Is Your Child Being “Held Hostage”?
It is estimated that over 12 million children and youth have mental health conditions. Many of these young people remain undiagnosed and untreated. Many are also stigmatized by both children and adults (see Featured Discussions #43 and #37). To alert Americans “to the silent public health epidemic of children’s mental illness,” New York University’s Child Study Center launched an awareness campaign called “Ransom Notes” (press release).
The campaign is comprised of six “notes" (you can view them all here) each addressing a separate mental health condition—ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome, autism, bulimia, depression and obsessive compulsive disorder—and all ending with the same tag line: “Don’t let a psychiatric disorder take your child.” The main concept behind the campaign is that when mental health conditions are left untreated or unaddressed, they can hold a child “hostage”—much as a kidnapper might. The notes themselves are stylistically threatening – sloppy writing or cut-out letters form the equally ominous messages, for example: “We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay…ADHD.”
According to the press release, John Osborn, the President and CEO of the company who produced the ad campaign hopes the ransom notes “will act as a wake-up call to families, educators and healthcare professionals, and spark dialogue so children can get the help they need.” The campaign will run in New York City through the first quarter of 2008 and then expand into five other regions.
Questions for Discussion:
- What reactions did you have upon viewing the ransom notes?
- Do you think this ad campaign will serve as the “wake up call” predicted by Osborn?
- Is “held hostage” an appropriate way to describe what happens to a child who experiences mental health difficulties?
- What effect, if any, will these notes have on the parents of children with mental health conditions?
- What effect, if any, will these notes have on the social perceptions of mental illness?
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue.
Update!
In response to the negative public reactions to the Ransom Note ad campaign, The Child Study Center at NYU has canceled the campaign.
Do you think that was the right decision? We encourage you to continue discussing this news below.
Your thoughts…
Comments:
 NYU Child Study Center:
Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz
Phone: 212-263-6205
Fax: 212.263.0990
Communications Department: Beth Rowan, Director of Communications
212.404.3757
NYU Child Study Center
577 First Avenue
New York, NY 10016
I think that it was good for these people to pull this ad. I think they need to honestly answer the following questions with some actual true and tested scientific evidence based on the following standards: (1) the measures that are used are relevant, valid and reliable (2) the subject populations are selected by a sample method that is free of bias (3) the confounding variables are controlled for and (4) the causation is distinguished from any simple correlation.
1. Is there any solid and conclusive evidence that clearly establishes the validity of any major learning or emotional issue or difficulty as indeed being from a "mental illness" that it is in fact a biologically-based "brain disease"?
2. If so: What is it? Where is it? How can parents view a one or two page explanation of it? What about doctors and medical professionals and the government that is being asked to sponsor this theory rather then any preventative type assistance, financial support, or other resources or supports for these families? Why aren't families getting more of the funds then those that are raking the funds in on behalf of them?
3. Is their any reliable evidence for any factual physical diagnostic exam such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc that can reliably distinguish children with these diagnoses prior to any type of treatment recommendations especially with psychiatric drugs, from children without these diagnoses.
4. What is the actual evidence for any base-line standards of what a neurochemically balanced "normal" child is versus what a neurochemically imbalanced child is? How are these imbalances being specifically measured for or shown?
5. What evidence is there that any psychotropic drug can actually correct the "chemical imbalance" attributed to the psychiatric diagnoses or medical labels that these children are getting, or that these drugs are any thing more than a non-specific alterer of the physical being of the child?
6. What is the evidence that any mind altering medication can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide in children with these labels? Has it not been show that in fact it may be just the opposite in some of these kids? What about beliefs or self fullfilling prophecy, how is this being measured for as to how it is affecting the results and outcomes?
7. Hasn't it been proven that no one can in fact determine beforehand how these drugs will affect anyone taking them, especially over a long period of time, physically or any of their behaviors either positively or negatively?
8. Hasn't it in fact been proven that peer pressure via bullying to use drugs and fit in the crowd is one of the biggest reliable indicators as to what a child's behaviors and drug use will be? So isn't this idea that these drugs are the best treatment mainly building patterns for drug use as a cure all or fix, when it is simply a bandaid for control in many cases?
9. If it has been shown that peer pressure leads to one doing more of something or less of it, do we really want to increase the possibility of illicit drug use in our children, drug use that causes even more problems?
10. If this is true isn't it important that we not teach our children to push the use of these medications on each other, give them mixed messages about the use of drugs as to the fact of them making one more normal by using them, not push the use of these drugs as the first line of defense instead of looking for the real causes, and that we start to look at some issues differently?
I think that these questions are important and need to be answered.
Once they can answer these questions for parents and others then perhaps they might have something to go on. Otherwise this is just propaganda and scare tactics and perhaps one should consider the source first?
I couldn't find the ads to see them so I don't know what they look like only what I am reading in this article. I would say that these people know better than what they are doing? Isn't it a fact that the numbers are rising and not dropping of the children that are being labeled and treated? Why is that?
Sure some kids might need some extra support and assistance, but labeling them and proposing self fullfilling prophecies on them isn't going to get it, and it isn't going to help, and that is just wrong! Denying them of any truth or justice they need, or feelings that they may have about all that they are going through isn't going to get it either.
Since these treatments often seem to do much more harm then they do good and cause many more of the problems then they relieve that seems to be a problem. Giving children "chemicals" that are full of great possibilities of lifetime physical problems rather then what they actually do need, is very problematic in my eyes.
For generations now of mass societal control there has not been enough to do the right things to assist others even when they ask for the assistance that they may need. They are denied and turned away because that program or that resource or that person isn't available to them, or they are seen as lazy, uncontrollable, and the problem.
If one is conscientious and they do their part and they look at the realit and do their job the best they can one can mostly tell when kids are actually struggling and really need some supports. I have heard many a teacher and professional talk about how frustrated that they are because they can not do what actually needs to be done to assist that family or that child to get things right.
I think the biggest issue is "if" the assistance the child needs or their parents actually ask for on their behalf is available or not? To promote theories over reality is never going to be the way to get things right, individuals are all different in some ways and have different needs and often different values and realities to live under, and they have the right to be respected.
I think more parents would feel better about getting assistance for themselves and their children if the systems were different, if there wasn't the threats of removal involved in the system, if there wasn't as much system coercion and force or pushing of it, if it was simply made available with no false shame or blame. It is not that the family is the village, because each individual family is an individual, but rather that a family lives within a village and the village is an individual as a whole.
Stigmatizing with lifetime labels that do not in fact serve to solve any of the real issues won't change things in any better direction. I think if the children were asked what they actually wanted or thought they needed, then that was in fact considered and respected and was what was done for the children and the families in as much as was possible more kids would ask for the support they need. Scare tactics seem to only scare people off.
I think if confidentiality matters were respected it would be different, if a good thing was available most parents would want it, you would have to start turning them away. I have seen this vision done in respectable ways before, where the people of a community at their leisure and with proper support could decide if they wanted to learn more about parenting and their childs needs.
That takes transportation, child care, sometimes temporary housing or food if it is more then a day or any distance away and things of this nature. Many parents would find that they would learn to and want to promote the right behaviors in caring ways and be voluntarily involved in these type of things. They can contribute to them and have some ownership over them. They are able to make new friends and support people, share and learn from one another, build hope and support mechanisms, no one looking for the others faults or problems, rather just making new friends, learning on an equal footing as a part of a community. No one there against their will because someone said they had to be and it was enjoyable to them, not demeaning.
I think prevention is better then treatment any day, but then you may have to be ready to deal with what you actually find and have the needed resources and supports in place for these kids and their families.
Most parents actually care about their children and what is in their best interest, and they want things to be better or the best that they can be for them. Many parents will even beg for others to assist them in different areas.
That doesn't often happen until after the behaviors or issues being seen become really problematic and then the courts and systems are involved and become overcrowded and unhelpful, and things that parents don't like and don't want are being done to their children and them. This causes tension and mistrust over all and of the system that is supposedly there to protect our families. This is really detrimental to the whole bases of self esteem, a cause of our society being so out of control.
I think that the concept of prevention, assistance, and support has long since gone by the wayside. Simply because there is never enough money or time or resources to do these types of things, and those that might ask for any needed assistance or support are shamed and blamed and turned down and away rather then supported.
I think the system is broken and any mutual support or respect between those that are so called being treated and the ones that are so called treating them is amiss, that is problematic, really it is. One is getting a service and the other is getting paid to provide a service, but how we look at that makes the whole world of difference.
Labeling children with lifetime "brain diseases" and not just seeing the simple or actual problems and issues that are leading to all of this is just the wrong way to go about it! Jails and prisons only make criminals they do not make people feel good about themselves or do better.
So many of our laws now are being based around the ideas that they are making things better. That it is better to use coercion and force via threat of jails or prison then to do prevention and give real care and concern in some mutual ways and that is not helping, it is making things worse over all. Look at the numbers and ask if we know that they are going to increase, shouldn't we know that what is being done now and the way it is being done is not the right way to go about things.
We need some real change, skills finding and sharing, and hope. Posted Sunday, January 20, 2008 by Janie Lee, M.Ed. at 12:58 PM
My first reaction upon hearing about the ads but before seeing them, was "gee, that sounds a bit strange." After seeing the ads and thinking about it a bit more, I wasn't sure that I was opposed to the campaign. My son was only 8 when he was diagnosed with OCD and it was awfully hard to watch him struggle. The image offered by the NYU ads -- "being taken hostage" by a mental illness -- was not as far off the mark for me as it seems to have been for many parents/caretakers. It sure felt like my husband and I were trying to get our son back from something that had taken him away from us. In truth, I thought the reaction of many advocacy groups was a bit kneejerk in nature. Also, I think some, including some who have responded here, are reading more into the ads than is there. Why, for instance, should it be assumed that NYU was pushing medications over, say, cognitive behavioral therapy?
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Well, I see in the paper today that that ad campaign has been canceled. From the article: ?While many individuals spoke to us about the need to continue the campaign, inadvertently we offended others,? said Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz, the Child Study Center?s founder and director, who estimated that he had received 3,000 e-mail messages and phone calls. Thirty percent of those praised the initiative, he said, and 70 percent expressed anger and hurt. Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 02:11 PM
I'd encourage anyone to sign a petition that is available online endorsing the The Autistic Self Advocacy Network's joint statement with thirteen other disability rights organizations.
You can search for it under An Open Letter on the NYU Ransom Notes Campaign.
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 at 12:26 PM
There is SUCH a need for accurate information about emotional, behavioral, and mental disorders of children. And, there is SUCH a need to reduce stigma and increase acceptance and support of children and families.
This campaign may be well-intentioned, but it really misses the mark! The concept of being "held hostage" may describe the experience of some young people and their families, but it also implies that those who have these experiences are helpless. Thus I think the meta-message is disempowering, spreading an aura of hopelessness rather than hope.
I hope that the sponsors and developers of this set of messages will re-think their strategy, do some listening to young people and their families, and then reformulate their campaign. There really is a need for good information.
Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 09:46 PM
While this ad campaign will undoubtedly garner attention, I think it is a bad strategy and highly stigmatizing. I agree that it sounds like big Pharma promo. Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 08:36 PM
There is a somewhat organized effort to let NYU and its sponsors know that this approach can hurt kids more than help them. Here is contact information:
NYU Child Study Center:
Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz
Phone: 212-263-6205
Fax: 212.263.0990
Communications Department:
Beth Rowan, Director of Communications
212.404.3757
NYU Child Study Center
577 First Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 08:18 PM
While I see how the relationship to medications will more than likely be rapidly drawn upon reading these ads, I also realize how educationally immobile students with untreated conditions can become. The mental health reform movement has created a complex and confusing maze through which parents must travel (monthly, if Medicaid provides the financial support for the treatment) in order to allow for treatment services to occur for their children. School personnel see the "stop and go" treatment process developing for students in need now more than ever....which is very ineffective and unproductive. Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 by frustrated school psych in NC at 07:05 PM
Who is paying for these ads? They sound like something the pharmaceutical companies would sponsor. Threatening parents with undiagnosed mental disorders and of course what would release the child from being held hostage would be medications, right? I don't think so. Chris Hince Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 by hincechris@yahoo.com at 06:25 PM
Post a Comment:
Return to
Current Featured Discussions Page Top |
