As we tootle about our lives we are sometimes unaware of the full horror of the human experience and how barbarity often exists justs out of sight. For people who are adjudged as needing to receive ‘treatments’, barbarity is in plain sight all the time.
The Judge Rotenberg Centre (note the happy colours) describes itself as:
The Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) is a special needs school in Canton, Massachusetts serving both higher-functioning students with conduct, behavior, emotional, and/or psychiatric problems and lower-functioning students with autistic-like behaviors
Wait for the animated gif to revolve a few times. Note the happy faces of the students. Note the lovely grounds.
The JRC achieves its results by administering an electric shock to its students when they are in need of corrective action. Students carry around backpacks to ensure they are close to the source of the corrective action. The device/process is called ‘GED’ – Graduated Electronic Decelerator.
Massachusetts Division of Public Licensure is investigating reports of burns to the skin of at least one student. A former worker claimed that JRC staff failed to move the electrodes each day as required to keep from burning the boy’s skin. Director Matthew Israel states that:
Our skin shock device does not cause burns when it is applied. Very, very occasionally, a device might cause a superficial mark on the skin, from which the skin recovers quickly.
A ‘superficial mark’. Right. I guess ‘superficial’ might be in the eye of the beholder Mr Israel. Or, in this case, the skin of a young man.
The JRC also has an interesting take on diet – from its ‘foods to avoid’ section:
1. Avoid all red meat, including beef, pork, and lamb. All are rich in fat, cholesterol, and other harmful constituents.
2. Avoid all poultry and fish. Poultry has about the same amount of cholesterol as red meat, while fish varies, depending on type. Some fish are higher in cholesterol than red meat, others lower.
3. Avoid all dairy products, including milk, yogurt and cheese. Low-fat dairy products are not recommended because of potential health hazards including allergies, childhood diabetes, arthritis and lactose intolerance.
4. Avoid all oil, including olive, safflower, peanut and corn oil. Oil is simply a liquid form of fat.
5. Avoid eggs. Eggs are abundant in fat and cholesterol.
6. Avoid nuts, seeds, avocados, olives and soybean products (including tofu, soy cheese, and soy milk). Soybean products are high in fat, unless they have been specially processed (low-fat varieties are also not recommended).
7. Avoid all dried fruit and fruit juices. (Eat the whole fruit instead).
8. Avoid all flour products, such as breads, bagels and pretzels. The less a food is processed the better it is for weight loss. Flour products are composed of fragments of grain, or relatively small particles, which increase absorption and slow weight loss.
And then from an ex-employee:
A 12-year-old autistic girl wasted away to a “bag of bones†under a harsh dietary regime imposed by the controversial Judge Rotenberg Center for troubled kids, a former employee charges.
The JRC has also made the news recently by lying about its staff.
The Boston Herald reported Wednesday that the Massachusetts Division of Public Licensure is investigating at least 10 JRC therapists for allegedly practicing psychology without a license. The allegations were initially made by New York lawyer Kenneth Mollins, who complained last week that 14 of the 17 clinicians listed on the residential school’s website are not licensed psychologists. After Mollins’ allegations became public, JRC removed the title of psychologist from the names of all of its therapists that do not have licenses. “We have acknowledged we were giving the incorrect title,” JRC attorney Michael Flammia told the Herald. A district court magistrate will decide next week whether criminal charges will be filed against the 10 therapists and possibly four others that are also under investigation.
These are just the things that have been discovered.
My fellow Brit, Mike Stanton blogged about the JRC back in April. Amongst the commenters was someone calling themselves ‘Jackie’. Jackie had the following to say:
The director of JRC encourages staff members to use electroshock to quitting smoking, makes staff members watch slaughter house movies as a condition of their advancement, and is starving some of the patients who can not thrive on his radical vegetarian diet.
and
The worst shock punishment is when staff straps a child to a board and tell her that she will be shocked randomly five times in the next hour. Here the ultimate punishment is not the shock but the hour long terror.
and
However, the worst punishment is when food is withheld from a child for bad behavior. Every child’s behavior deteriorates when food is withheld so JRC becomes directly responsible for the behavior for which the child is being punished.
Director Matthew Israel seems to be a fairly typical quack. When challenged to present evidence for his aversive-based regime he says:
Our mission is to function as a school, or service agency, and not as a research agency. Indeed, the funds we receive for our services are not supposed to be spent on research.
Which is a fairly standard altie method of avoiding the necessity for validating quackery. Israel goes on to cite the NIH ‘Treatment of Destructive Behaviors in Persons With Developmental Disabilities’ statement from 1987 as supporting his practices. However upon visiting the page in question one finds a large disclaimer in bold, red, emphasised, uppercase type:
THIS DOCUMENT IS NO LONGER VIEWED BY NIH AS GUIDANCE FOR CURRENT MEDICAL PRACTICE.
I can find next to nothing in Pubmed regarding aversive based treatments.
However, one of the most disturbing aspects of the JRC is the readiness with which it is embraced by its students parents. the JRC maintains a blog in which it posts messages of support from students parents. None of the students views are represented. A typical example is below:
_”Before placing my daughter Julissa at JRC, I suffered tremendously because of her behaviors. She did not obey my rules, she did not listed to me, and she used to go out without permission. When she returned home and I tried to talk to her, she used to get very angry and hit me. When she did something wrong and I tried to give her advice, it was for nothing because she did not listed. One time, she even took money from me without me knowing. She took my ATM card, and since she knew my pin number, she took out $700.00 dollars that I was saving for that month’s rent. At home, we hardly ever slept. My other daughter, my granddaughter, and I were very nervous because of Jusissa’s behaviors.”_
_”Julissa was admitted to the Metropolitan Hospital in two occasions. Also, she was admitted once at Holewood Hospital in Queens. Every time she left the hospitals and returned home, she exhibited the same behaviors.”_
_”Even though my daughter was admitted into two different hospitals and was placed into different treatments, and many prescribed medications, nothing really helped her. I give my testimony of faith that nothing has been better than the treatment or better said the discipline that JRC school has.”_
This sounds (to me) like a naughty girl. But a girl deserving of the sort of regime described above? Electro therapy because a child wouldn’t follow her mother’s rules? On what grounds are these good criteria for this regime?
When I first heard about this, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately its not.
Left Brain Right Brain 
I have known of this institution for some time. It saddens me to note that the place is still doing business (it is purely for business… nothing else).
The place was also in the news under its old name of the Behaviour Research Institute, when a 19 yrs old girl who experienced serious learning difficulties was basically killed by the staff, although – typical for places like this – nobody was charged, let alone convicted for it.
They would have us believe that they operatie using operant conditioning, but electro-shock devices would (like any other punishment device) have B. F. Skinner spinning in his grave.
I can’t view any of the staff there as being even half human. It’s a evil place with money as its primary motivator and it has a lot of friends in political places in Massachusetts.
Which means that children in that state are basically fucked.
I’m going to go and vomit now. I only wish I could feed it by the spoonful to that bastard Israel.
What the hell kind of parent sends their child away to a place like that? What is WRONG with people?!
binni: “What the hell kind of parent sends their child away to a place like that?”
Idiots, basically.
Maybe when Dateline is done with their chelation story they can do one on the JRC…
I have just blogged The Judge Rotenberg Center. Does anyone have any info on NYC’s plans to reintroduce aversives? At present the methods used by JRC are illegal in New York so they spend a fortune sending kids across the state line to be abused 😦
Please read all of this very important message, and then circulate it far and wide if you agree with it’s purpose.
The purpose of this message is to inform concerned individuals about a judicially protected facility that is blatantly violating the basic human rights of severely challenged or disabled individuals. Many of the residents of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center http://www.judgerc.org are people with Autism, some of whom are non-verbal.
The Judge Rotenberg Center’s main location and administrative offices are located in Canton, Massachusetts, and it’s 50 other residential homes are located in several cities in Massachusetts. The director of the JRC, Matthew Israel, was a student of the late B.F. Skinner, a psychologist who was a strong proponent of behaviorism, who formed many of his beliefs from experiments with animals. http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/bfskinner.html However, Israel departs from Skinner’s teachings, in that Skinner believed aversives (described below) should be limited to extraordinary or emergency situations and not for standard training, while Israel relies upon them predominantly for many of his students.
The JRC uses level III aversive techniques to alter or suppress self abusive behaviors or any other behaviors that staff members deem as uncooperative or unfavorable. Aversives used at the JRC, which was formerly known as the Behavior Research Institute (BRI), include: spanking, pinching, forcing to eat taste aversives (vinegar mix, jalapeno peppers, or hot sauce), withholding food, forcing to smell ammonia, spraying water to the face, forcing to listen to static noises through specially designed helmets, and their trade mark method, the use of the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED), which simply put is a shocking device that delivers a jolt to the student/patient of up to 65 volts of electricity through remote control. These aversives are sometimes administered while the patient has their hands and feet restrained.
Two deaths at the Center raise serious questions regarding their methods. On December 19, 1990, Linda Cornelison, a patient who was mentally retarded and non-verbal, died of causes related to stomach perforations and ulcers. The Center failed to properly diagnose these apparently pre-existing conditions, and failed to provide an appropriate diet and treatment. When symptoms occurred that should have provided an opportunity for further examination, the JRC instead opted to punish her with a plethora of aversive treatments, including 61 which were administered on the day of her death. Linda, who had weighed 120 pounds when she began the Center’s food program, weighed just 90 pounds at the time of her death, which was less than one year later. http://normemma.com/lcorneli.htm
On the 23rd of July, 1985, Vincent Milletich, a 22 year old student with Autism, died at the JRC’s (Then Behavior Research Institute) group home in Seehonk, Mass. According to a New York Times article, “he (Vincent) had been shackled, fitted with a helmet and forced to listen to static noise through earphones. The Rhode Island medical examiner who performed an autopsy on Mr. Milletich said the victim died of asphyxiation but said it was not known what cut off his oxygen supply.†The article goes on to say, “Judge Ryan said Mr. Israel ”was negligent in authorizing the use of this helmet without having an expert in helmet construction design the helmet or subject it to a safety inspection.” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE0D7153BF93BA35752C0A961948260
On page 25 of Dick Sobsey’s book, “Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities
The End of Silent Acceptance?†Paul H Brookes Pub. Co. (January 1994), the writer reveals, “Vincent Milletich died after BRI workers `pushed his head between his legs, cuffed his hands behind his back, put a helmet on his head with radio static hissing into his ears and masked his face. He went limp and was declared dead on arrival minutes later at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence.’
According to Director Matthew Israel’s own words, posted on JRC’s Website, “The cause of death (Vincent’s) was ultimately determined to be natural causes related to his condition of tardive dyskinesia and not due to the restraint procedure that had been employed.†However, his claim is not substantiated in the coroner’s report or the findings of the court, which explicitly stated that asphyxiation was the cause. Vincent’s parents have said that he suffered from epilepsy. Regardless of what other diagnosis Vincent may or may not have had, Judge Ryan DID declare Mr. Israel “negligent†in regards to the helmet that was used in his treatment on the day of his death. This fact is a linkage between the JRC staff and the death of Vincent Milletich that Matt Israel cannot evade with clever words.
It should also be known that the Center imposes a diet upon it’s student population that is high in wheat and other grains that have high gluten (a protein) content. Many parents and experts will very quickly point out that gluten, and also casein (a dairy protein) cannot be properly digested by some people with Autism. The result of eating such foods will often lead to hyper, uncooperative, or confused behaviors. The demonstration of such behaviors would undoubtedly lead to aversive treatments being applied to the students, yet the Center’s, and Dr. Israel’s philosophy is not concerned with the cause of behaviors, only the cessation of them.
Many foes have arisen to oppose Dr. Israel’s continued use of level III aversive treatments. The Massachusetts Office for Children failed to stop him in 1985. Since 1986, the Massachusetts legislature has been unable to ban their usage. Throughout most of the 1990’s the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation was also unable to stop the aversives. The courts have continuously favored the Center. Matt Israel’s cause is also supported by a troop of parents who will always favor keeping their children’s behavior subdued, rather than seeking out treatments that focus upon identifying the causes and meeting developmental and other needs.
In 1994 Eye to Eye with Connie Chung attempted to expose the JRC, but Connie may have found Dr. Israel to be far more clever than she was prepared for. Please click on the following link for more details: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E4D7103DF933A15750C0A962958260&sec=&pagewanted=all
Currently, New York Senator Martin J. Golden has introduced Senate Bill 6876, which if approved by vote, will prevent New York schools from sending students to the Judge Rotenberg Center. If you live in the state of New York please email, phone or write your local state senator and plead with them to pass this bill. Here is a link to the text of the bill: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S06876&sh=t
This link will allow you to track the progress of the bill: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S06876
You will find email addresses for New York Senators at this link: http://www.senate.state.ny.us/Senatorbio.nsf/Public_MemberEmail?openform
Here is a link for contacting lower house members by email: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/
If you are not a New York resident, it may still be worthwhile to email your concerns. You may also want to investigate whether your state is sending children to the JRC. If so, please contact them and remind them that the aversive therapies used by the JRC violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires an extensive focus on positive behavioral interventions. Please contact the Federal Department of Education with any complaints through this link: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/hotlineform.html?src=ct
It may also be helpful to contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and demand a re-evaluation of their registration of the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (Shock Device), which is manufactured by the Judge Rotenberg Education Center, Inc. It’s registration number is: 1222743, and it is classified as an “Aversive Conditioning Device, FDA regulation number: 882.5235. Please inform them that this device is being used on individuals with severe forms of Autism who may be completely unable to associate the reason for the pain (shock) with their behavior. They may also suffer from sensory related issues that increase their pain level far beyond what a typical person may experience. Even the aversive shock testing that Dr. Ivar Lovaas performed on people with Autism did not reveal any lasting learned benefit. This fact alone should clearly reveal that the GED is not a suitable “conditioning device,†since it’s effect is quickly lost once the device is no longer employed. This reality makes it evident that the so called “conditioning device†has become an ongoing cattle prod or dog collar, which produces only pain, with no educational benefit. There are other non-invasive treatments that are proven to have long term benefits. Please email the USFDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health at this link: mailto:dsmica@cdrh.fda.gov , or write to them at:
FDA/CDRH/OCER/DSMICA (HFZ-220)
1350 Piccard Drive
Rockville, MD 20850-4307 U.S.A
Phone: 1-800-638-2041 or 301.443.6597
Be sure to specify the GED’s registration number. It should also be noted that this device is NOT FDA approved. It IS FDA registered. If anyone finds references to claims of FDA approval, or has heard Dr. Israel make claims of it being approved, they should immediately report this to the FDA.
In conclusion, I want it to be known that this message was originally written by a person who has Asperger’s Syndrome (A milder form of Autism), who chooses to remain anonymous. My sister is severely effected by symptoms related to Autism, and has been in institutions for 38 years of her life. I have personally seen many cases of self abusive behavior within the hallways of these institutions. With all that I know, and all that I have seen and felt, I would never send my sister to such a place as the Judge Rotenberg Education Center. My little boy is also diagnosed with Autism. He is the most beautiful and innocent person in the world to me. The idea of someone purposefully shocking him under the guise of medical care infuriates me. Please read, hear and feel my words as being alive and full of empathy for my fellow friends who live with Autism. Yes! It is possible for a person with Autism to have empathy!
At the time of writing, this letter is being witnessed by members of the Autism community, including people with Autism, parents of children with Autism, and professionals and advocates who respect and care for people with Autism. Included in these paragraphs are the collective thoughts and feelings of many of us who sincerely care about how people with Autism are treated. Permission is granted to distribute this document for positive advocacy purposes. Permission is not granted to make alterations. However, I will permit notations to be added to indicate outdated portions of the text, or to explain the outcome of a legal decision, or other needful clarifications, as long as they are accurate, clearly identified as notations, and they must not detract from the purpose of this document.
Thank you for caring!
5/25/06
Abu Ghraib was *nothing*, compared to this. The kids would have been better off with PFC England.
JRC exists only because of the culture of compliance and conformity that is paramount in the United States. The good American abides by all the rules: when was there ever an Un-British Activities Committee in the UK? There was never one in Finland for Un-Finnish Activities. Only the US has had such a committee. Why?
The emphasis on compliance and conformity in the US is too bloody strong!
That is why.
This is why such a place as JRC would have a hard time existing outside of America.
*Mr. Andrews:* I don’t like the JRC either, but I disagree that the problem is one of American conformity. I don’t want to get into an international pissing contest, so I’ll just remind you that you’re generalizing about 300 million people that you’ve never met (well most of them). I don’t think insulting them or their country helps solve anything, and it certainly doesn’t help the kids locked up in the JRC. And let’s face it, America is more defined by its freaks and wierdos than its conformity. 🙂
*Justthisguy:* Let’s not exagerate: PFC England was involved in sexually assaulting men with broken glow tubes and smothering people to death – the JRC hasn’t quite gone that far yet. I think somebody ought to stop them before they do, but hyperbole isn’t going to help.
Anyway…
Places like this exist because they prey on parents’ feelings of helplessness in dealing with their children. I can’t imagine sending my son there, but I remember how uncontrollable he was before the years of therapy and medication, and if that had continued, I can imagine feeling pretty helpless myself. And say what you like about the cruelty and the idiocy of the JRC’s practices, but I’m sure they *seem* to work. Aversive therapy results in learned helplessness which probably looks a lot more like good behavior than what the parents were seeing before they took their kids to the JRC.
These parents need to see what kids who have been properly treated look like – I think the difference would be pretty obvious.
(I’ve posted this elsewhere, but I figure the more people see this the better.)
If you want a new lesson in “hypocrisy,†check out the following links. Short version – the American Psychological Association has condemned the use of “torture†or “cruel†treatment. But their condemnation is very situation-specific – it only applies to prisoners under interrogation.
APA President: Speaking Against Torture
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/pc.html
APA Task Force Report on National Security (torture)
Click to access PENSTaskForceReportFinal.pdf
I think it’s fair to ask why they’ve condemned “cruelty” for prisoners under interrogation, but apparently tolerate or approve of similar practices for those incarcerated for the “crime” of being disabled.
In solidarity
Stephen
Jemaleddin: “I don’t like the JRC either, but I disagree that the problem is one of American conformity.”
I’m not saying it is conformity itself…. I’m saying that there is a heavy emphasis on it in the US… and the Un-American Activities issue is just one example of how that emphasis gets played out. Social psychology texts contain lots on this sort of issue. And 300 million people in one country… a group that size is going to have a huge pressure towards conformity purely by virtue of the size of the population and some of the population densities involved in being in America…. like I say… the *emphasis* is the problem….
“And let’s face it, America is more defined by its freaks and wierdos than its conformity.”
Um…. well, by definition, such people are a small minority, really… which kinda supports my point.
“These parents need to see what kids who have been properly treated look like – I think the difference would be pretty obvious.”
On this point, we are probably in complete agreement.
Jemaleddin: “PFC England was involved in …. smothering people to death … ”
Not quite correct…
*quote*
On page 25 of Dick Sobsey’s book, “Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities
The End of Silent Acceptance?†Paul H Brookes Pub. Co. (January 1994), the writer reveals, “Vincent Milletich died after BRI workers `pushed his head between his legs, cuffed his hands behind his back, put a helmet on his head with radio static hissing into his ears and masked his face. He went limp and was declared dead on arrival minutes later at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence.’
According to Director Matthew Israel’s own words, posted on JRC’s Website, “The cause of death (Vincent’s) was ultimately determined to be natural causes related to his condition of tardive dyskinesia and not due to the restraint procedure that had been employed.†However, his claim is not substantiated in the coroner’s report or the findings of the court, which explicitly stated that asphyxiation was the cause. Vincent’s parents have said that he suffered from epilepsy. Regardless of what other diagnosis Vincent may or may not have had, Judge Ryan DID declare Mr. Israel “negligent†in regards to the helmet that was used in his treatment on the day of his death. This fact is a linkage between the JRC staff and the death of Vincent Milletich that Matt Israel cannot evade with clever words.
*endquote*
Essentially, the boy was smothered….to death.
They’ve already got there…
addendum to about quote: “the JRC hasn’t quite gone that far yet”
That should make it m ake sense….
Apologies… dealing with a migraine here.
Places like this exist because they prey on parents’ feelings of helplessness in dealing with their children.
That’s a big part of the reason, I agree. Our cultural views about conformity feed into that feeling of helplessness; the idea that if our kids aren’t like other people, they will never get along, succeed in school and work, get married, give us grandchildren, and find happiness and independence. As Americans, we profess to value the individual over the collective, but our attitudes toward disability shine a pretty harsh light on what we mean by that.
I’ve read everything that people have written in this long list of conformity. Way to hop on the bandwagon.
As far as I can see by reading these responses, not one person on here has a child with such severe behavior problems that would warrant an extreme measure like electric shock.
When your child is gouging his rectum 250 times a day, then you can judge. When your child is scratching his arm til the bone is exposed, then you can judge. When your child is head banging themselves into a coma, then you can judge.
The students at JRC are not just autistic, they are also emotionally disturbed and they have been to at least five other places and expelled from every one of them. They have been placed on a dozen or so medications that have failed to control their behaviors.
Do any of you honestly think that parents don’t understand what another place is like? That they haven’t already tried every other available option? That they don’t agonize over the decision that they eventually make?
The bill to ban aversives includes an exception for extreme cases. JRC is all extreme cases.
Do you honestly think that JRC would just decide to shock students for the hell of it?
I have worked at different behavior schools. The one I’m working at now would rather let students keep self biting and head banging, instead of using “positive” behavior interventions. They think that if we ignore the self-injurious behavior, it will go away. It has only increased. The students are on a few different meds which keep them in a nice lethargic state so that the staff won’t have to work too hard.
What perplexes me is that if the so-called “positive” behavior interventions worked so well to begin with, then why the need for so many meds?
JRC is under a microscope because one mother complained. Lucky for all the other schools that use so-called “positive” interventions. They can get away with all the physical and verbal abuse and neglect.
Think it doesn’t happen? Well who knows. I’m sure that the bruises on your son or daughter were by accident and not caused by a staff member lying to cover their own ass.
At JRC if a staff is physically abusing a student, they are caught on tape. Cameras are in every class and residence to assure that staff are doing their jobs and administering the GEDs appropriately.
Oh and to the person who couldn’t find any literature on pubmed supporting aversives, here ya go! This article pretty much sums up how I feel. http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/abstracts/JabaAbstracts/38/_38-051.HTM
Oh and to the person who claims that JRC uses all different types of aversives, they only use electric shock, water spray and portions. No student is deprived of food. That is a myth that seems to get perpetuated all the time.
To the people who claim that once you stop administering the shocks, the behavior will reappear, the same could be said for positive approaches. Once you stop giving candy for task completion, do you think that performance will drop or increase?
Maybe you all might want to do a little research, before you make wild claims that have no basis in fact.
The next time someone else tells you how to raise your child, think about the comments on this blog. Shutting down JRC is tantamount to telling parents that a group of legislators know better how to treat their kids.
Ann: “JRC is under a microscope because one mother complained.”
JRC is under a microscope because quite a few worrying things have occurred there including deaths (at least two). It is not a safe place to send any child, and I certainly would not send mine there. There is a long list of issues on which the JRC is failing to meet ethical standards or is doing worse than that. It is certainly not just “because *one* mother complained”!
“JRC is under a microscope because quite a few worrying things have occurred there including deaths ”
No JRC is under a microscope because some overzealous lawyer, hoping to cash in, is taking advantage of a mother who is upset.
The deaths occurred at JRC over ten years ago. They take in people for life, they don’t expel people because they get too old. Eventually there will be a death.
Abuses occur at every school across the entire country. Howcome those schools aren’t under scrutiny?
“It is not a safe place to send any child”
You know this how? Have you worked there? or do you just believe everything you read in the papers? It is probably one of the safest places you can send a child due to the 24 hour live video monitoring systems. Other schools rely on staff to describe incidents that occur with students. Do you really think that staff are going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I have witnessed many accounts of incidents at my current school where little details are left out. For example, one student had to be restrained. The staff member just forgot to mention that she was yelling at the student to “be quiet”. Gee maybe that’s why the student went off? This is a place that uses positive only approaches.
“I certainly would not send mine there.”
Well I’m glad your child is not in danger of dying due to the extremely dangerous behaviors exhibited by JRC students. Consider yourself lucky.
“There is a long list of issues on which the JRC is failing to meet ethical standards or is doing worse than that. ”
Other than what is being talked about in the media, could you define “worse than that”?
The GED device is a medically approved device. The aversive treatment is an approved practice in Applied Behavior Analysis. Of course, mistakes will be made. That could be said for other schools too.
It is certainly not just “because one mother complainedâ€!
Okay, it’s because one mother complained to a lawyer who is now trying to cash in.
Ann: “The deaths occurred at JRC over ten years ago. They take in people for life, they don’t expel people because they get too old. Eventually there will be a death.”
That eventuality is immaterial. The fact that the deaths we know about happened and were down to lack of adequate care by the staff of the Centre is the problem. They staff failed to understand the communicative function of behaviour, and for this reason – until that is understood (and I have nothing telling me that they understand that notion yet) – I wouldn’t see it as a safe place. Two people have died there and the director is *still* trying to lie about it.
Ann: “The GED device is a medically approved device.”
*Wrong!*
It is only registered with the FDA… the FDA have not actually approved it.
Ann: “Of course, mistakes will be made. That could be said for other schools too.”
So *that* is a defence? Since when?
Ann: “The staff member just forgot to mention that she was yelling at the student to ‘be quiet’. Gee maybe that’s why the student went off?”
What??? A staff member *yelled* at a child to be quiet and you think that such a thing would not kick a child off???? If you can even reason that it might have, why did that not get said in any report? What did *you* do about that? You allowed a child to be restrained because a staff member brought about an explosive incident, and you stood by and let it happen???
Ann: “This is a place that uses positive only approaches.”
Evidently that is not exactly true. But this does not make the JRC practices eny less brutal than they are. If you can’t handle that, maybe you’re in the wrong job.
Ann: “Abuses occur at every school across the entire country. Howcome those schools aren’t under scrutiny?”
As far as I am aware, many do come under scrutiny. Unfortunately some parents are prepared to let the other schools get away with it. Yes, it happened in my childhood, so don’t assume that I do not know this sort of thing happens.
Ann (linked): “Gregory P. Hanley, Cathleen C. Piazza, Wayne W. Fisher, & Kristen A. Maglieri (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 51-65.”
Any other studies supporting the use of punishments? And has there been any assessment of how a learned helplessness state might be the outcome rather than anything else? If that has not been controlled for, then the conclusions are invalid.
That paper would not have made it into Good Autism Practice if all confounding variables had not been looked into… certainly so if I had been reviewing it.
Ann: “The aversive treatment is an approved practice in Applied Behavior Analysis.”
Um… depends whose “brand” we’re talking about. Many ABA therapists refuse to use electroshock devices for good reason. And, given Skinner’s stance on punishment in any case, punishment would not really fall within any application of behavioural analysis that *he* would have recognised.
This is in reply to my earlier post and to the very first post on this page.
You say:
“Israel goes on to cite the NIH ‘Treatment of Destructive Behaviors in Persons With Developmental Disabilities’ statement from 1987 as supporting his practices. However upon visiting the page in question one finds a large disclaimer in bold, red, emphasised, uppercase type:”
Your link doesn’t work.
You say:
“I can find next to nothing in Pubmed regarding aversive based treatments.”
I guess you didn’t look very hard.
I listed one already-JABA 2005 Hanley et al. vol 38 pp. 51-65.
Here’s another one.
http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/abstracts/JabaAbstracts/35/_35-431.htm
There are many peer reviewed papers supporting skin-shock. Not all of them are listed on pubmed. Here is a partial list.
Salvy, S., Mulick, J.A, Butter, E., Bartlett, R.K. & Linscheid, T.R. (2004) Contingent electric shock (SIBIS) and a conditioned punisher eliminate severe head banging in a preschool child. Behavioral Interventions, 19, 59-72.
Foxx, R.M. (2003). Treatment of dangerous behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 1-21.
Linscheid, T.R. & Reichenbach, H. (2002). Multiple factors in the long-term effectiveness of contingent electric shock treatment for self-injurious behavior: a case example. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 23, 161-177.
Duker, P.C. & Seys, D.M. (2000). A quasi-experimental study on the effect of electrical aversion treatment on imposed mechanical restraint for severe self-injurious behavior. Research in Developmental disabilities, 21, 235-242.
Also, here is a link to the ABA website in which the right to effective treatment is discussed. http://www.abainternational.org/sub/membersvcs/journals-pubs/rtrrebt/index.asp
Don’t stop reading until you hit #6-An Individual Has a Right to the Most Effective Treatment Procedures Available
I invite anyone on this blog who makes claims like “JRC starves its students” or “JRC is worse than Abu Ghraib” or my personal favorite “JRC makes staff members watch slaughterhouse movies as a condition of advancement” to feel free to prove your claims.
I’ll be waiting.
ann, it sounds like you have an insider view of JRC. Did you work there?
_”As far as I can see by reading these responses, not one person on here has a child with such severe behavior problems that would warrant an extreme measure like electric shock.”_
I personally don’t think anybody, _ever_ has had a child that has a problem that needs to be resolved with electric shocks as aversives.
_”That they haven’t already tried every other available option? That they don’t agonize over the decision that they eventually make?”_
Uh, no, no I don’t. Read some of the blog entries on the JRC blog. Some of the parents sound utterly indifferent. The woman I quoted above seems to have a teenage girl who’s a bit naughty. I would suggest some parenting classes for the mother rather than an electric shock for the child.
_”What perplexes me is that if the so-called “positive†behavior interventions worked so well to begin with, then why the need for so many meds?”_
What perplexes me is how you feel that justifies the accusations being levelled at the JRC.
_”JRC is under a microscope because one mother complained.”_
No. One mother, plus _at least_ one ex-staff member’s complaint and a newspaper investigation into what can only be described as fraud is the reason the JRC is under the spotlight.
_”I’m sure that the bruises on your son or daughter were by accident and not caused by a staff member lying to cover their own ass.”_
Interesting, so your argument is that because some teachers/schools might get away with it, that means its OK for JRC to do it?
_”Oh and to the person who couldn’t find any literature on pubmed supporting aversives, here ya go! This article pretty much sums up how I feel. http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/abstracts/JabaAbstracts/38/_38-051.HTM“_
Which part of the article discusses the effectiveness of aversives?
_”No student is deprived of food. That is a myth that seems to get perpetuated all the time.”_
It’s not established one way or the other. An accusation has been levelled and will be investigated. The dietary regime is quite frankly appalling.
_”To the people who claim that once you stop administering the shocks, the behavior will reappear, the same could be said for positive approaches.”_
Yet again, you seem to be saying that because positive reinforcement is just as effective as negative reinforcement that its OK to use negative. That my friend is the product of twisted thinking. If neither one is more effective than the other (and you don’t seem able to demonstrate it is) then here’s an idea – don’t use the one involving water cannons or electric shocks.
_”Shutting down JRC is tantamount to telling parents that a group of legislators know better how to treat their kids.”_
To be quite frank, in this case I think they probably do.
_”The deaths occurred at JRC over ten years ago. They take in people for life, they don’t expel people because they get too old. Eventually there will be a death.”_
So you’re claiming that the deaths were due to purely natural causes? I hope you’re right.
_”Abuses occur at every school across the entire country. Howcome those schools aren’t under scrutiny?”_
I sincerely hope they are. However, if they are or if they aren’t has no particular bearing on the JRC – abuse should be investigated everywhere. Especially at places where water cannons, appalling diet and electro shocks are used to ‘treat’ people. Particularly if they are staffed by people like yourself who seem to feel that because positive reinforcement is no less effective than negative, its preferable to use negative.
“It is not a safe place to send any childâ€
_”The GED device is a medically approved device. The aversive treatment is an approved practice in Applied Behavior Analysis. Of course, mistakes will be made. That could be said for other schools too.”_
The difference being of course that other schools don’t use cattle prods on their pupils.
_”Your link doesn’t work.”_
Well, try the JRC site, that’s where I got the link from. Along with a whine-fest from Israel.
_”I guess you didn’t look very hard.”_
I guess you don’t understand the difference between ‘next to nothing’ and ‘nothing’. Two papers, neither of which support the idea that aversive treatment works better than non-aversive treatment, is pretty much a working definition of ‘next to nothing’.
_”There are many peer reviewed papers supporting skin-shock. Not all of them are listed on pubmed.”_
I think you’ll find there’s a reason they’re not listed. Get back to me with decent science.
“Two people have died there and the director is still trying to lie about it.”
He is not lying. Many things changed after that. That is the reason why they have so many safeguards in place now. Cameras, rotating electrodes every hour, limiting the number of shocks to thirty, using only one form of aversive etc. Mistakes get made and it’s what you learn from them that matters.
RE:The GED device is only registered. Could you provide me with a link that says that?
“So that is a defence? Since when?”
Why is it that when JRC makes mistakes it gets all over the news, but when other schools make equally bad mistakes we never hear about those?
DAVID: “What??? A staff member yelled at a child to be quiet and you think that such a thing would not kick a child off???? If you can even reason that it might have, why did that not get said in any report? What did you do about that? You allowed a child to be restrained because a staff member brought about an explosive incident, and you stood by and let it happen???”
No I didn’t. Did you read what I wrote? I said that’s the reason why the student went off.
I told the supervisors about it. They told us to just write that the staff was giving a “verbal prompt”. This did NOT happen at JRC. I just want to make that clear.
“Ann:This is a place that uses positive only approaches.
DAvid:Evidently that is not exactly true. But this does not make the JRC practices eny less brutal than they are.
I’m not talking about JRC. I used to work at JRC. The place where I currently work claims to use positive only practices but they obviously don’t.
JRC is the one school out of the three where I have worked that truly embraces the positive approach.
” If you can’t handle that, maybe you’re in the wrong job.”
Yeah. I know I’m in the wrong job. I don’t like to work at a place that allows abuse and neglect to go on.
RE: reasearch papers: I’m no expert on research papers. It would appear to me that if we can rip apart a paper published in JABA that supports punishment, then we can rip apart any paper published in JABA and the reverse would be true.
If we are going to use literature to support the use of functional analysis then we have to look at all the papers that support all forms of behavior treatment.
RE: Skinner: As much as I know about Skinner, which isn’t everything, he did support aversives, but didn’t think they were practical. He felt that it is very difficult to administer them in any environment other than a Skinner box type of environment. JRC is basically a big Skinner box.
KEV:I personally don’t think anybody, ever has had a child that has a problem that needs to be resolved with electric shocks as aversives.”
So what would your solution be? Your child has been expelled from yet another school. He is too dangerous. He has placed yet another staff member in the hospital. His meds have been upped again for the fourth time and they are still not working. What do you suggest?
KEV:Read some of the blog entries on the JRC blog. Some of the parents sound utterly indifferent. The woman I quoted above seems to have a teenage girl who’s a bit naughty. I would suggest some parenting classes for the mother rather than an electric shock for the child.
So you know this woman? You have witnessed what she has been through? You have worked with her child? You are a BCBA and you can make a judgment call like that. Is this right? Or could it be that you read words on a screen and have formulated a biased opinion?
I actually have met some of the parents on the blog and have worked with many more of the students that have been discussed there.
ANN:“What perplexes me is that if the so-called “positive†behavior interventions worked so well to begin with, then why the need for so many meds?â€
KEV:What perplexes me is how you feel that justifies the accusations being levelled at the JRC.
What? What does accusations against JRC have to do with meds being used to control behaviors at other schools?
If the ABA practices are so great, then why do schools need to use psychotropic meds?
KEV:No. One mother, plus at least one ex-staff member’s complaint and a newspaper investigation into what can only be described as fraud is the reason the JRC is under the spotlight.
It is not fraud. They explained that. The ex-staff member was a mandated reporter. The fact that she didn’t bring her concerns to light at JRC while she was working there is a crime.
KEV:so your argument is that because some teachers/schools might get away with it, that means its OK for JRC to do it?
No. My argument is the opposite. Why is it that JRC is under a spotlight for supposed abuse, while other schools are not?
ANN: This article pretty much sums up how I feel. http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/abstracts/JabaAbstracts/38/38-051.HTMâ€_
KEV:Which part of the article discusses the effectiveness of aversives?
The article is about the effectiveness of punishment. An aversive is any stimuli that increases a response when removed or decreases a response when introduced (Cooper, Heron, Heward-Applied Behavior Analysis, 1987) The article talks about the fact that effective behavior treatments are not being used because they are considered politically incorrect. How is that in the best interests of the client?
KEV:The dietary regime is quite frankly appalling.
The dietary regime is vegan. Many people subscribe to vegan diets. To be specific, it’s RAVE diet, which is healthier than vegan. They are not deprived.
KEV:Yet again, you seem to be saying that because positive reinforcement is just as effective as negative reinforcement that its OK to use negative.
Do you know what negavtive reinforcement is? Probably not. I always find it a little confusing too. Negative reinforcement is designed to increase behavior, not decrease it. Like when a child is misbehaving and the parent yells at him and he stops, the parent has just been negatively reinforced.
KEV:That my friend is the product of twisted thinking. If neither one is more effective than the other (and you don’t seem able to demonstrate it is) then here’s an idea – don’t use the one involving water cannons or electric shocks.
Since you don’t seem to understand ABA, I’ll just continue to rely on the evidence rather than your opinions, thank you.
KEV:To be quite frank, in this case I think (legislators) probably do.
Good. Then you can let the govt make all your decisions for you. Let’s let the govt make all our decisions for us. Let’s let them get involved with personal family issues like abortion, euthanasia, and medical treatments. Why don’t we let the govt tell us what we can and can’t say and where we can live?
KEV:Especially at places where water cannons, appalling diet and electro shocks are used to ‘treat’ people.
I love how the media can distort things. Just where did you read that they use water cannons? i assume you mean cool water spray, administered to the back of the neck, in a spray bottle, which is hardly used and not effective especially on a 90 degree day.
KEV:The difference being of course that other schools don’t use cattle prods on their pupils.
What school uses cattle prods? Could you show me where JRC uses cattle prods?
People, if your going to make wild claims, at least be able to back them up with fact.
KEV:Well, try the JRC site, that’s where I got the link from. Along with a whine-fest from Israel.
Interesting how you can read words on a screen and hear the tone of voice of the person saying them.
KEV:I think you’ll find there’s a reason they’re not listed. Get back to me with decent science.
I see. A lot of people say that you need peer-reviewed literature to support something. Then when peer-reviewed literature is presented it is not good enough. It has to be peer-reviewed literature that is listed on pubmed. If you want cherry-picked literature, why didn’t you say so?
I was under the impression that pubmed is merely an online portal for scientific journals. If you can show me where it says that journals not listed on pubmed are less credible than listed journals, then I will recant.
If you would like to continue this debate, I am game. There is no way in the world that you are going to change my mind about this. Many people with a lot more knowledge about behaviorism than you have, have tried and failed, but you are welcome to continue.
Do you know what negavtive reinforcement is? Probably not. I always find it a little confusing too.
*raises hand wildly in the air*
I know, I know!
Reading an angry troll’s inanly formatted post.
Re: pubmed-listed papers: If you want cherry-picked literature, why didn’t you say so?
Classic. Chewbacca likes.
Ann: “I told the supervisors about it.”
Did you specifically state that you said that? NO!
Ann: “I told the supervisors about it.”
Did you specifically state that you said that? NO!
Ann: “I said that’s the reason why the student went off.”
No you didn’t. You said, and I quote: “The staff member just forgot to mention that she was yelling at the student to ‘be quiet’. Gee maybe that’s why the student went off?”
Is that how you state that something happened? I don’t think so! I teach English! That is not a statement of anything as a fact, but relates to a facetious attitude towards something that may have happened…. which the speaker wishes to decry as preposterous! Get real, Ann… look at your own sarcasm!
Ann: “I’m no expert on research papers.”
Become one if you’re going to cite them!
Ann: “Do you know what negavtive reinforcement is? Probably not. I always find it a little confusing too. Negative reinforcement is designed to increase behavior, not decrease it. Like when a child is misbehaving and the parent yells at him and he stops, the parent has just been negatively reinforced.”
I am a psychologist. I know what negative reinforcement is.
And what you describe is precisely what happens at teh JRC if they have to use an aversive… they are negatively reinforced into using the aversive because the child stops doing something when they apply the aversive.
Doesn’t mean it’s ethical or even correct practice.
Learn something about this, and THEN come back to argue, Ann!
I am a former employee at JRC. During my early days there, aversive treatments (ie. GED or localized electric skin shock)seemed to be only employed for severe behaviors such as harmful self-injurious behavior or severe attempts to harm others. I could see the utility in this treatment as I had been witness to the horrifying alternative and result of some of these severe behaviors. Before I left, I began to see a movement towards consequating other less serious behaviors with the GED as well (perhaps the most disturbing to me was giving an autistic student a GED because he “disrupted” his classroom by saying “hello” to people when they walked in the room. I remember the day he started receiving GED’s for this behavior-the look on his face was truly heartwrenching) Although these treatments are court approved, this is skirted by slyly including not so severe behaviors in “categories” of behavior that have been justly court approved for consequating with the GED…Anyways, glad to be removed from this facility considering the movement toward worsening unethical use of GED treatment.
kml: “Before I left, I began to see a movement towards consequating other less serious behaviors with the GED as well (perhaps the most disturbing to me was giving an autistic student a GED because he “disrupted†his classroom by saying “hello†to people when they walked in the room.”
Okay… since when is something that he learn as a rule, probably, something to get a GED strapped to him for?
Ann…. you might wish to get a hold on this notion… your defence of the JRC may just be a weird form of honour amongst thieves.
It appears that ann, as a former JRC staffer, views the JRC as a school of last resort that deals with the most intractable, non-compliant kids that no other school will accept. Because these kids have been pretty much thrown away, they are considered appropriate subjects for the most extreme of behavior modification techniques.
The arguments about who has standing to complain about JRC, and that protection of JRC students would be an unwarranted governmental encroachment on parental rights, indicates to me an attitude that society should abandon any concern about the humaneness or ethics of the methods that are used on these kids. I wonder whether it is part of the JRC training to respond to complaints in this fashion. While it might be unfair to conclude that all JRC staff have similar attitudes as ann’s toward the JRC students and toward parents of autistic kids such as ourselves, her arguments here have just added fuel to the anti-JRC fire as far as I’m concerned.
In addition, ann has given me a sobering look at the thinking of some of the people who are charged with the care of our kids. It is good to know, I guess, that one can’t rely on the fact that a school presents itself as having a positive behavioral approach, when it may have staff who don’t believe that a positive approach really works and that extreme aversives are in fact appropriate.
kml’s statement that “categories of behavior … have been justly court approved for consequating with the GED” worries me. When I read the JRC web site, I (wrongly, it turns out) inferred that court approval must be obtained before any particular student is subjected to electric shock. If there is just a standing order allowing electric shock on any student for “categories of behavior,” the judicial oversight is almost meaningless.
So, in other words, Anne (with the ‘e’)… the JRC is indeed not a safe place for children, and Ann’s (without the ‘e’) defence of the place is indeed a form of honour amongst thieves? Am I right?
Just want to clarify a comment from Anne. We don’t want to erase the validity of the valuable comments in this forum by having false information. In response to the comment “If there is just a standing order allowing shock on any student for categories of behavior, the judicial oversight is almost meaningless”, I wanted to make sure no one thought that any student at JRC could be shocked for certain behaviors with a blanket court approval-each individual student’s case is brought to court and approved only for that one student. No student can receive a GED without individual court approval. I hope I didn’t misunderstand your comment, but just wanted to clarify. Your comment that “the judicial oversight is almost meaningless” is very true-although it’s not almost meaningless, it is meaningless when there is too much room for slipping in minor behaviors into categories that are deemed worthy of GED applications.
klm: “… when there is too much room for slipping in minor behaviors into categories that are deemed worthy of GED applications.”
I’m speaking as a psychologist here, not just as an autistic person or as a parent of an autistic child… I am not convinced that *any* behaviours are ‘worthy’ of GED application. The GED is not Skinner. It isn’t even Watson. It is Seligman… learned helplessness. Nothing more.
And the ethic behind inducing such a state in children is of great concern to me: one of the reasons I never told much about what was happeneing to me at school was in fact a learned helplessness state, since – whatever I did to try and stop it – nothing was done. However it is done, whether by neglect (as in my own case) or by GED (as happens in JRC), the induction of learned helplessness states in children is as close as one can get to torture without actually calling it torture.
I oppose it very strongly.
_”So what would your solution be?”_
Not shocking them with cattle prods.
_”Or could it be that you read words on a screen and have formulated a biased opinion?”_
Thats exactly what I did. Only what you forgot was that these were *her* words. No-one elses. If you seriously think that its OK to use aversives on people because they don’t follow their parents rules then I really worry about any kids you have contact with.
_”What? What does accusations against JRC have to do with meds being used to control behaviors at other schools?”_
Exactly my point.
_”It is not fraud. They explained that.”_
I don’t believe them. Once could be an accident. Twice could be bad luck. Ten times? Come off it.
_”No. My argument is the opposite. Why is it that JRC is under a spotlight for supposed abuse, while other schools are not?”_
I don’t know and don’t care. If these other schools are abusing their kids then they need to be brought to justice as well. However, whether they are or whether they aren’t is utterly immaterial in terms of whether JRC is or not.
_”The article is about the effectiveness of punishment. An aversive is any stimuli that increases a response when removed or decreases a response when introduced (Cooper, Heron, Heward-Applied Behavior Analysis, 1987) The article talks about the fact that effective behavior treatments are not being used because they are considered politically incorrect. How is that in the best interests of the client?”_
I’ll ask you again seeing as you ducked the question: Which part of the article discusses the effectiveness of aversives? Its OK to say ‘none’.
_”The dietary regime is vegan. Many people subscribe to vegan diets. To be specific, it’s RAVE diet, which is healthier than vegan. They are not deprived.”_
The pupils do not ‘subscribe’ to this vegan diet. They have it put upon them. A restrictive vegan diet is a ridiculous thing to place upon a growing child.
_”Do you know what negavtive reinforcement is? Probably not. I always find it a little confusing too. Negative reinforcement is designed to increase behavior, not decrease it. Like when a child is misbehaving and the parent yells at him and he stops, the parent has just been negatively reinforced.”_
Cool – now answer the question.
_”Since you don’t seem to understand ABA, I’ll just continue to rely on the evidence rather than your opinions, thank you.”_
Where is the evidence that aversives are better than positive reinforcement? I’ve asked you for this three times now. I want to see where they are agreed upon as being more effective and lasting just as long (i.e. no regression).
_”Good. Then you can let the govt make all your decisions for you. Let’s let the govt make all our decisions for us. Let’s let them get involved with personal family issues like abortion, euthanasia, and medical treatments. Why don’t we let the govt tell us what we can and can’t say and where we can live?”_
Finished? OK, now, back in the real world….what I said was _in this case_ – you are using a fallacious strawman argument. I never mentioned any of the things you raise. Get back to the things I _did_ mention.
_”What school uses cattle prods? Could you show me where JRC uses cattle prods? People, if your going to make wild claims, at least be able to back them up with fact.”_
They call it ‘GED’, I call it ‘cattle prod’. Thats just my opinion.
_”I see. A lot of people say that you need peer-reviewed literature to support something. Then when peer-reviewed literature is presented it is not good enough. It has to be peer-reviewed literature that is listed on pubmed. If you want cherry-picked literature, why didn’t you say so?”_
Cherry picked? No. Peer reviewed, relevant, replicable, published in a decent journal – yes.
_”There is no way in the world that you are going to change my mind about this.”_
I have no doubt about that.
_”Many people with a lot more knowledge about behaviorism than you have, have tried and failed, but you are welcome to continue.”_
I don’t give a fig for behaviorism. As far as I can tell, here’s the situation. You believe electroshocks are justifiable. You believe this as you state that they are just as, or more, effective as positive reinforcement. I asked you (three times) to back that up. So far you have been unable to. Therefore I have to conclude that you are simply a person who enjoys inflicting pain on other people. All things being equal, if negative is no better than positive, maybe you need to take a long look at yourself about your rampant enthusiasm for the negative.
Unlike you, I am open to being convinced of your better nature, if you happen to possess one.
Kev: “Where is the evidence that aversives are better than positive reinforcement?”
Actually, Kev… the evidence from research suggests that aversives have poorer outcomes as controls on behaviour. I’ll find a reference for this later…. sauna time soon…
Okay… I have been that person who has engaged in extreme enough head-banging to knock myself out on several occasions and for this to have at times been non-stop throughout my waking hours, and to have had lots of “facilities” want to give up on me. So telling me I don’t know from that perspective is just, in my mind, going to amount to stupidity.
I fail to see why that means that other people should have been allowed to torture me.
I also have a real problem with the way this behavior is conceived of by the people who promote this stuff. They view it as … how do I describe this? They view there as being a sort of person who behaves this way. They view this behavior as an intrinsic kind of person. Like there’s cat people and dog people and men and women and “severely behavior-disordered” people and so forth.
There is a lot that viewpoint does not take into account. That viewpoint, in fact, flies in the face of reality. But that is how a lot of these decisions are made, on the basis of this being an intrinsic “kind of person”.
Here are the words of another autistic person who could have ended up there just as easily as I could have:
http://suedweb.syr.edu/thefci/3-3rub.htm
Neither of us ended up there. Personally I ended up in other torture centers instead. But regardless it is wrong. I am in no way ignorant about the so-called sort of people this happens to, and I think there is a responsibility, an especial responsibility, to protect people who get categorized that way, not to torture us.
KEV:Not shocking them with cattle prods.
See. Not so easy is it? Would you like to discuss what you would do in this situation, rather than what you wouldn’t do?
KEV:Exactly my point.
Oh. You don’t have one. Got it.
KEV:I don’t believe them.
Yes. You will never believe them because your mind is closed to the fact that they might be a good place that is maligned by the media.
KEV:I don’t know and don’t care. If these other schools are abusing their kids then they need to be brought to justice as well.
Well you’re finally getting it.
KEV:However, whether they are or whether they aren’t is utterly immaterial in terms of whether JRC is or not.
I agree. I’m trying to make people realize that other schools are worse.
KEV:I’ll ask you again seeing as you ducked the question: Which part of the article discusses the effectiveness of aversives? Its OK to say ‘none’.
I never claimed that it supports aversives like electric shock. It supports the use of punishment. It also discusses the social attitudes toward punishment, which seem to be well represented on this blog.
You should talk about ducking questions. Got a solution to the first question yet?
KEV:The pupils do not ‘subscribe’ to this vegan diet. They have it put upon them. A restrictive vegan diet is a ridiculous thing to place upon a growing child.
Most of the JRC students are already grown. However, this is the one thing I’m having a hard time defending. I’m not wild about the idea of this diet. However, they are claiming that overall, the students’ cholesterol levels are down since they have instituted it.
KEV: Cool – now answer the question.
Positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment. That’s why JRC uses it more than punishment.
KEV:Where is the evidence that aversives are better than positive reinforcement? I’ve asked you for this three times now.
see above. I happen to think that positive reinforcement is always the first avenue. It is much more effective. If I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise, then I apologize. I also happen to think that if positive reinforcement is not working, then meds should be tried next. What JRC does is a last resort.
KEV:Get back to the things I did mention.
I think it’s obvious I disagree with you.
KEV:They call it ‘GED’, I call it ‘cattle prod’. Thats just my opinion.
Well, it’s inaccurate. I did read up on a case of a cattle prod being used, not at JRC. it was in Illinois, I think. A group of people tried to get the school to stop using it. The family wanted to continue it. I don’t know what eventually happened.
KEV:Cherry picked? No. Peer reviewed, relevant, replicable, published in a decent journal – yes.
Your opinion.
You don’t consider JABA to be a decent journal? There are some articles in JABA that actually support electric shock. I figured you would dismiss them because they were written a long time ago.
People like to dsimiss those kinds of articles because they are not recent. Funny, I don’t think that articles expire. The first article I read in ABA class was “Some current dimensions of ABA” by Baer, Wolf and Risley. It’s considered today to be the seminal paper of ABA. It was written in 1968.
Just so you know this is the paper that I was talking about.
Linscheid, T. R., & Cunningham, C. E. (1977). A controlled demonstration of the effectiveness of electric shock in the elimination of chronic infant rumination. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 500.
KEV:I don’t give a fig for behaviorism.
Then why are you chiming in on a subject that is all about behaviorism?
KEV:As far as I can tell, here’s the situation. You believe electroshocks are justifiable. You believe this as you state that they are just as, or more, effective as positive reinforcement.
see above again.
KEV:I asked you (three times) to back that up. So far you have been unable to.
see ref to 1977 JABA article.
KEV:Therefore I have to conclude that you are simply a person who enjoys inflicting pain on other people.
No one who works there likes to give shocks. It’s the worst part of the job, but I’m betting that you would rather go on believing that all the JRC staff are inhuman monsters.
KEV:Unlike you, I am open to being convinced of your better nature, if you happen to possess one.
I don’t think you are a bad person, just ignorant about this particular subject.
David:Did you specifically state that you said that? NO!
I didn’t know you were there when it happened. Your memory of the incident must be better than mine.
David:No you didn’t. You said, and I quote: “The staff member just forgot to mention that she was yelling at the student to ‘be quiet’. Gee maybe that’s why the student went off?â€
David, the last sentence is me saying that I think that the reason the student went off is because of the staff yelling. I thought you would be able to figure that out.
David:Become one if you’re going to cite them!
Okay. I’ll tell that to my professors when I hand in my research papers. “Sorry, couldn’t cite any research, not an expert yet.”
David:I am a psychologist. I know what negative reinforcement is.
That wasn’t to you, david, that was to Kev. I don’t know how to respond directly to a post in this blog.
David:And what you describe is precisely what happens at teh JRC if they have to use an aversive… they are negatively reinforced into using the aversive because the child stops doing something when they apply the aversive.
I know that. I never said negative reinforcement is a bad thing. As you know, negative reinforcement is supposed to increase behavior. If the behavior you are trying to increase is completing academics, then negative reinforcement is a good thing.
David:Doesn’t mean it’s ethical or even correct practice.
Are you talking about negative reinforcement? or punishment?
David:Learn something about this, and THEN come back to argue, Ann!
About what? My own opinions? I’m all set on that thanks.
Hi Kev,
I just got back from the ABA conference. To think I have missed all this right at home.
Where to begin?
Hi Ann,
Nice to meet you, I will presume (my apologies) to field some questions you offer to Kev.
“See. Not so easy is it? Would you like to discuss what you would do in this situation, rather than what you wouldn’t do?â€
I would start by doing a Functional Analysis on the behaviors to see why they are maintained.
“I never claimed that it supports aversives like electric shock. It supports the use of punishment. It also discusses the social attitudes toward punishment, which seem to be well represented on this blog.’
Yes, an aversives cause pain and possibly when other things could have done the trick. I reject the idea that the way things are experienced by are unimportant.
“Most of the JRC students are already grown. However, this is the one thing I’m having a hard time defending. I’m not wild about the idea of this diet. However, they are claiming that overall, the students’ cholesterol levels are down since they have instituted it.â€
It was healthy, but not really ethical to institute such a diet which deprives the ability to select other food to the consumers at the JRC.
“Positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment. That’s why JRC uses it more than punishment.â€
Ditto, but this debate isn’t over positive reinforcement, but over use of aversive control (which includes negative reinforcement, by the way).
“see above. I happen to think that positive reinforcement is always the first avenue. It is much more effective. If I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise, then I apologize. I also happen to think that if positive reinforcement is not working, then meds should be tried next. What JRC does is a last resort.â€
But you folks don’t bother to figure out the function of the behavior, your positive reinforcement is less effective for that reason. A host of behavior analytic research supports this. Shall I cite?
“People like to dsimiss those kinds of articles because they are not recent. Funny, I don’t think that articles expire.â€
Yes, they do, as we gain knowledge of a subject and realize that a former methodology was insufficient to answer a given question. See the way FA has displaced functional assessment in JABA for example.
“The first article I read in ABA class was “Some current dimensions of ABA†by Baer, Wolf and Risley. It’s considered today to be the seminal paper of ABA. It was written in 1968.â€
Yep, and Baer and Wolf have shuffled off for that big experimental space in the sky. Would you still list Risley as a advocate for aversives by the way?
“Just so you know this is the paper that I was talking about.
Linscheid, T. R., & Cunningham, C. E. (1977). A controlled demonstration of the effectiveness of electric shock in the elimination of chronic infant rumination. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 500.â€
Yes, and it demonstrates experimental control to satisfaction. But that doesn’t answer as to whether we should use this technique.
“No one who works there likes to give shocks. It’s the worst part of the job, but I’m betting that you would rather go on believing that all the JRC staff are inhuman monsters.â€
I have no beef with the JRC staff, but I question the ethics of the continued use of aversive procedures.
Ann: “Are you talking about negative reinforcement? or punishment?”
Punishment. Also using negative reinforcement when the reinforcing stimulus involves things like hunger or pain… not good, and basically unethical.
Jonathan: “I have no beef with the JRC staff, but I question the ethics of the continued use of aversive procedures.”
You see, Ann… Jonathan here is a behaviour analyst. But he also has problems with the use of aversive procedures…
Ann: “About what? My own opinions? I’m all set on that thanks.”
Which suggest strongly that you have no intention of learning anything new.
Kev…. I’m sounding the *troll* alarm.
Jonathan: “But you folks don’t bother to figure out the function of the behavior, your positive reinforcement is less effective for that reason. A host of behavior analytic research supports this. Shall I cite?”
Thank you.
I doubt she’d listen if I myself were to tell her that.
Ann said:
Once you stop giving candy for task completion, do you think that performance will drop or increase?
Speaking from personal experience, when we dropped the positive reinforcement (in our case, M & Ms to encourage using a toilet) my son continued using the toilet. So I guess that once a behavior is changed, you don’t have to continue with positive reinforcement. My son’s performance definitely increased.
Granted, this is one instance, but it never occurred to us to use any type of negative reinforcement to toilet train our son. We didn’t consult with any behavior experts.
As for his head-banging, which peaked at about 2 and half years old, it stopped completely when his sleep cycle became more regulated. We just figured he was banging it out of sheer frustraion due to exhaustion. He previously would sleep only 3-4 hours a night.
Again, I’m just a mom, not a behaviorist.
Hi GMAC,
“So I guess that once a behavior is changed, you don’t have to continue with positive reinforcement. My son’s performance definitely increased.”
I hope you don’t mind if I comment on the above.
Yes and no. We know that behaviors don’t maintain in the absence of at least intermittent reinforcement.
What may happen is that by engaging in this behavior the person contacts natural reinforcement that arise from that behavior. Or possibly from the avoidance of natural aversive stimuli. We call this a “behavior trapâ€.
Hi David,
“I doubt she’d listen if I myself were to tell her that.”
(shrugs) All you can do is try. Which is fallacious really, anyone should be able to make a criticism. The assement needs to be be on what is said, not who is saying it.
Jonathan: “The assessment needs to be be on what is said, not who is saying it.”
Indeed, that is true… but we’ve seen with someone else on the blog that whatever I say can be dismissed by people because I happen to be autistic. My being a psychologist who has studied the things I talk about has no apparent bearing.
Hi Jonathon-
I don’t mind your comments at all. However, now I’m more confused. Please correct me if I’m wrong. So, would soaking wet undies be the “behavior trap”? Seriously not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. Actually trying to learn something.
BTW, we DID continue positive reinforcement by way of praise, which was far more ideal than M & Ms, but not nearly as effective in the beginning, if you know what I mean. Myself, I am highly motivated by chocolate.
Hi GMAC,
“I don’t mind your comments at all. However, now I’m more confused. Please correct me if I’m wrong. So, would soaking wet undies be the “behavior trapâ€? Seriously not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. Actually trying to learn something.â€
Your questions are always welcome 🙂
Soaking wet undies might help set up the conditions for a behavior trap.
Here is how the contingecy might look:
Negative Reinforcment:
Subtype: Avoidance of the Presentation of an Aversive Stimulus
Warning stimulus: Feeling of full bladder
Before: Will experience averisvely wet undies soon
Behavior: Uses bathroom
After: Will not experience aversively wet undies soon
This involves understanding a rule so we call this an “analog contingencyâ€.
Also, the behavior here is really a moderately complex chain of behaviors e.g. (walk to bathroom, turn on lights, close door, etc.).
The logic my analysis is based on, assumes that wet undies are aversive in this case (I have seen a case where it was not).
So, the reinforcement naturally produced by avoiding wet undies, might be the maintaining factor in this case. We would call this whole process a behavior trap, as the behavior is locked into place by the circumstances.
I has a friend who analyzed a whole day of her life for a class we had, by looking for examples of negative reinforcement. She found something like 2,000 instances. It has been proposed that negative reinforcment is the major natural motivator in our lives. I wouldn’t be surprised. It is true for me, it starts every morning with my alarm clock.
“BTW, we DID continue positive reinforcement by way of praise, which was far more ideal than M & Ms, but not nearly as effective in the beginning, if you know what I mean.â€
Yes,
“Myself, I am highly motivated by chocolate.â€
(hangs head) Video games……
Hi David,
“but we’ve seen with someone else on the blog that whatever I say can be dismissed by people because I happen to be autistic.â€
Yep, and that is bigotry pure and simple. Of when autism is assumed to be inherently wrong, it is not a leap (it is actually, but not to some) to say that what autistics say must also be inherently wrong (unless of course it agrees with us, in which case we tolerate it).
As a fellow student once complained to me “why do emotionally impaired kids get a say, it is stupid, they are the ones in treatment, so they have no objectivity†(gacks)……
The logic works like this:
P. Those who have differences are wrong
P. Autistic are different
C. Autistic are wrong
Notice how the “wrong†in the first premise is kurfufled in this case to mean several things at once
And from this syllogism with its stupid false equation in the first premise we find the source of the wonders of the RAVE diet for all, in the JRC, not to mention a certain mother’s sophistic comments that autistic are only fit for treatment, not to make comments about treatment of autism.
Chewbacca approves indeed (Imitates, that Wookie rolling roar).
I suppose that is unfair.
No Wookie or even Ewok ever used so poor an example of logic.