posted
But this is driving me completely insane. The Judge Rottenburg Center is not too far from where I live. http://www.judgerc.org/writeup3.html They take in troubled teenagers, severely autistic children who self mutilate and many other young people in need of help. Earlier in their history they would use adversives such as nasty tastes and smells, they'd hit young people with a spatula and pinch them in the name of behaviorlist therapy. They discovered these methods were not effective so they use something called GED I fail to see how doing any of these things is ethical. Am I blind in my perspective? Parents state the 2 second shocks their children recieve make them behave better and cut down on self abusive behaviour, but is there a better way to do this? The fact is that I think doing things like this to young people, especially disabled ones is WRONG. Things like this don't even get done to prisoners. It's not just the GED or the GED-4 but depriving people of food for "misbehaving?" http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html How is this right and ethical? It's not just severely self destructive children they do this to but those suffering from PTSD, depression, cutting, any of those things! It really just can't be right, even though many parents supper this place and want to keep it open.
posted
It depends on if there is any evidence it works. In the case of cutters particularly, isn't the shock better than what they are doing to themselves?
On the other hand, I could see giving shocks to cutters as possibly reinforcing where it is meant to be aversive.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's admittedly disturbing to think about it, but I can imagine that when dealing with the most severe disorders that these people have, that kind of treatment may very well be exactly what they need.
It's easy to be appalled at something you don't understand, or that seems barbaric.
That said, it very well could be that the research is faulty, and these seemingly barbaric practices need to stop.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm hesitant to comment on this. In the past, and I guess you could say currently in the sense that any chronic illness is always a problem even if it's under control, I've had a problem with self injury. But it looks like this article is focusing on kids with much, MUCH bigger issues than I ever had. I can't speak to kids who were born autistic or types of retardation. But personally, I really don't think that a form of torture would have been the best form of treatment for me, had I sought treatment that is. Aversion therapy ignores the deeper issues at hand. You're teaching a Pavlovian response through pain, not teaching sufferers a healthier way of living. Mine is a mental issue more suited to therapy, which I guess might not work the same way for kids with far more serious issues. I don't know if you can reason with an autistic kid the same way you could a non-autistic kid.
The more humane, and frankly I think the more effective treatment longterm, is the only one in the nation of its kind too, but on the other end of the spectrum. It's Self Abuse Finally Ends (SAFE). It's a 30 day in patient program similar to rehab for drug and alchohol abusers. They deal with the issues that make people want to injure, and teach them healthier ways of dealing with these emotional problems. This kind of therapy helps people really deal with their issues, rather than torturing the problems out of them, which beyond barbaric, strikes me as rather lazy. Self-injury, (again, for what I guess I'd call normal kids, I don't have any information on destructuve behaviors for special needs teens and pre-teens), is a maladaptive coping mechanism to deal with emotional problems. It's also a very real addiction, in the same way that alcohol and drugs are addictive, there is a chemical addiction in the brain that is formed from prolonged cutting (or any type of injury). I believe that the kind of treatment espoused by that center would easily cause as many mental problems as it solves (if it really even solves them).
There's so much more I could say on the issue, but that's all I'm going to say for now, for various reasons.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If they absolutely can't be helped any other way, I'd say that maybe they need to be housed, with proper security to keep them from running away while maintaining the least restrictive environment that is effective to accomplish that, somewhere that keeps them away from anything they can hurt themselves with, and where they have 24 hour supervision, if necessary.
But yes, I'm appalled that they would shock autistic kids for misbehavior.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It depends on if there is any evidence it works. In the case of cutters particularly, isn't the shock better than what they are doing to themselves?
On the other hand, I could see giving shocks to cutters as possibly reinforcing where it is meant to be aversive.
I will jump in to say though, that this, is ignorant. For a lot of cutters, injury is about control. Electrocuting them isn't what they want. Furthermore, no, it's not at all better than what they are doing to themselves. I'd daresay it does more damage than what they are doing to themselves.
You have to know WHY they are cutting, because it varies from person to person. It's not something you can just electrocute and hope. And you have to teach them better methods of coping with their issues. Just throwing pain their way isn't going to be the same thing as what they get out of cutting, and it isn't going to serve as a more healthy replacement.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only time I had ever heard of shock being used in cases of self-mutilation were in emergency circumstances where someone was trying to commit suicide. The individual would be shocked so as to suffer temporary amnesia as a means of saving their life.
What you've describes is pretty much abominable.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the very thing that is making me crazy. Because if you shock a child for certain behaviours it doesn't look objectively at the underlying causes behind the negative behaviour! Plus it disturbs me more that some of the chldren get used to the pain so it doesn't work anymore. They totally don't emphasize this. They use a device that's even more painful! What I wonder is if such a device kids the kids what they want in a way. If they simply use the shocks to replace head banging and cutting. Plus using the most extreme cases when a lot of the children they use it on may curse, not dress neatly or stim is besides the point!
Also, there is witholding food for bad behaviour. All of this seems terribly, horribly cruel to me even if it does work for some people or appear to work because something that feels like dozens of wasp stings could get me to do just about anything to avoid that pain.`
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a tried-and-true (or at least, tried) system that is used in most homes children with problems get sent to. Different behaviors are rewarded with "points"; the number of "points" you get in a week determines your privileges. (In some cases, kids may get to the point where the "points" are no longer needed. Then they are allowed to function as independently as possible.) This is implemented at different levels for different levels of confinement (the kids who can't make it in the laxer environments are sent to stricter, "lock-down" facilities.) But at no time is physical punishment or withholding of basics such as food ever part of the program.
It doesn't work for everyone, granted, but it at least provides an environment where behavior has consequences, without allowing harm to the child. I can't see that shocking or withholding food are ever appropriate punishments, for anything.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Electroshock as an adversive is outrageous. I'm shocked that it isn't illegal.
Where I work, we have aggressive and self-injurious residents. We have autistic residents. It's illegal for us to even withhold dessert. We're not allowed to defend ourselves from attack, except in strictly non-violent and ministry-approved ways. And I'm not about to divulge specifics, but if we can hack it with the behaviours we get, there is no excuse for anyone to be using electroshock.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Electroshock as an adversive is outrageous. I'm shocked that it isn't illegal.
Where I work, we have aggressive and self-injurious residents. We have autistic residents. It's illegal for us to even withhold dessert. We're not allowed to defend ourselves from attack, except in strictly non-violent and ministry-approved ways. And I'm not about to divulge specifics, but if we can hack it with the behaviours we get, there is no excuse for anyone to be using electroshock.
So there are other ways besides this to deal with autistic children who act out violently and other children who do this? Why don't these people seem to understand this? I figure they tried the hitting with spatulas, pinching, hot sauce, ammonia, vinegar and kept getting attacked by students, who can blame the students for retaliating. So they decided to come up with something where they can shock a child from the a distance instead of dealing directly with a troubled child. It's colder that way, more detached and the sad thing is a person can get used to ANYTHING. Where do you think abuse comes from and why it continues? There's this book I'm reading called For Their Own Good to consider. It's so easy for so many people involved to get desensitized to the fact that they are hurting children when there are alternatives.
The food thing also gets to me. People need food. You can't without that. That's inhumane as hell.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that article last year and was appalled. It's one of the worst snake-pit schools I have heard of.
I found these 2 quotes telling: the school "charges $220,000 a year for each student." And "She [a parent] believed he [her child, a student/victim] would receive regular psychiatric counseling—though the school does not provide this."
$220,000 per year, and no regular psychiatric counseling?? There're reasons for this. They probably couldn't find doctors willing to sign off on their program without violating their oaths. And they have no research to back up it's efficacy .
This book, An American GULAG, pretty much sums up my view of these schools. They are torturing kids with little or no research to back it up. And the system is just fine with that.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: So there are other ways besides this to deal with autistic children who act out violently and other children who do this? Why don't these people seem to understand this? I figure they tried the hitting with spatulas, pinching, hot sauce, ammonia, vinegar and kept getting attacked by students, who can blame the students for retaliating. So they decided to come up with something where they can shock a child from the a distance instead of dealing directly with a troubled child. It's colder that way, more detached and the sad thing is a person can get used to ANYTHING. Where do you think abuse comes from and why it continues? There's this book I'm reading called For Their Own Good to consider. It's so easy for so many people involved to get desensitized to the fact that they are hurting children when there are alternatives.
The food thing also gets to me. People need food. You can't without that. That's inhumane as hell.
Hells yeah, there is. I'll be honest I don't do well with aggression. I don't work in those houses. I can't speak to specifics, but really it has a lot to do with controlling the environment, counselling, and good, patient staff. It's not easy, mind. It'd be a LOT easier using adversive behaviour controls, but in the long run, it'd be a disaster. Not to mention that, y'know, the residents are just as human as the staff. I try to work with the rule of thumb that if I wouldn't like it done to me, I don't do it to my guys.
I really come from the l'Arche school of thought. Jean Vanier has written some truly wrenching books, full of stories about what happens when you start treating people as human being. It breaks my heart that this sort of hideous nonsense still happens today.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you change the title to something more indicative of the contents now? I've only clicked because I was wondering what it could be. But it's an interesting subject in itself - although I don't have much to add since I agree with the people saying this is absurdly cruel and stupid.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's ironic that they should withhold food. I know someone who is on Risperdal, which has a biochemical effect the reverse of Fen-Phen. That is, it makes her hungry all the time. So she lives in a constant state of wanting to eat and never feeling satisfied when she can eat.
quote:I will jump in to say though, that this, is ignorant. For a lot of cutters, injury is about control.
I've been a cutter too. Bite me. You're not a therapist.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=149 The more I read of this place, the sicker it sounds. If a child as a legitimate complaint about this place, abuse, having their food withheld, ect, the parents are encouraged by staff not to take it serious! Do they realize how dangerous it is? This place seems to have no one to regulate it and that just opens the door for abuse. Not to mention that they are dealing with vulnerable parents at their wit's end. And it's not just this place that is like that, there are many others who are just as abusive without using GED. Something must be done! http://www.mass.gov/mhlac/aversives_poly.htm This site challenges the false notion that positive reinforcement doesn't work for these children and you HAVE to shock them or else they will pull out their eyeballs. (That's what Matthew Israel kept stating on various sites, somehow I am not so sure.) They are correctly stating that the problem behaviour, like tandrums is often a cry for attention. Responding with shocks is cruel and really, like I said before, doesn't address the underlying problems.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It's ironic that they should withhold food. I know someone who is on Risperdal, which has a biochemical effect the reverse of Fen-Phen. That is, it makes her hungry all the time. So she lives in a constant state of wanting to eat and never feeling satisfied when she can eat.
Thank you for confirming this! My daughter is on Risperdal and nibbles constantly. And my mother just doesn't get it.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will jump in to say though, that this, is ignorant. For a lot of cutters, injury is about control.
I've been a cutter too. Bite me. You're not a therapist.
Are you? I don't know your background, just my own, and the tonnage of reading I've done to gain a certain knowledge of the subject beyond my own experiences. I apologize for calling you ignorant, if you have a knowledge of the subject.
I'll change what I said to say that I respectfull disagree with your take on the situation. The shock, from the description given, would in the longterm end up be far more destructive than whatever short term gains were gotten from it. Aversion therapy does nothing to touch on whatever deeper issues are at hand in self injurous behavior. That there are so many different issues at hand in people who self injure (like for example, the difference perhaps between you and I), makes the lack of therapy even more silly. You're slapping a single solution that doesn't solve the deeper problem on every problem without care for WHAT that problem is.
For a lot of cutters, it IS about control. Are you denying that? What few studies that have been done on people with SI issues have shown that to be the case. Personally I'm not one of them, but they stand out. You think what, electrocution is just another form of self injury and they'll take the change in stride? Would you?
I never claimed to be a therapist. I apologize for offense caused, but there's no need to be excessively bitchy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I wanted to politely state that. They have also discovered that a lot of eating disorders are about control, powerlessness, low self esteem, a manesfitation of abuse, it's complicated and different for each person. I've read books and summaries by people who think the solution to a child that touches things they are not supposed to, that whines, throws tantrums or cries is hitting with a blunt stick. Most of the time it's typical baby behaviour. They touch stuff they aren't supposed to touch, they cry, they throw tantrums. Sometimes it's caused by stress and not having the tools to deal with that due to age. But the problem is if you just hit a person instead of child proofing, trying to understand how the kid feels then you are doing the child a disservice and not giving them better tools to deal with their emotions and not taking into consideration child behaviour. It's not much different with people who are disabled like this. It's just totally completely cruel and it doesn't respect the humanity of a person even if it does "work". But using slower solutions that don't get instant results is a lot harder and requires patience a frustrated parent or teacher may not have.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I see that one of the bloggers already found you. I expect Mike Reynolds will update his blogroll tomorrow.
He was at hearings today (which haven't been mentioned in the media at all as far as I can tell).
I'll give you a heads-up from a phone call I got from Mike.
Background: Recently, the JRC made news again when the public became aware that two students had been dragged out of their beds and given multiple shocks by staffers - as a result of an ex-student phoning them and ordering the shocks, saying he was an administrator.
Apparently, "compliance" is drilled well into workers as well as students there, since the staffers took no steps to verify the orders before engaging in the torture (or "aversives").
JRC director Matt Israel was asked about that today, and according to Mike, Israel said this was basically an act of terrorism - it was 911 all over again. Mike has it all on videotape.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as someone who's worked at a government home, staff are worse than the residents when it comes to being institutionalised. It's bizarre and unfortunate, and I love it when someone new comes in and shakes things up.
And comparing this to September 11th is beyond absurd. I'm glad that was caught on tape. Hah.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's insane. I thought all the behaviourists were taken out and shot in the street back in the 70s?
Oh wait, that's just my fantasy.
Cutters don't need to be helped, they need to be ignored. They aren't robots will faulty programming, they're humans that can't accept responsibility for their lives. All this therapy stuff just enables that.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, the court decides if the individual is competent to make his or her own medical or treatment judgments. Second, the court decides whether the individual would have chosen aversives if he or she had been competent to decide.
This is from the JRC link in the first post. It represents the legal foundation on which this house of cards is built on.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of a measured response to that Foust. So, barring a measured reponse, I'll say that you're an ignorant idiot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, the court decides if the individual is competent to make his or her own medical or treatment judgments. Second, the court decides whether the individual would have chosen aversives if he or she had been competent to decide.
This is from the JRC link in the first post. It represents the legal foundation on which this house of cards is built on.
posted
Well, these "therapists" seem to think that autistic kids can be trained to not cut (by whatever means you care to name). Is this true? If so, an autistic kid cutting is not qualitatively different from a non-autistic cutter, and my statement stands.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I can't think of a measured response to that Foust. So, barring a measured reponse, I'll say that you're an ignorant idiot.
I was hoping for a clarification, but based on your second post, Foust, I have to echo this.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite a few people who cut are in severe pain. I know at least several people who cut because of those reasons. So making a statement like that isn't totally accurate or helpful.
Also, I do not understand how Matthew Israel can find the time to post on blogs about how his "therapy" has helped many people who would have lost eyeballs if they were not shocked. Surely he should have been trying to prevent the incedent that caused 2 teenagers to be shocked for no reason. Even with a reason it's wrong. The food thing bothers me so much as well, as people NEED to eat. You just can't use food or pain as punishments. It isn't right.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Wow, that's insane. I thought all the behaviourists were taken out and shot in the street back in the 70s?
Oh wait, that's just my fantasy.
Cutters don't need to be helped, they need to be ignored. They aren't robots will faulty programming, they're humans that can't accept responsibility for their lives. All this therapy stuff just enables that.
quote:You just can't use food or pain as punishments. It isn't right.
Assuming that these methods do things like is being claimed (e.g. keep people from putting out their eyes) and that other methods don't work, is it still wrong to use them?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cutters don't need to be helped, they need to be ignored. They aren't robots will faulty programming, they're humans that can't accept responsibility for their lives. All this therapy stuff just enables that.
Yes, brilliant. Let's shoot all the behavioralists so that captain pseudopsychology here can hawk his ignorant assumptions about how to deal with people who cut themselves.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust--Trolls are in may psychological ways, much like you describe Cutters to be--a self destructive behavior best ignored.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming that these methods do things like is being claimed (e.g. keep people from putting out their eyes) and that other methods don't work, is it still wrong to use them?
Fortunately, we don't have to make that assumption, because it has been well-studied and found to be false.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You just can't use food or pain as punishments. It isn't right.
Assuming that these methods do things like is being claimed (e.g. keep people from putting out their eyes) and that other methods don't work, is it still wrong to use them?
if his methods REALLY worked, then why is it that according to these blogs only 4% of his students stopped the treatment? He's got folks who have been in the place for decades who are still strapped up. Even if it did work, it's still cruel and harsh and there has to be another way to help these people besides inflicting more pain on them. I don't even think a majority of students there are this extreme. I think Matthew Israel likes to bring extreme cases up to boost up support.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming that these methods do things like is being claimed (e.g. keep people from putting out their eyes) and that other methods don't work, is it still wrong to use them?
Not a bad question, but we shouldn't limit it to just the one.
Today, I received a document from Derek Jeffries, a father of a child on the autism spectrum and who is himself diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome. He composed a letter to the American Psychological Association calling for the organization to condemn this type of torture as the organization has condemned torture outside of "treatment" settings. I wrote about it in October.
His latest message was a flyer of talking points for the legislative hearings in Massachusetts. Here's an excerpt:
quote: Some questions that should be asked are:
If it is acceptable to use aversives to assist some children with special needs in obtaining an education, does the educational value outweigh the health and safety risks, and can this be verified?
If some people and organizations consider aversives to be necessary components of some children’s education can it be scientifically verified, other than through JRC documents, that the behavior modifications have an enduring (educational) effect for the majority of the children “treated”?
If aversives do not have an enduring effect for some children, is it still acceptable to continue using aversives in those children’s educational programs indefinitely?
When aversives have no enduring effect as the child matures beyond adulthood, should the treatment continue when it has been proven to have no educational value and no foreseeable conclusion?
If we conclude that these types of “treatments” are acceptable for this group due to certain circumstances, what is to prevent this “treatment” from becoming acceptable in other environments when some person or group determines that it is “effective”?
Since these “treatments” would be considered torture if applied to any other person or group, how can we justify their use in a humane society?
Other Considerations:
The recent prank incident lead to a medical diagnosis of 1st degree burns on one of the students. The occurrence of such burns has also been confirmed by former JRC employees, who reveal that such injuries are especially prevalent when the GED-4 (4 times more powerful than standard GED) is utilized.
Jennifer Gonnerman reported in her Mother Jones Magazine article, “School of Shock,” about an incident in which a student was being shocked unjustifiably by a malfunctioning unit.
Does FDA monitor the safety of the devices?
Does DMR monitor the safety of the devices?
Do Judges monitor the safety of the devices?
Do School districts monitor the safety of the devices?
Do Law enforcement agencies monitor the safety of the devices?
Has any agency actually made a surprise inspection and tested the output of the GED and GED-4 units?
posted
Most likely not. Furthermore, judging by how many ads I see in the paper for jobs at the JRC, there's a high staff turnover. How can staff members in charge of distributing shocks possibly be able to observe changes in the students if they are either fired or if they quit and are replaced with another staff member without enough knowledge of the child and their disabilities?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
(note: second paragraph refers to director Matt Israel's "9/11 statement.")
quote: Lawmakers, however, asked about the night last August when teenagers were wrongfully shocked dozens of times over a three-hour period at one of the school's group homes in Stoughton. A former student of the group home posed as a supervisor in the central office in Canton, calling the group home and commanding one of the staff members to shock one student 77 times, another 29 times. The caller said he was giving the orders based on instructions from Israel and his assistant director, Glenda Crookes.
Israel, sitting next to Crookes, told lawmakers he was horrified by the incident, describing it as being like 9/11 to him. He said the school has since initiated numerous changes, which include improved supervision at group homes and barring central office supervisors from ordering shock treatments from a remote location.
This implies that prior to the new policy, supervisors were empowered to order shock "treatments" without being on site. Be interesting to know how often that happened.
quote:The case is under criminal investigation. State licensing investigators looking into the incident relied heavily on a videotape, made as part of the center's round-the-clock monitoring of students and staff in the school and 38 groups homes in surrounding communities.
Lawmakers asked Israel whether a copy of the tape was available, but he said it had been destroyed after he allowed some state investigators to view it. In an interview earlier this week, Israel said he routinely keeps videotapes for about 30 days and saw no need to keep the video from the August incident.
Isn't the destruction of that video tape destruction of evidence in a criminal investigation?
BTW, the hearing is about putting limits and oversight on the practices at the school. Not a ban. But they don't seem to like the idea of increased accountability at all.
Imagine my surprise. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, imagine if they're required to actually produce research to prove that their treatment is effective and meets the "least restrictive environment" criterion.
What an undue burden to put on them. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's bugging me that they are not BANNING the practice but putting limits on it! What good does just limiting it do if suspicious things have been going on it that school for 36 years. GRAH!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
it bugs a lot of the people who've been fighting this battle.
However, every attempt at an outright ban has been defeated. Bringing limits, accountability and oversight into the picture is hard to object to and just may win.
And it's just possible that not only will that reduce the number of people getting this "treatment" in the short term - it might bring the whole house of cards down in the long run, since I don't know that they can bear close scrutiny very well. The facility has spent far too long being accountable to no one.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully it will be a start. It seems like everytime they try to close it down, a Greek chorus of parents beg to keep it open. I hope increased accountability will help these kids and eventually close this place down.
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Syn,
it bugs a lot of the people who've been fighting this battle.
However, every attempt at an outright ban has been defeated. Bringing limits, accountability and oversight into the picture is hard to object to and just may win.
And it's just possible that not only will that reduce the number of people getting this "treatment" in the short term - it might bring the whole house of cards down in the long run, since I don't know that they can bear close scrutiny very well. The facility has spent far too long being accountable to no one.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But it's an interesting subject in itself - although I don't have much to add since I agree with the people saying this is absurdly cruel and stupid.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
