![[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. 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*