On 2005-08-05 17:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Keep on playing games---that would be satire and ridicule---it's amusing, no question, but it gets nowhere in terms of common ground
Some of you posters here are very damaged, that's clear, maybe by bad programs, maybe by programs that just weren't sophisticated enough to deal with your complicated problems
The question remains: who among you will honestly say that there should not be programs to help adolescents who are self-destructive to an extent that is personally dangerous---who could be so cruel?
Say so if that is what you mean---spare us the satire and explain why kids should be allowed to throw away their lives for lack of experience in the world---without adult intervention
"
It depends on the type of program. The programs that are objected to in this forum are those that are coercive. There is only one way to survive these programs, and that is to comply with them. The act of forcing teens through these programs can, in and of itself, be damaging. No one here would say that a struggling teen should be denied help. It is the type of help that is at issue.
These programs are largely non-existent for adults simply because an adult would not tolerate being treated this way and leave. Teens, with no such rights (or perception of such rights) are stuck. This raises the ethical question as to why teens should be denied this right. Some states have laws that prevent forcing teens into therapy against their will. In the UK (where the teens for the first two brat camps came from), a child 16 and older cannot be held anywhere against their will (false imprisonment).
Personally, I find this form of coercion to be unethical. It violates my innate sense of fair play, freedom of thought, and freedom of choice that I always thought this country was all about. A person has the right to fail. To me, a forced thought reform program is a violation of a person's basic human rights.
I also believe that ultimately, a person cannot be forced to change, they have to want to and be committed to the change.
It has frequently been mentioned that there has been no long term research to indicate the success or failure rate of these programs. I disagree. The methods used have been around for at least 40 years and the results in the form of state-run boot camps and the new-age self-improvement movement of the 70s and 80s have demonstrated the results to be disasterous. That is why these programs no longer exist. States closed the camps. The new-age programs were sued out of existence. Some have been labeled 'cults.' Don't be fooled by the wilderness or TBS setting; the technique is the same.
Another objection is to the 'one-size-fits-all' approach. At Brat Camp there are nine teens with different problems. To me, it is obvious from the show that Derrick, at least, should not have gone to this program. He is failing miserably in the show and it is painfully obvious. He should be yanked out and another solution sought. Everything I have ever read about ADHD states that medication and cognative therapy get the best results and that behavior modification gets the worst results.
The coercive nature of these programs is such they refuse to recognize students that should be pulled out. It is as if the program cannot admit failure. Compounding this error is the idea that the student doesn't leave until they comply. How long does it take before someone wakes up and realizes it is not working and never will? Some kids spend years in these programs with nothing to show for it except lost years and poor parents.
Finally, it is just plain stupid to take a student that relapses and send them back into a progam. If someting does not work the first time, repeating the failure makes no sense. Try something else.
