![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
copperbadge: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive ... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LEWIS
Whether you are interested or not, whether you want to read this or not, I hope you will at least click...
This link: A SEARCH FOR SURVIVORS.
copperbadge is right. We need to make sure that the blog above turns up when people research Attachment Therapy.
There is a modern therapy that is not the 1970s attachment therapy. Here is the difference between the two methods:
Attachment Therapy in the 1970s that led to kids' deaths
- strangers holding child down while the parent watches and does nothing
- deliberately inducing fear
- withholding water and food
- smothering the child with blankets and pillows (the cause of those deaths)
- rubbing vomit and spit in the child's face
New Treatment described in this radio report
- holding child like a baby
- forced physical proximity
- forced dependency; child is not allowed to initiate, they must trust the parent will provide without asking
The difference is night and day. I have seen abusive practices portrayed in a positive light in the media based on selective anecdotal evidence that leaves out or downplays important (and potentially embarrassing) facts. It's less common for the abused to exaggerate what they experienced. They have nothing to defend.
Let your conscience be your guide. It is the method that makes the difference. Attachment therapy has been discredited because of its early history, and rightfully so. I am skeptical of attempts to put it in a positive light.
ETA: According to this which is endorsed by the American Psychological Association, the whole theory behind both both of these attachment therapies is flawed. They are appealing to parents because they blame the child and the child's past caregivers. And, thank god, they say what sounded strange to me in the first place -- the unrealistic expectation that a child who's been abused be suddenly trusting and attached is the parents' expectation.
I checked out some websites on attachment therapy. They claimed that past kids with attachment disorder have grown up to be sociopaths, and listed Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler as people with attachment disorder. This hyperbole raised some red flags for me.
Sure enough, the task force paper above states: "There is no empirical scientific support for the idea that children with attachment problems grow up to be psychopaths and prey on society." Chaffin, pg. 80
In light of the evidence, Attachment Therapy is a harmful pseudo-therapy. All that varies is the degree of harm.
copperbadge: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive ... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."- C.S. LEWIS
Q: What is attachment therapy?
A: Attachment therapy (widely known as "holding therapy" or"rage-reduction") is a torturous, ineffective and entirely unscientific practice that preys on orphaned adoptees and foster children who already have a history of abuse.
Attachment therapy techniques rely on forceful physical coercion and restraint, non-consensual touching, verbal abuse, intimidation, enforced eye contact and punishments related to food, water and air intake. It is rejected by the mainstream psychiatric community and is officially banned by many states, but the practice continues to this day.
Many cases of attachment therapy have culminated in the death of the child patient.
Whether you are interested or not, whether you want to read this or not, I hope you will at least click...
copperbadge is right. We need to make sure that the blog above turns up when people research Attachment Therapy.There is a modern therapy that is not the 1970s attachment therapy. Here is the difference between the two methods:
Attachment Therapy in the 1970s that led to kids' deaths
- strangers holding child down while the parent watches and does nothing
- deliberately inducing fear
- withholding water and food
- smothering the child with blankets and pillows (the cause of those deaths)
- rubbing vomit and spit in the child's face
New Treatment described in this radio report
- holding child like a baby
- forced physical proximity
- forced dependency; child is not allowed to initiate, they must trust the parent will provide without asking
The difference is night and day. I have seen abusive practices portrayed in a positive light in the media based on selective anecdotal evidence that leaves out or downplays important (and potentially embarrassing) facts. It's less common for the abused to exaggerate what they experienced. They have nothing to defend.
ETA: According to this which is endorsed by the American Psychological Association, the whole theory behind both both of these attachment therapies is flawed. They are appealing to parents because they blame the child and the child's past caregivers. And, thank god, they say what sounded strange to me in the first place -- the unrealistic expectation that a child who's been abused be suddenly trusting and attached is the parents' expectation.
I checked out some websites on attachment therapy. They claimed that past kids with attachment disorder have grown up to be sociopaths, and listed Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler as people with attachment disorder. This hyperbole raised some red flags for me.
Sure enough, the task force paper above states: "There is no empirical scientific support for the idea that children with attachment problems grow up to be psychopaths and prey on society." Chaffin, pg. 80
In light of the evidence, Attachment Therapy is a harmful pseudo-therapy. All that varies is the degree of harm.
