 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Tuesday, July 24, 2001
Why do we fail to hear the anguish of mentally ill children?
I have very much appreciated the series by Post-Gazette staff writer Steve Twedt and photographer Robin Rombach regarding mentally ill kids in the juvenile justice system ("It's a Crime," July 15-19). His articles have certainly underscored the need for effective treatment programs for these children. I do believe that assessing them at an earlier age and moving them more quickly into programs to better manage their symptoms is key to getting them out of any system and moving them forward to a more productive life.
As a therapist who works in a community family-based program, what equally alarms me is: Why do the children in America have to go to such great lengths to tell us that they are hurting? Each young person whom Twedt describes in his series is trying to communicate something and as a system of providers I can't help but wonder how often we fail to hear them.
For a future article idea, the PG might want to consider the "why" and might want to look at what is working. The only way real changes will get made is if taxpayers decide they don't want their money wasted on things that are proven not to work -- and start looking for real solutions to the real problems of kids with mental health issues.
LORI MOORE
RTFs not the answer
As a five-year mental health specialist, I am intrigued by your series "It's a Crime." I agree that it is sad how some of the adolescents are misdiagnosed and end up being victims of the system for months and even years. However, Twedt's reporting that the numerous Residential Treatment Facilities (RTFs) that turn away these kids are failing to serve the population is, in my opinion, under-researched.
I have worked with adolescents diagnosed with conduct disorders and been assaulted. I, among others, do not agree that these mental health juvenile delinquents belong in an RTF. Speaking from experience, I have seen adolescents diagnosed with conduct disorders come into a unit and completely disrupt the entire schedule, interfering with other residents' treatment. I have witnessed these "teens [who] suffer" threaten and physically attack residents and staff and create riots.
The aggressive conduct disorder child should not be placed in a RTF with other residents who are suffering from depression, delusions, anxiety, bipolar or borderline personalities.
The conduct disorder will simply aggravate the symptoms of the other residents. I ask you: Is that fair for the other children?
Regarding the July 16 installment "New Morgan Academy: Is This Private Center the Answer?" I believe that this type of facility is the only one that can safely and therapeutically house and treat this population. Yes, these kids require and deserve treatment. They do not require this treatment at the cost of someone else's treatment.
I urge Mr. Twedt to continue his investigations and view the RTF's side of the story before claiming that the conduct disorder juvenile offender is not receiving the appropriate treatment. There are many lives at stake in this field; how many do you wish to put at risk?
LISA WEISHNER
Pick up this habit
I was pleased to see Mayor Tom Murphy focusing attention on reducing the amount of litter in Pittsburgh ("Trash-Talking Mayor Urges a Cleaner City," July 5). I believe the key to reducing litter in our communities will require more than asking people to stop. I believe the biggest deterrent to litter is the absence of litter.
The key to this is that we all make efforts to pick up litter when we see it. A few easy ideas might include cleaning around your house and especially along the curb every time you take your garbage out.
If you walk a dog, clean up after other dogs as well as your own dog. Better yet, take a grocery bag with you on one walk a week and clean up trash along the way. If you see an area that is particularly dirty, get some people together to clean it up. And finally, walk around your house and your neighborhood every day; it is impossible to clean up from a car.
KEN DOYNO
Salvation Army's mission
I was disappointed to see Rob Rogers' cheap shot against the Salvation Army in your newspaper on July 17. I guess Rob doesn't want to let the facts stand in the way of a good cartoon.
In the past days, your paper has joined others in the media as portraying The Salvation Army as an organization seeking a federal exemption to allow it to discriminate against gays. This is not true!
While I do not speak officially for the Salvation Army, I have been a member of the church most of my life, so I think I know of which I speak. The Salvation Army was founded in 1865 with the purpose of ministering to and serving the outcasts of society. The mission has never changed.
The Salvation Army has a sterling record of helping all people without condition or prejudice. When someone asks for help from the Salvation Army, no questions are asked.
In fact, the Salvation Army's record of helping people is so successful, government often asks for its help in many programs. This help should not come with the condition that Salvationists compromise their religious beliefs.
The Salvation Army, like most other churches in America, does not endorse gays serving as ministers or religious lay leaders. There are no such restrictions for the thousands of other Salvation Army employees, but on the issue of gay ordination, the church will not and should not be asked to compromise.
Does this belief really deserve the ridicule it has received? I think not!
FRED C. HONSBERGER
Editor's note: The writer is a talk-show host on KDKA-AM.
Sinn Fein has contributed more to peace process in Northern Ireland than anyone
I would like to offer some comments on Brian Connelly's July 8 Forum commentary, "Not Giving Peace a Risk." The article, in my estimation, contained many inaccuracies and faulty analysis. Heclaims that "centrist Protestant and Catholic parties . . actually created the power-sharing Good Friday Agreement." Sinn Fein and the IRA, on the other hand, he maintains -- using the device "voices have said" -- were in the peace process for cynical purposes.
I am afraid that on this question Mr. Connelly got his history wrong. The peace negotiations were initially opened between the political wing of the Republican Movement, i.e.,Sinn Fein, and the British Government. Sinn Fein have contributed more to this process than any other party in Northern Ireland. Unionists, on the other hand, historically tried to scuttle all attempts at peace and agreements on power-sharing.
Mr. Connelly characterizes Sinn Fein as extremists and that "all right-thinking people are imploring Sinn Fein to intercede with the IRA to make some gesture of disarming that will make David Trimble and the Unionists want to stay in the government." Sinn Fein's basic demand is for equality, civil rights and an end to discrimination, an agenda which in Mr. Connelly's eyes is extremist. How bizarre.
Furthermore, framing the problem in this way only leads to obfuscation. If one decodes David Trimble, Ian Paisley and "all right-thinking people's" pleas, they amount simply to "Fenian lie down." The silent guns of the IRA are not the problem but the pretext. The problem is Unionist's rejection of power-sharing and refusal to accept equality and justice for all in Northern Ireland.
MICHAEL DROHAN
Straight from the Brits
Your choice of recent articles to run from the Washington Post ("IRA Turned in No Arms, International Panel Says," July 3) and Shawn Pogatchnik of The Associated Press ("N. Ireland Struggles to Retain Coalition," July 2) as well as Brian Connelly's July 8 Forum piece on the current impasse in the north of Ireland ("Not Giving Peace a Risk," July 8), have sent my blood pressure soaring. Shamefully, the Post-Gazette will rely on sources that get their information directly from the British Information Service rather than utilize either other newspapers in Britain and Ireland who won't kowtow the British line or to contact people from the Irish-American community in the Pittsburgh area who can at least give more balance and a fair shot at describing the Irish republican point of view.
T.R. Reid's Washington Post article discussed the DeChastelain Report on decommissioning of weapons. The glaring omission in the article was that loyalist paramilitary groups also haven't decommissioned their weapons.
Additionally, the article failed to give any information about the content of the IRA's May 6, 2000, statement on decommissioning, which stated: "The full implementation on a progressive and irreversible basis by the two governments [Britain and Ireland], especially the British government of what they have agreed will provide a political context in an enduring political process, with the potential to remove the causes of conflict, and in which Irish republicans and unionists can, as equals, pursue our respectivepolitical objectives peacefully."
That statement referred to Britain's agreement to do the following: Pass legislation to implement the Patten Report on police reform by November 2000; and, the British government taking all necessary steps to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in the north of Ireland. This was the context for the IRA putting its arms completely and verifiably beyond use.
The British government has failed to meet its obligation to Irish republicans and to all who voted for the Good Friday Agreement. This is the crux of the problem. IRA weapons have been silent for seven years. The antics of David Trimble, the condemnation of the IRA from a pseudo-nationalist party that was trounced in June's elections by Sinn Fein, are but a sideshow and cannot mask the real truth that it is within Britain's power to bring this crisis to a close.
SARAH McAULIFFE-BELLIN
Editor's note: The writer is local chapter president of the Irish American Unity Conference.
Latrobe
Eighty Four
Regent Square
Monroeville
Wilkins
Stanton Heights