That reminded me of something I've been wanting to share for quite awhile. There is one and only one nondisability group in the country that has taken a strong stance against mistreatment of people with disabilities. No human rights groups decrying the use of restraints, deprivation, seclusion and torture of people with developmental disabilities. No religious group, either - save one.
quote:A large part of the ministry of our Lord focused on persons with mental disabilities. Such persons are children of God and, therefore, our brothers and sisters within God's family. The full and equal rights of persons with mental disabilities are enshrined in the Social Principles of The United Methodist Church.
Yet the use of abusive treatment methods as "therapy" for persons with mental disabilities still occurs. Such abusive treatment methods are used both on adults and children, and programs that rely on such abusive treatment methods are often funded by tax revenues. A number of organizations that advocate for persons with mental disabilities have already taken a stand against abusive treatment methods.
The United Methodist Church joins in affirming the right of persons with disabilities to freedom from abusive treatment methods. We oppose the use of any form of punishment for children or adults with mental disabilities in any case where such punishment would be considered illegal, abusive, or unconscionable if applied to a child or adult who is not disabled. In particular, we condemn as unacceptable the following practices:
(1) treatment methods that result in physical injury or tissue damage to the person;
(2) verbal abuse or insult, humiliation, or degradation;
(3) prolonged isolation from others;
(4) denial of food, warmth, hygiene, contact with other human beings, or other necessities of life;
(5) the use of electric shock or noxious substances as a form of punishment;
(6) the use of any punishment on a child with a mental disability that would be considered child abuse if used on a child with no disabilities;
(7) neglect;
(8) the misuse of physical or chemical restraint; and
(9) the threat of any of the above treatments.
Any therapy used in the treatment of persons with mental disabilities must be potentially beneficial to the person. As an alternative to abusive treatment methods, we support the use of positive approaches in the treatment of persons with mental disabilities. Positive approaches affirm the humanity of these persons and recognize that the needs and desires of such persons are not significantly different from those of other persons. Our obligation to persons with mental disabilities is to support and assist them in their efforts to live lives as rich and rewarding as possible.
We call upon all public and private agencies and service providers involved in treating persons with mental disabilities to adopt and uphold the standards set forth in this resolution.
We call upon United Methodist Church-related institutions and agencies, including hospitals, homes, schools, and universities, to adopt and uphold the standards set forth in this resolution and to support research on positive treatment methods.
We call upon governments at all levels to end immediately the expenditure of public revenues on any agency or program that fails to adopt and uphold the standards set forth in this resolution.
The United Methodist Church declares itself to be open to persons with mental disabilities and their families, and the church commits itself to support such persons and families and to accommodate their needs within our community. We further pledge our support to help persons with mental disabilities and their families find appropriate services, programs, and supports, and to protect them from abusive treatment methods.
ADOPTED 1996
It's a unique document. No other faith has adopted any similar position, at least regarding the parts that condemn mistreatment being labeled as "therapy." Not in eight years.
But anyway, this is the Methodist Church holds a special place in my heart. Hopefully, this gives y'all one more thing to like besides Bob's favorite minister.
the thing is to sell it from the bottom up - that's what happened in the Methodist Church. I knew the woman who drafted this (I haven't had contact in years, though.). It went from being a regional position statement and was pushed through their (not sure of the exact title here) social justice committees.
These are the same folks who hands other human rights issues - the Catholics and most if not all other Protestant churches have their own counterparts to this committee.
posted
Well, so did I, Bob. I became a fan in 1995 or so, when this was originally drafted and advocated by a minister who was a mom of a son who had autism.
But that's probably not what you meant. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. It's never occurred to me to try to affect the Church's stand on a social issue, but there's no reason not to. I must say, no one has ever made me focus on an issue in a new way like you have, sndrake. It's not like you've changed my mind on anything; you've just made me apply long-held principles to real-world situations I've never thought of before. You're a hell of an advocate.
I can't imagine they'd support aversive therapy; there's plenty of Bishop statements about the importance of protecting the rights of the diasbled. I know they commissioned some studies that said some harsh things about teaching disabled students in Catholic schools and made a bunch of changes in response. I'd hope they just haven't thought much about this issue before.
Second, there are significant obstacles to passing something like this. It will face objections from psychologists and psychiatrists within the given religious community. It will also be opposed by some parents. The position asserts that professional judgments about "treatment options" have to be subject to restrictions based on human rights considerations.
That seems reasonable if you're not one of those professionals. This is not opposition to be taken lightly - they're educated, affluent and motivated. And they'll drag out the "hard cases" to make their case - the same technique anyone uses for justifying the use of torture.
It's amazing that the Methodists passed this and have even reaffirmed it by vote more than once since its original passage.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I'll wait until I'm a lawyer. Instant credibility .
I've got this issue filed in the back of my mind for when I get any political power in a prosecutor's office. What Spitzer did to Wall Street I intend to do to people who torture the disabled. I'll need to be in a position where I can launch my own investigations, so it's years away. But I will do this if I ever get a chance.
posted
Found more info on the initial passage of the resolution at the website of Autism National Committee.
There's an informational article from 1996 written by Rev. Coleen Brandt (I had more contact with her husband than her and only met her once.) at the website.
quote:As delegates from across the country gathered in Denver, the Rev. Coleen Brandt, a member of the Autism National Committee and the mother of two young sons with autism, brought forth the resolution which she had first presented for adoption by the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference, and which now numbered among its co-sponsors the Methodist Federation for Social Action, the United Methodist Rural Fellowship, and the Northwest Texas Methodist Women. The entire text passed without opposition.
The United Methodist Church and many other Christian denominations have a tradition of issuing statements on morality and justice issues, as a way of both educating their membership, and sending notice to lawmakers and other policy-makers of the position of their membership on such matters. This kind of grassroots organizing has put religious people in the forefront of the Civil Rights and other movements working toward the fair and equitable treatment of all people.
"We have found, explains the Rev. Brandt, "that when most United Methodists are given the opportunity to learn about and discuss aversives, their first response is `Of course Christian people are against these kinds of treatments.' The tough part is convincing them that these tortures are still carried out in modern times. Once they have viewed the "Eye to Eye with Connie Chung" episode on BRI (Massachusetts' Behavior Research Institute, now called the Judge Rotenberg Center), or had some exposure to other literature on the subject, they are ready for action. The passage of these resolutions gives the stand against aversives the status of official Church teaching. However, the moral voice of the Church cannot make a difference unless advocates keep lifting it up as they face the principalities and powers that deny justice and well-being to people with disabilities."
posted
Keep in mind that not all religious groups have a central headquarters that can promulgate such statements (nor, I suspect, does every congregation of those that do listen to HQ).
In the churches of Christ, such a statement could only be promoted congregation by congregation, if at all. And I think many rural congregations would not agree with it, believing that restraints are needed in too many cases, to protect the individual from harming himself or others.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Guess that would just leave us with the status quo with those churches, Mabus. In other words, no worse off than we are now. There are plenty of other churches in which this could conceivably work. One of the drawbacks to being an agnostic is that I'm not really in a position to do this kind of work (although the amount of time I spend working with people in faith communities is significant).
And no - I am not a Unitarian either. I prefer practicing doubt and uncertainty in private. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand, sndrake. I just don't want to start seeing headlines saying things like, "Church X refuses to adopt anti-torture guidelines" when Church X doesn't have any governing body that could do the adopting for the whole group.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's not the way organizing is done. You leave groups alone that haven't taken a position in sync with yours. Respectful argument comes up only if they take a contrary position.
I don't work church groups mostly, but I've played this out with national disability groups. We've had situations where major national organizations ignored the types of issues we and a growing number of other groups feel are important regarding life and death issues. We didn't hammer the organizations that didn't take positions. As a result, with growing numbers of organizations coming our way and no history of rancor, more are coming on board with our priority issues.
Make sense to you?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
