Parental Anguish, Teen Angst

Posted on 24/01/2012 | 2 Comments

With this blog I am following up on the theme of: the responsibility of civil society to help people who are, as a result of their mental condition, making terrible decisions about their well-being. This happens often to the anguish and heartbreak of those who love them the most. 
 
Take for example the story of “Jane” as reported by the Edmonton Journal . She is sixteen and diagnosed with a host of mental disorders. She has been in and out of so called treatment centers for young people – all for short degrees of time. There has been little or no improvement. She runs away from her family home, when not in supportive structured care. Her life seems to be on a trajectory to a real and present disaster.
 
According the article, she has not been able to be helped because the “system” does not recognize and provide sufficient supportive controlled environments to the small number of young people who need them desperately during their formative years. No, we rather hide behind the apron of so called freedom and later incarcerate them for life (if they last that long). We build prisons instead of supportive and secure residential treatment centers.
 
Whatever the diagnosis that “Jane” has, the outcomes to date speak to significant emotional and cognitive turmoil that have resulted in a variety of self-destructive behaviors. The only method that we know of to help young people struggling with these challenges is to have such a young person link with and remain in a structured and supportive environment where her/his physical, emotional and cognitive needs can be therapeutically addressed over time. The alternative is a probable life sentence of pain, suffering and slow death.
 
But as the story of “Jane” demonstrates, we, as a responsible and caring society, seem not be able to get our act together to take the leadership needed so that “Jane” and others like her can get a fighting chance for success. On the contrary, it seems that the decks are stacked against a positive outcome. Why? I do not know all the reasons and I admit that they are complicated. But one reason for sure is as a society, we seem to be very reluctance to practice compassionate control and supportive structuring, so that kids who are not in control can have a chance to learn self control and increase their odds for a positive instead of a negative outcome.
 
Instead, we dither and families burn in the fire of indecision flamed by the fuel of non-intervention until it is too late. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, how many deaths will it take till we know that too many (who could have been saved) have died? How many kids will be given a life sentence of poverty, drug abuse and violence because we have chosen not to help them gain control of a life spiraling into the abyss? How many parents have to live in anguish and fear – of that knock on the door and the police officer asking them to come to the hospital or worse? Who amongst us is so confident in our self-righteous piety of non-intervention that we can ignore that we indeed at some time may be called upon to be “our brother’s keeper”?
 
Is this unwillingness to act in the best interests of the young person really stigma in sheep’s clothing? I wonder what the child’s parents think? Why not talk to one and find out. I am sure that Phill Murray (that is “Jane's” real life dad) will be willing to let you know.
 
-- Stan

What people are saying?

Arlene said...

It takes a village to raise a child, the further we stray from this very old African wisdom the more isolated and disconnected we become as a society. And who suffers the most… the most vulnerable, our youth

Comment made on February 08th, 2012

daceyblyson said...

you mentioned good point here I hope it will create good awareness for everyone.

seo company south florida

Comment made on February 10th, 2012

What do you think?


Filter by category

Filter by date

Blog Tag Cloud

adhd anxiety disorders attention award awards behaviour bipolar blog brain & neurology bullying canada care carter center conference confidentiality control coping criminal justice system cruelty cutting depression discrimination doctor driving eating disorders

Recent Comment

This is a great set of comments and rings very true. 

I totally agree that scientists (just like everyone else) have their biases and foibles.  After all, scientists are human beings too!  But science is different than scientists. 

The scientific method is the most objective frame that we have by which to evaluate and predict.  Science is not about finding truth.  It is only about being less wrong most of the time.  The scientific method (experimental design and mathematics) gives us the ability to test what we believe.  The scientific method is not used to prove something is correct, on the contrary, the scientific method is designed to prove that something is not correct!  It is designed to test what is called the “null hypothesis”.  It takes ideas that come out of left field (or wherever else they come from) and puts those ideas to an independent test.

t does not drive our beliefs.  It does however challenge our beliefs.  In that way it is self-correcting. Of course scientific inquiry and understanding lives within a wider social context.  That is one of the great features of science. 

But gravity is gravity, social context notwithstanding.  And thus it is nasty, brutish and long.  As Brecht said, (something like this) - the purpose of science is to save us from everlasting error.

By Christina Carew on May 11th

You can find us here too!

  • image
  • image
  • image

We would like to say thanks...

Without their help this initiative would not be possible. Thanks for you help.

  • image
  • image
  • image

Helpful Links