![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Child abuse, Skinner style
Wow. Drop what you're doing, and go read this article:
Now, this is already astoundingly nasty stuff. The justification is that these are severely disabled children who would otherwise be locked up, drugged to the eyeballs, or killing themselves. I can't accept it - because I wouldn't want anybody to have that power over anyone, certainly not in such a regimented system - but at least I can see the defence. Only, read on and it gets far worse:
And worse:
Edit: wow, there have been some totally fascinating comments on this. Thanks, everybody :)
The only thing that sets these students apart from kids at any other school in America - aside from their special-ed designation - is the electric wires running from their backpacks to their wrists. Each wire connects to a silver-dollar-sized metal disk strapped with a cloth band to the student's wrist, forearm, abdomen, thigh, or foot. Inside each student's backpack is a battery and a generator, both about the size of a VHS cassette. Each generator is uniquely coded to a single keychain transmitter kept in a clear plastic box labeled with the student's name. Staff members dressed neatly in ties and green aprons keep the boxes hooked to their belts, and their eyes trained on the students' behavior. They stand ready, if they witness a behavior they've been told to target, to flip open the box, press the button, and deliver a painful two-second electrical shock into the student at the end of the wire.
Now, this is already astoundingly nasty stuff. The justification is that these are severely disabled children who would otherwise be locked up, drugged to the eyeballs, or killing themselves. I can't accept it - because I wouldn't want anybody to have that power over anyone, certainly not in such a regimented system - but at least I can see the defence. Only, read on and it gets far worse:
Sometimes, the student gets shocked for doing precisely what he's told. In a few cases where a student is suspected of being capable of an extremely dangerous but infrequent behavior, the staff at Rotenberg won't wait for him to try it. They will exhort him to do it, and then punish him. In these behavior rehearsal lessons, staff members will force a student to start a dangerous activity - for a person who likes to cut himself, they might get him to pick up a plastic knife on the table - and then shock him when he does.
And worse:
New York state inspectors concluded that "the background and preparation of staff is not sufficient," that JRC shocks students "without a clear history of self-injurious behavior," and that it uses the GED "for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous, or destructive, such as nagging, swearing, and failing to keep a neat appearance."
Edit: wow, there have been some totally fascinating comments on this. Thanks, everybody :)
no subject
2. Possibly, but my point is neither of us can prove it either way. The article's slant on that point suggests that it is a wholesome thing though.
3. Again, the only reference in the article to damage are those which I picked out. The argument here is that it is likely to be far less damaging and with significantly less side-effects than any real alternative:
4. At the end of the day, yes, there are arguments around the fact that the process may produce children which are more easy to manage than without the treatment. We own and drive cars, which are bad for the environment and also are the main cause of death in teenagers, but the convenience factor outweighs these negative effects. What I am saying is that on the whole, this is the least of the evils available when all else has been tried and failed, and I believe the benefits to the children who partake in the treatment are tangible, in addition to the benefits for the carers.
no subject
2. If it can't be proved either way then assuming the best case senario is unrealistic, even if the article's slant would like to imply otherwise. Any doubt is too much.
3. When I referred to brain damage I wasn't referencing the article, I was referencing the myriad of oter studies which prove that it causes damage. I'm not going into the issue of 'more damage' or 'less damage', damage is damage and I felt that this had to be raised as an issue. This treatment probably causes long-term brain damage, however slight, which is self defeating besides all the other arguments.
4. 'The least of all evils' is still evil, right? It would take irrefutable proof that these children will not respond to any other method before I'll agree that it's OK to even try the bare-bones treatment on him/her, and even then you're looking at a method that is open to abuse (I'll say it again, shocked for swearing? WTF?) and is near the top of a very slippery slope. For those reasons (and I know I'm repeating myself here, but it appears to be necessary) my distaste at this method of control is unchanged, and I'd be horrified to see it become something that is accepted as a recommended treatment.
no subject
2. You have your own interpretations shaped by your own bias, as I do mine - you choose to interpret that statement in a negative light.
3. I haven't been able to find any articles to substantiate your claim, but have found articles talking about Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), which is very different. Can you supply articles to back up your arguments? The point in any case is that it is surely less damaging than drug therapy?
4. The method is monitored carefully, but yes, perhaps the treatment is being used in ways that appear inappropriate to the majority of us. The court must allow the school to physically punish the students, and the school also obtains the parents' permission. I'd hope that the parents would have a constant and continuous say in what their child gets punished for. In any case, the parents are able to view a website detailing the punishment occasions.
At the end of the day I was simply trying to raise awareness that this was not necessarily a 'bad and evil' thing; that it is better than the alternatives, that it offers people a choice other than physical restraint and drugs, and that it has benefits for carers too.
I accept there are potential problems with the implementation, which is what the article suggests.
I would not want to see the treatment become 'standard', but I do think it has its place, when all else has failed.
no subject
2. I'm pointing out that you're interpreting the statement in a positive light and the other extreme needs to be considered. In cases where the truth is unknown, I feel that the worst case senario should be given proper consideration, rather than choosing to accept that everything's peachy when it may not be.
3. http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/electric_shock_injuries.jsp
'The nervous system (the brain, spinal cord, and nerves) is particularly vulnerable to injury. In fact, neurological problems are the most common kind of nonlethal harm suffered by electric shock victims. Some neurological damage is minor and clears up on its own or with medical treatment, but some is severe and permanent. Neurological problems may be apparent immediately after the accident, or gradually develop over a period of up to three years.'
4. My distaste at this method of control is unchanged, and I'd be horrified to see it become something that is accepted as a recommended treatment. It's too open to abuse, which can only too easily result in children being physically hurt for every minor infraction, a process which they don't appear to be that far away from currently.
no subject
2. True; the reasons for their acceptance should be looked into.
3. Unfortunately that article is talking about accidental electricity shocks such as from lightning or from mains voltage, rather than damage from purposeful application of a specific amount on predefined areas of the body.
4. As I already stated, my purpose was merely to raise awareness that it is not necessarily a 'bad and evil' thing to do given the alternatives.
no subject
2. Glad we're in agreement on this.
3. The article talks about electric shocks, which cause damage to the body. Why would it the amount of damage be different than if the shock was admistered on purpose? If there are studies that suggest that the amount and type of shock they're using causes less damage than this, where are the long-term studies that prove it? After all, frequent shocks will cause lots of little amounts of damage, which mount up.
4. My purpose was merely to counterpoint your argument and point out that for every person who advocates a system due to its purported advantages, there will be someone else who points out its flaws and possible negative effects, and brings your attention to the possible alternatives.
BTW I've eaten now so I'll see you at your house in 15 mins. *Kiss*
no subject
..
3. It's to do with the way the shock is applied. The shock is very local to the area (i.e. not affecting organs etc), whereas accidental shocks enter the body at one point and leave to the ground, usually through the feet (i.e. affecting organs). Therefore, this throws doubt on the school's practise of sometimes making the charge run between contacts. This would have to be done in a controlled manner in order to be safe.
4. I felt there were enough nay-sayers already, so I chose the unbalanced side ;) Besides, on a more serious note, the only viable alternatives mentioned in the article talk about physical restraint and drugs, neither of which seem to be more attractive than the shock therapy..
Yep, see you soon. *kiss*