge Academy?
Ken Huey of CALO, though he might have been at West Ridge prior to starting CALO.
Yea, he was at WRA I believe:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5382.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5382.shtml)
And of course, the testimonies suggest that he is less than ethical, complicit in maltreatment of youth (see testimonies):
http://www.mormongulag.com/ (http://www.mormongulag.com/)
Guess he's now here:
http://caloteens.com/staff.aspx (http://caloteens.com/staff.aspx)
Interesting... Well, I hope that Ken's intentions are not misleading and please keep us posted!
-
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
Receptive? Not entirely sure. They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept. His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment... even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.
Ken Huey of West Ridge Academy?
Ken Huey of CALO, though he might have been at West Ridge prior to starting CALO.
Yes. Ken Huey of Provo Canyon School, then of West Ridge Academy, now of CALO.
-
@Kat: do a fornits search for CALO, and you'll find plenty of recent muckety-muck.
-
What was the response of NATSAP, Mike? Did they seem receptive to you speaking?
Receptive? Not entirely sure. They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept. His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment... even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.
Ken Huey of West Ridge Academy?
Ken Huey of CALO, though he might have been at West Ridge prior to starting CALO.
Yes. Ken Huey of Provo Canyon School, then of West Ridge Academy, now of CALO.
Wow, that is strange... It would be like John Mercer asking me to present about my experiences to NATSAP...
Perhaps sharing this info with Ken and challenging him would be a good place to start, Mike? I don't think it would be wise to go into this with all these questions about Ken's own ethics.
As a side note, I recall who irked me that was NATSAP related at the APA confernece: it was Behrens, the reasearcher who did that 'study' on Aspen programs and claimed this was sufficient data to suggest they worked. Fortunately, a few shrinks that work w/ CAFETY and ASTART have been working on discrediting this. There are multiple issue with the 'study'... so hopefully that will be a piece made publicly available soon. But, yes, re: Behrens - her sloppy work and lack of disclosure that she worked for Aspen call into questions her ethics and was/is infuriating. She's yucky.
-
@Kat: do a fornits search for CALO, and you'll find plenty of recent muckety-muck.
Thanks!!!
-
Wow, that is strange... It would be like John Mercer asking me to present about my experiences to NATSAP...
Ya. It's strange for me too. I was at a NATSAP member program.
Perhaps sharing this info with Ken and challenging him would be a good place to start, Mike? I don't think it would be wise to go into this with all these questions about Ken's own ethics.
I haven't. He could be a Moral Busybody or a Robber Baron. In either case, myself and Ginger won't be there to speak to him specifically (we've already done that) or about any program specifically (except when citing certain cases, such as CEDU's propheets, est, lifespring, etc... origins of the industry). I will mention that the techniques used way way back then are still in use today and if it's appropriate, I'll use specifics. MBA is probably the best documented example of this (with the article in Time). Although they claim to have stopped using their methods, IIRC, they still exist elsewhere. I'm hoping you'd have more up-to-date information on that.
As a side note, I recall who irked me that was NATSAP related at the APA confernece: it was Behrens, the reasearcher who did that 'study' on Aspen programs and claimed this was sufficient data to suggest they worked. Fortunately, a few shrinks over that work w/ CAFETY and ASTART have been working on discrediting this. There are multiple issue with the 'study'... so hopefully that will be a piece made publicly available soon. But, yes, re: Behrens - her sloppy work and lack of disclosure that she worked for Aspen call into questions her ethics. She's yucky.
I don't think anybody thinks that study is credible. I'd say there's no need to put another nail in that coffin but it never hurts with this industry.
-
As a side note, I recall who irked me that was NATSAP related at the APA confernece: it was Behrens, the reasearcher who did that 'study' on Aspen programs and claimed this was sufficient data to suggest they worked. Fortunately, a few shrinks over that work w/ CAFETY and ASTART have been working on discrediting this. There are multiple issue with the 'study'... so hopefully that will be a piece made publicly available soon. But, yes, re: Behrens - her sloppy work and lack of disclosure that she worked for Aspen call into questions her ethics. She's yucky.
I don't think anybody thinks that study is credible. I'd say there's no need to put another nail in that coffin but it never hurts with this industry.
I think TheWho still thinks that study is credible, or at least credible enough to impress unwitting parents. Which means that there are probably a certain number of NATSAP folk who also rely on it to impress unwitting parents, at least when no one else is around.
No reason to go into depth about it (unless the situation calls for it), but it could be used as a good reminder that there really aren't any reliable studies out there proving any kind of efficacy of treatment methods currently employed by this industry.
Or are there? :D
-
Kat,
Thanks for all of the information. It really does help to better understand your situation as well as a little history for people like me who don't know what is being done at the level you are at.
Personally, the most damaging aspect of my program experience was the thought reform. If I were to address anyone of importance about residential teen programs, I would stress the unseen damage caused by thought reform techniques. It isn't the easiest topic to discuss but to me, at least, it is very important to walk people through the process that occurs over time and how the child's identity is destroyed and remolded. Cults and psychological POW tortures should be given as examples and set side by side to known, present day program techniques. A few examples are Biderman's Chart of Coercion, Margaret Singers six conditions for thought control and Robert J. Liftons documented observations of POW's from the Korean War that had been brainwashed.
I have been told that my description of how the thought reform process worked on me as a teenager is very compelling. If this is what I can offer to a discussion, so be it.
Tony,
I'm happy to clarify any time! I agree with you WHOLE HEARTEDLY. Thought reform, its impact, is so hard to convey so any contribution that can be made in that respect is ENORMOUSLY valuable. But I get it, I've been there and it should be noted, (stating the obvious, but not something I knew until much later b/c of the brainwashing) its not therapy! As I'm sure known by most on this forum, at one point called 'psychic driving', concept is the same, albeit approached somewhat differently depending on the program... - concept is the same, breaking people down to build them back up. Dr. Cameron really studied it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron)
Anyway, we know it doesn't work! Its' unethical and traumatizing.
A psychiatrist at Phil Elbergs Institute of Cultic Studies wrote about this cultic risk w/in residential settings from a clinical perspective - as an FYI. Great material to arm one self with - particular if looking to educate NATSAP. We're working to post research docs up on CAFETY, so I'll try to get that up this week for folks to download. Great read.
Long and short of it, this topic is not left out in CAFETY's presentations:
You can download mine and Nick's presentation to get a sense of our focus in that respect -
http://cafety.org/events/archives-confe ... ry-19-2009 (http://cafety.org/events/archives-conferences-and-events/725-astartcafety-capitol-hill-briefing-dc-february-19-2009)
Never far from my own mind, at least...
-
No reason to go into depth about it (unless the situation calls for it), but it could be used as a good reminder that there really aren't any reliable studies out there proving any kind of efficacy of treatment methods currently employed by this industry.
If it comes up, I'll simply state as fact that there aren't any reliable studies (independent peer reviewed and double blind). They know it to be true. No point in provocation if unnecessary.
-
Long and short of it, this topic is not left out in CAFETY's presentations
That's good to hear.
What about the ethics of forced treatment. What's CAFETY's official stance on that?
-
No reason to go into depth about it (unless the situation calls for it), but it could be used as a good reminder that there really aren't any reliable studies out there proving any kind of efficacy of treatment methods currently employed by this industry.
If it comes up, I'll simply state as fact that there aren't any reliable studies (independent peer reviewed and double blind). They know it to be true. No point in provocation if unnecessary.
And indicating that what is known is many interventions used are harmful...
-
Long and short of it, this topic is not left out in CAFETY's presentations
That's good to hear.
What about the ethics of forced treatment. What's CAFETY's official stance on that?
Right to consent essential. That's one of out state advocacy positions - to model after Washington State. Charley (On CAFETY's board) and Lorrin Gerhing (who sat on CAFETY's board and with Youth Move) played an instrumental role in the passing of this legislation. We'd like to see all states follow the lead of Washington State.
http://cafety.org/board (http://cafety.org/board)
http://cafety.org/research/121-research ... huffine-md (http://cafety.org/research/121-research/514-the-right-to-consent-competency-and-responsibility-in-teens-charley-huffine-md)
http://cafety.org/on-coercion/145-on-co ... huffine-md (http://cafety.org/on-coercion/145-on-coercive-treatment-of-adolescents-charles-huffine-md)
-
..
-
Wow, that is strange... It would be like John Mercer asking me to present about my experiences to NATSAP...
Ya. It's strange for me too. I was at a NATSAP member program.
Perhaps sharing this info with Ken and challenging him would be a good place to start, Mike? I don't think it would be wise to go into this with all these questions about Ken's own ethics.
As a side note, I recall who irked me that was NATSAP related at the APA conference: it was Behrens, the researcher who did that 'study' on Aspen programs and claimed this was sufficient data to suggest they worked. Fortunately, a few shrinks over that work w/ CAFETY and ASTART have been working on discrediting this. There are multiple issue with the 'study'... so hopefully that will be a piece made publicly available soon. But, yes, re: Behrens - her sloppy work and lack of disclosure that she worked for Aspen call into questions her ethics. She's yucky.
I don't think anybody thinks that study is credible. I'd say there's no need to put another nail in that coffin but it never hurts with this industry.
Brave soul. And bravo! For real, I admire you.
I disagree, they use this as a selling point all the time and really need to stop and clarify, in my opinion. It's misleading.
http://www.aspeneducation.com/outcomes.html (http://www.aspeneducation.com/outcomes.html)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... f&oq=&aqi= (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ZzU&q=%22ellen+Behrens%22+aspen&cts=1246652417792&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)
-
No reason to go into depth about it (unless the situation calls for it), but it could be used as a good reminder that there really aren't any reliable studies out there proving any kind of efficacy of treatment methods currently employed by this industry.
If it comes up, I'll simply state as fact that there aren't any reliable studies (independent peer reviewed and double blind). They know it to be true. No point in provocation if unnecessary.
And indicating that what is known is many interventions used are harmful...
Absolutely.
-
What about the ethics of forced treatment. What's CAFETY's official stance on that?
Right to consent essential. That's one of out state advocacy positions - to model after Washington State. Charley (On CAFETY's board) and Lorrin Gerhing (who sat on CAFETY's board and with Youth Move) played an instrumental role in the passing of this legislation. We'd like to see all states follow the lead of Washington State.
http://cafety.org/board (http://cafety.org/board)
http://cafety.org/research/121-research ... huffine-md (http://cafety.org/research/121-research/514-the-right-to-consent-competency-and-responsibility-in-teens-charley-huffine-md)
http://cafety.org/on-coercion/145-on-co ... huffine-md (http://cafety.org/on-coercion/145-on-coercive-treatment-of-adolescents-charles-huffine-md)
An unfortunate side effect of that is that Washington State probably exports many youth to residential programs elsewhere. So much for community-based treatment.
I am not, however, in Washington State and therefore can not really speak for what goes on there as far as a community mindset is concerned. Perhaps if more states followed Washington's lead, a more systemic philosophical shift could be seen?
Also... lack of forced treatment and "informed consent" can be relative terms, when you are dealing with people who have vested interests. If everyone and their uncle is of the mind that you should be sent away to such-and-such, and you're a kid who aims to please... well, ya might think you're informed, and ya might think you consent, but are and do you really?
-
Hey Guest who asked about me... Are you Dee?
Throw me an e-mail if you like.. [email protected]
Paul
PS Sorry to interrupt the thread.
-
Also... lack of forced treatment and "informed consent" can be relative terms, when you are dealing with people who have vested interests. If everyone and their uncle is of the mind that you should be sent away to such-and-such, and you're a kid who aims to please... well, ya might think you're informed, and ya might think you consent, but are and do you really?
Thought provoking....
-
Also... lack of forced treatment and "informed consent" can be relative terms, when you are dealing with people who have vested interests. If everyone and their uncle is of the mind that you should be sent away to such-and-such, and you're a kid who aims to please... well, ya might think you're informed, and ya might think you consent, but are and do you really?
Thought provoking....
Yes, my personal position follows Minkowitz's line of thinking. The use of coercion, intimidation, or punishment for any reason related to a disability based discrimination (on the basis of mental health) is unacceptable, oppressive and paternalistic - at the end of the day, is akin to torture. But with youth, in particular, it's difficult because youth are so vulnerable to being influenced, agreed. But there are ways around that, namely the expectation that youth, like adults, are given (by law) all the information and able to decide - w/o the use of coercion, intimidation, or punishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rASg_Pgw ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rASg_Pgw4lo&feature=player_embedded)
At the end of the day, its really a powerplay... so I do believe that a culture of change, where youth are PARTNERS and collaborators in their own care and domestic legislative changes consistent with the CRPD and CRC will take us in the right direction...
Speaking of the CRPD - Here's info on a Human Rights Teach-In Tour, in case anyone is in the area:
http://www.usnusp.org/upcoming_events (http://www.usnusp.org/upcoming_events)