Continuing the Discussion: A Commentary on “Wilderness Therapy: Ethical Considerations for Mental Health Professionals”

Abstract

Wilderness therapy programs continue to be a possible treatment modality for at-risk youth who require out-of-home care. Issues associated with wilderness therapy also continue to be a spirited topic with professionals in the field and the general public. This commentary will add additional considerations, and continue the discussion concerning wilderness therapy not addressed in the Becker (Child Youth Care Forum, doi. 10.1007/s10566-009-9085-7, 2010 this issue) article. Issues related to cost, safety of clients, effectiveness of programs and proper training of staff will be discussed. Ethical issues faced by mental health providers working with wilderness therapy programs, as discussed in Becker's article, will also be reviewed.

Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards

“…The secondary result is the exaggerated possibility to conclude that research results from one form of group care applies to all group care. A similar concern within the field of wilderness programs was recently articulated in this journal (Becker 2010;Scott and Duerson 2010).…”

Examining changes in substance use and conduct problems among treatment‐seeking adolescents

“…Despite the proliferation of OBH programs and the corresponding need to examine treatment outcomes, as well as the ethical difficulties associated with these types of interventions (i.e., Becker, 2010;Scott & Duerson, 2010), the empirical study of therapeutic outcomes remains limited. Prior studies have reported improvements in (a) recidivism for adjudicated youth (Castellano & Soderstrom, 1992) and sexual offenders (Lambie et al, 2000), (b) family functioning (Harper & Russell, 2008), (c) oppositional and defiant behavior among adolescents (Brand, 2001), and d) interpersonal functioning (Clark, Marmol, Cooley & Gathercoal, 2004).…”

What Can Parents Do? A Review of State Laws Regarding Decision Making for Adolescent Drug Abuse and Mental Health Treatment

“…Interestingly, 40 of the 131 (31%) programs are located in Utah, a state in which a parent may submit a non-consenting minor for treatment if a neutral and detached fact finder determines that the minor needs treatment and the non-consenting minor will not be discharged upon request if s/he continues to meet admission requirements (Lallemont, et al, 2009). Unfortunately, there are a number of noted problems with these types of programs (Friedman et al, 2006) and a lack of methodologically controlled outcome studies (Scott & Duerson, 2010; Wilson & Lipsey, 2000). In addition, the effect of this type of coercion on the parent-adolescent relationship is unknown.…”