From Inclusion Daily:
Torture Allowed In Our Back Yard: Judge Rotenberg Center
(Washington Post)
October 4, 2010
CANTON, MASSACHUSETTS– [Excerpt] “We don’t torture,” President Obama said just days after taking office. Perhaps he is not aware of what is happening in his backyard — to children with disabilities in Massachusetts.
During investigations into treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, detainees reported being short-shackled, verbally abused, isolated, hooded and threatened in ways designed to induce fear of injury, pain and death — including threats that they might be tortured with electric shocks.
State reviews of the techniques used at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Canton, Mass., and the center’s Web site have cited skin shocks, shock chairs, shock “holsters,” shackles and social isolation — some of which are applied to school-age children.
Known as a school of last resort, this taxpayer-funded residential facility — at more than $220,000 per child per year as of 2007, according to Mother Jones — has a controversial history. Started by Matthew Israel, a devotee of the behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner, the school employs “aversive treatment,” a program of behavior modification involving rewards and punishments.
Entire article:
Disabled children at Mass. school are tortured, not treated
http://www.InclusionDaily.com/news/2010/red/1004a.htm
Related:
Judge Rotenberg Center — Facility Uses Electric Shock To Change Behavior (Inclusion Daily Express Archives)
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/institutions/ma/jrc.htm
Planet of the Blind 
Hi Leslie,
Thank you for showing your ability to look at all viewpoints regarding the ethical issues that face us! I wish to point out that I have no connection to Disabled Soapbox- just consider it, along with POTB, an excellent voice for human rights. The column “A Call For Ethical and Unprejudiced Leadership and Practice in the Field” was written by Derrick Jeffries and Nancy Weiss. It would be interesting to find out how the APA responded. Thanks again, Leslie for taking the time to read and consider all the information on the subject of electric shock as a behavior control method.
LikeLike
Here is a link to a lawsuit filed by parents/guardians of students at JRC in 2006 attempting to overturn an NY State Emergency Regulation concerning JRC:
http://www.transparencyinpubliceducation.org/files/amendedcomplaint.pdf
LikeLike
The JRC was being investigated by the Department of Justice Disability Rights Section as of February 2010 (Judge Rotenberg Center, DJ 202-36-233). The Deputy Chief in charge is Renee Wohlenhaus (Phone: 202-514-5527). I can find no information on the DOJ website except for the following statement from Remarks of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez at the National Disability Rights Network Annual Conference in June 2010:
“We are also investigating the Judge Rotenberg Center in Massachusetts for use of aversive restraints and electro-shocks.”
http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/perez_disability_conf.php
I’ve read information at the JRC website ( http://www.judgerc.org/ ) It presents compelling reasons why aversive therapy should be retained as a treatment option for severe behavioral disorders, although the throughly documented report has only one person listed as author: Matthew Israel, Ph.D. I would be more convinced if I saw others participating and supporting the validity of the contents of this report.
I honestly am quite flummoxed by this controversy: Are desperate people submitting to ineffective therapies that cause needless pain and long-term trauma? Are aversive therapies (specifically GED) providing an effective remedy that can free a person from mind-numbing psychotropic medications and overwhelmingly compulsive behaviors that damage both the person and others? From my perspective with the information that I currently posses, I would be hesitant to decide either way on this critical issue. But the stakes are high; lives are in the balance whatever the decision. I hope that the DOJ is carefully evaluating the situation, and provides more clarity on aversive therapies at JRC.
LikeLike
Hi Laura,
Thank you for posting “A Call for Ethical…” on your Disabled Soapbox. Your perspective was well-documented and supported. Especially when I cannot experience a situation myself, and even when I can, I depend on other perspectives. My own perspectives can be quite inaccurate. And, perhaps in the case of Mr. Israel, the perspectives of people who have invested both their financial and professional survival in an idea can also, out of personal necessity, present perspectives that are quite biased whether they are aware of this or not.
In an era when government entities cannot even provide basic third-party coverage for therapies that have proven effective for people who are unable to afford medical care (currently in California that includes optical and dental services and products), therapies must be thoroughly screened both for whether or not they provide a significant benefit to people, as well as for overall cost-effectiveness. No one can afford therapies that provide minimal or negative benefit at great cost.
Laura, how did the APA respond to your letter?
Below is the excerpt from the Boston Globe Op-Ed piece:
Why do no practitioners other than Israel adopt this approach? Do they view skin shocks as cruel or do they fear the outcry of disability advocates and inevitable probes? Is skin shock, in some cases, a more humane treatment than heavy drugs and mechanical restraints?
“I don’t know,’’ said Dr. Michael Grodin, a psychiatrist and director of medical ethics at Boston University School of Public Health. But Grodin said he would be wary of anyone who sees this complex issue purely in terms of black or white. The best one can do, he said, is wrestle with the complexities by asking “who benefits, under what circumstances, toward what end, and at what cost.’’
No one wrestles harder with those questions than parents. And some have decided, with court approval, that skin shocks are the best way to restore their broken children. It’s not an act of compassion to stand in their way.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/09/shocking_truths/?page=2
The question in my mind when I read this, and consider Laura’s statement that only 11% of therapy recipients respond to follow-up studies, is whether the desperation of the parents is being exploited. Some behavioral problems truly have no solutions. If there is no substantial follow-up data on efficacy, exploitation is a very real concern, and children may be needlessly subjected to pain at great cost to the general public. I would need to know what parents, care providers, independent psychologists and, whenever possible, the therapy recipients themselves report about the efficacy of the therapy at least six months after the cessation of treatment. If that sort of data has not been collected from at least 20% of the participants during the time that the center has been operating, why is it still open?
LikeLike
For a very well-written and important viewpoint on JRC, I urge readers to click on “Disabled Soapbox” in the Blog Kaleidoscope and scroll down to “A Call for Ethical and Unprejudiced Leadership and Practice in the Field.” Thank you to all readers of POTB who take the time to read this!
LikeLike
My research tells me that JRC uses shock for much milder behaviors than physical-self abuse, such as raising the arms, swearing, lack of neatness and that a student was shocked for calling a teacher fat. I also read, Dr. Matthew, that you have stated that you believe in “spanks, muscle squeezes with spray to the face, pinches and ammonia under the nose”. Although you mention only severely autistic children to defend your position, you neglect to tell us that most of the children at JRC are higher functioning and are being subjected to shock more often than you state.
I also read that the electric shock hurts far worse than the bee sting you have been known to compare it to. When News Anchor Anderson Cooper visited your center for an interview, he requested one of your shock treatments. In his own words,” Let me tell you. It hurts far worse than that.
In addition, I read that JRC has a serious problem with follow-up as only 11% of those contacted participate in the follow-up and long term data is lacking. You have long faced criticism that you do not provide research about your use of electric shock in peer reviewed journals, where experts could analyze it.You point to articles that were written more than 20 years ago when asked to defend your position.
Yes, adversive physical punishment can produce effective short-term consequences. But, there are other ways to stop self-injurious behavior that are much less devastating in the long run.
LikeLike
To Matthew Israel:
Thank you for posting the link to your Op-Ed piece. It changed my perspective. The cases you cite are truly life-threatening. If your therapy is effective, where others have failed, it should be considered.
As you mention, many cancer-treatment regimens have far more serious aversive effects than mild, 2-second electric shocks. Also, although positive reinforcement techniques certainly are primary, most, if not all, guide dog schools still retain use of the “correction” a quick, firm tug on the guide dog harness as an aversion-based reaction to an undesired behavior.
If the treatments are effective where other treatments are not in these serious cases, I hope that your agency maintains transparency to professionals in your field to demonstrate this efficacy.
Again, my thanks for providing your information on this website.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for this column. So much of what passes for “discipline” of children in institutions as well as many homes is actually torture or adult temper tantrums. The prevalence of child abuse in this world is horrifying, but as a survivor, I am grateful to all who speak out about it. Thanks again!
LikeLike
This is only one example of many that reinforces my theory that, contrary to popular belief, we are all still deeply enmeshed in the Dark Ages, and they are still very, very dark, indeed.
LikeLike