Child abuse, Skinner style

[danohu]

Wow. Drop what you're doing, and go read this article:

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 :)

Comments

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I can see why people might be upset by things like this, especially the 'unnecessary' use for merely undesireable behaviours instead of just for dangerous behaviours, but where all other techniques have failed it means the pupils can still be taught. The alternative is no education, no chance for them to interact, less controllable by their parents or guardians, and generally a more miserable life.

Given that alternative, as long as usage is strictly monitored and controlled, I would advocate this system.

[rachelfmb.livejournal.com]

Sorry but What The Fuck?

Israel has about 230 "clients"�full-time students at the Rotenberg Center�who are mentally retarded, developmentally disabled with diseases like autism, or have been diagnosed with ailments such as depression, schizophrenia, or conduct disorder.

How exactly is it that abuses can be prevented? I know people who went to schools where corporal punishment was in place, and staff at those schools definitely abused their power. And these were "normal" children. How can abuses of children with these kind of disorders be prevented.

I have much more to say about this, but I haven't thought it through properly. I would say that even if it could be tightly controlled that kind of treatment of the mentally ill would constitute an abuse in itself. I will probably post something (publicly) about it on my livejournal later.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understand the concerns. It's the typical prisoners-and-guards problem - but the difference is that the teachers and pupils are not equals. The teachers are trained (albeit one of the points the inquiry mentions is that they don't feel the training is adequate), the teachers should feel a 'duty of care' towards the pupils greater than that of 'normal' children.

The other side of it is that because the punishment mechanism is fixed, and supposedly not influenceable by the teacher, there is less chance for the actual punishments to vary - only the circumstances under which they are given.

In order to balance that, there are also many checks and balances supposedly in place: guidelines, authorisation to administer the shocks, CCTV, etc.

I guess in the end it comes down to whether you think the means is worth the end result: the pupils in nearly all cases are able to have a better quality of life.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

The teachers are trained (albeit one of the points the inquiry mentions is that they don't feel the training is adequate)
In this case perhaps it's best to assume that their training is not, in fact, adequete?

Are you aware of what happens to many people who 'look after' vunerable groups? Having seen documentaries where a reporter 'infiltrates' a nursing home, special needs hostel etc, I'm aware how easy it is for 'carers' to get carried away by it all and issue punishments or restraint (knocking them to the floor and pinning them there) for very little reason, simply because they enjoy it. Verbal attacks aimed at people who can't speak, behaviour designed to knock the 'patient' or 'pupil' down to such a low point that they are easier to control. Where are the safeguards against this? These are electric shocks we're talking about here! It's wide open to abuse.

The circumstances in which the punishments are given are changing. I mean, 'This child is untidy, shock him.' WTF?

The end result is not that the pupils have a better quality of life. The end result is that they're made to be 'easier to control' which gives their 'carers' a better quality of life. Let's be honest about what we're dealing with.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

It is true, it does mean that the pupils (patients?) are easier to control. But the benefits must be there for the pupils as well or they would not request to join the system.

The implementation will always be questionable, but as I say, with strict controls in place I believe the ends probably justifies the means.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

But the benefits must be there for the pupils as well or they would not request to join the system.

See my comment below for my full response to this. In short, I believe that the students who request to be put on the program do it because they want to behave in a way that gets them positive attention, and they see the behaviour of their classmates on the program changing, and want that for themselves.

I will not accept that when a child wants to be good, that shocking them is the only way to achieve that. They have come to mentally link the backpacks to good behaviour and it's now a crutch for them. I'm strongly of the opinion that the school should find these students a different and less harmful crutch.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I agree with you here. As before, the details of the implementation are questionable, but I believe the system as a whole is sound, if control over the teachers can be enforced properly.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

Also, apologies to oedipamaas49 for wading in here (I was linked to your post) without even so much as a 'hello'. So, um, hello. *Waves*

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

hello! you're more than welcome; it's been fun and informative watching the pair of you slug it out!

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

Heh, it's similar to a discipline discussion that we've been having at home, which is why linked me here in the first place. As it happens, my son has since responded brilliantly to positive action where previously, punishments were exacerbating the problem. It's a process that requires more dedication from the carer, but the results far outshine the alternative of anger and punishment. ;)

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

... where all other techniques have failed

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that. The techniques are failing? Then introduce better ones, not worse ones!

There are better methods than this. I do not, and will not accept that the need for wiring up these children and causing them pain every time their shirt is untucked is anything other than the fault of their carers up to this point. Those shock units must have cost a bit. Use the money a better carer to child ratio, to pay for activities that engage the children, to pay for a couple of adults to sit with the children during downtime and actually converse with them and make them feel wanted. That will yield far better results.

The article describes giving students painful electric shocks when they step out of line. The system may have originally been intended to be used only when a dangerous behaviour was exhibited which put the student or another person at clear risk, but it's evolved very quickly from that to be simply another methood of control, with the 'controlled' behaviour being more and more unclear. These students are being controlled by people who haven't been adequetely trained, in fact I am of the opinion that no amount of training is adequete to ensure that this power isn't abused, especially when dealing with children who have no method of comeback.

To clarify, these students are being shocked not only when they put people at risk, but also for far more basic 'infringments' such as swearing or having an untidy appearance. Some of these students have never exhibited the guidline behaviours (self harm, etc) that this 'control' was intended for. Some of these students are being punished for doing as they are told.

Climb inside the heads of these students for a minute. Their life is full of confusion, lack of understanding, lack of ability, frustration, and that's just due to their disabilities. Then add in the fact that their coping mechanisms (which are dangerous), the very appearance of which denotes how unhappy they are, are now resulting in physical pain. A horrible life. But THEN add to this the fact that this method of control ALSO results in them getting shocks for things that aren't dangerous or even important in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes they won't know why they have been shocked. Sometimes they will be trying to do what they're told (shouted at, forced) to do, and then they get a shock for that. Imagine the pain, confusion, sheer dispair of living like that. Imagine losing the will to survive with a life that consists of pain. Imagine having no positive reason to respond in a favourable way, only negative reasons. Imagine being completely broken in mind and spirit.

There is a feedback loop that is, if anything, even more true of disabled children. Pain and anger lead to negative behaviour, which produces this negative reaction. Because negative reactions are so strong, this reaction is sought again and again with increasing severity of unwelcome behaviour. This repeated pain and anger can escalate to include more severe shocks, issued more regularly, especially when under the control of 'carers' who are misguided, non-empathic, badly trained, lacking in understanding or just plain cruel. The harder punishments lead to worse behaviour and somebody has to stop this negative feedback loop. Obviously it's not going to be stopped by the disabled child. They need an adult to make that decision for them and take steps to get out of the cycle of punishment, misbehaviour and pain. This electric shock punishment system flies in the face of positive reinforcement, a method that is proven to have the most notable effects in these cases. In fact, the electric shock punishment system is the complete opposite of it.

I doubt very much that animal rights campaigners would sit back and allow a field full of cattle to be rigged up like this, getting shocks every time they strayed too close to the edge of the field or every time they didn't walk alongside the farmer or every time they refused to walk voluntarily through the chemical dip. If so, how can anyone justify doing this to children?

[rachelfmb.livejournal.com]

I agree. The article says that they only use therapy infrequently, which seems shocking.

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

Those shock units must have cost a bit

According to the article, it costs $214,000 per child per year. On the other hand, any kind of support for children like these is disconcertingly expensive, so maybe this place isn't that much worse than the alternatives.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

I assume that when you say 'maybe this place isn't that much worse than the alternatives', you mean cost wise? Assuming that to be the case, I'm sure you agree that the money would be better spent in a way that uses a less painfiul and harmful method in order to get results.

[nairoz.livejournal.com]

I think the question needs to be asked... does it work?

I don't support this particuarly, but is it actually effective at all?

Although goading students to try stuff is way out of line - that will just lead to neurotic behavior, with the students afraid to try anything at all.

[rachelfmb.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced that the question is "does it work?" See the slippery slope argument pointed out by people below. Also even if it were the case that it did "work" in some extreme cases, perhaps there is something still wrong about treating people in this way.

[nairoz.livejournal.com]

Quite - it is (potentially, not always I feel) child abuse. But as it's being pushed as a technique to "control children not otherwise controllable", I think whether it works or not at least needs to be answered - if it doesn't, it's just abuse, end of story.

And although it may be horrifying to people (I'm disturbed by it), if it IS effective, and does work in cases where other methods have failed - is it truly a bad thing?

That's why I think the question of "does it work" needs to be answered, to see if there's any benefit whatsoever, or if it's just abuse.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

I think you've overlooked that if it does get results, but those results could also have been got through less violent methods, then it's still abuse.

[nairoz.livejournal.com]

Not overlooked - I'm not saying that this is the only technique that can be used if it's shown to provide any benefit whatsoever. If it does work, it's a tool which should at least be considered along with any other techniques that are effective (and may still be abuse, as other people have stated).

It's certainly a tricky subject, I just feel that "does it work" needs to be answered before any other discussion can really take place - if it provides some benefit, then it's potentially abuse, if it has no benefits, then it IS abuse.

I feel that the main problem is, how do you know if a method's effective without trying it? And, at the moment, ARE there better (not nessecarily as/more effective - if this actually is effective) treatments availible?

There's a lot of questions that need answering, and everyone's made a lot of very valid points here.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I worry that you believe that all problems can be solved with positive reinforcement. I don't believe that all problems necessarily can be solved this way, but I would agree that it should always be the first method tried.

I agree with you that use of the system for minor infringements as you suggest is not suitable.

The example given in the story of the girl called Samantha was reportedly a lot happier with the treatment; that some students even want to wear the devices because they see the improvements their fellow students make and the subsequent rewards for good behaviour.

I think that's a point to consider as well - the shock is only a way to punish undesireable behaviour in a controlled way with the minimum of negative attention. It is only a part of the process - the whole process combines rewards for good behaviour.

Cattle already are contained by electric fences that administer shocks for touching the boundaries of their fields. There are cattle prods too, although I don't know if/how they are in wide use anymore. They are certainly less rigorously monitored than this situation in any case.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, I suppose cattle do get shocks. The electric fence is there because there needs to be a fence to keep them from straying, and most other types of fence cause then alsting physical harm if they attempt to breach it. In that case it could be argued that it's the lesser of the evils, though that doesn't make it kind to the cattle.

Negative reinforcement is a very real thing and is counterproductive. The students who request to be put on the program do it because they want to behave in a way that gets them positive attention, and they see the behaviour of thier classmates on the program changing, and want that for themselves. I will not accept that when a child wants to be good, that shocking them is the only way to achieve that. They have come to mentally link the backpacks to good behaviour and it's now a crutch for them. I'm strongly of the opinion that the school should find these students a different and less harmful crutch.

There is also the issue that the electric shocks have been shown to cause brain damage, which when you're dealing with children like this, would seem to be madness. It's running a very real possibility of making these patients less able to behave 'appropriately' in the long term. "I know, lets take these disabled and / or braing damaged people and make their physical problems worse!" *Sigh*

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

In terms of the cattle argument, the analogy can be extended to this situation: farmers have a need to keep the cattle in a certain location; they install electric fences. In a similar way, pupils are required to keep to non-violent behaviour; they are fitted with devices that discourage that sort of behaviour. Yes, I guess it is a matter of convenience, but it is one that allows the pupils to reap the benefits of interaction with others, and an education, etc. Remember, this is the last resort, when nothing else has worked.

I agree, the crutch behaviour is undesireable and it's difficult to tell from the article what the real reason for the pupil's request to go on the system is, other than what it says:

Other students actually ask to be wired up, say staff members, because they witness the improvement their peers make and the privileges they earn.

The story points out that the therapy has not been linked to deaths at the school:

Aside from a momentary tingling, the faint whiff of singed hair, and a couple small pinpoint marks on the skin, a single shock administered to a visitor at Rotenberg didn't produce any lasting physical effects. Five of the kids under Israel's care have died in the 35 years he's run the school, but none of those deaths were linked to aversive therapy. Israel insists the GED is better than the alternatives for his students, debilitating drugs or physical restraints.

And insists that the therapy is very successful at controlling dangerous behaviour:

While many psychologists agree with Israel that aversive therapy can work as a last resort in a very few cases to control dangerous behaviors, the school contends that the skin shocks are almost 100 percent effective in reducing those - there's less consensus on whether a method like skin shocks can really cure someone.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

1. Children are not cattle, and even the most damaged children have been shown to respond to positive attention. Cattle don't appear to have brains that would respond to this. And for the recond, I actually think that a deep trough around the edge of the field that is too steep to climb out of on the 'wrong' side is a better solution to keeping cattle in one place, perhaps topped by a wall at the top of the slope. That's a different discussion altogether though.

2. It's difficult to tell from the article what the real reason for the pupil's request to go on the system is, other than what it says: "Other students actually ask to be wired up, say staff members, because..."
It's difficult to tell. The article gives the opinions of staff members as fact. Basic psycology would suggest that the other students want the apparent happiness and the rewards for good behaviour and link that with the backpack.

3. I never said that the electric shock was causing deaths. However is has been shown to cause brain damage, which is very difficult to measure and is a very gradual process. It might be no more apparent than being able to tell when someone you know has consumed a pint of alcohol. He still acts the same on the surface but some of his brain functiuons are adversely affected. It's comparable to that.

4. I severely doubt that none of the children on this program would respond as well, or better, to a kinder program. I severely doubt that this type of program becoming 'acceptable' will not result in a slippery slope that punishes lesser behaviours, in fact it appears to have started already judging by some of the comments in the article. (Shocks for swearing? FFS!) I can't help feeling that '"Little Johnny is much happier now," could easily be translated as, "Little Johnny is much easier to control now," which isn't necessarily the same thing.

Overall, 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.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

1. The trough method would find cattle stranded in the troughs panicing trying to get out (think of some of Mel's stories). I was simply pointing out that the cattle analogy you introduced did bear similarities to this situation, but I didn't go as far as to suggest that children were like cattle.

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:

Israel insists the GED is better than the alternatives for his students, debilitating drugs or physical restraints.

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.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

1. I said a steep slope on the 'wrong' side, implying a gentler slope on the 'right' side which is easy to climb. Please re-read the original statement.

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.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

1. Your idea would work, but it is simply too costly to implement, which highlights my argument.

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.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

1. Ah yes, shocking people is OK because it's cheaper than the other methode that might work, silly me.

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.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

1. Unfortunately, that is true with the world in general. Additionally, it's not just cheaper; it's arguably better than the other alternatives of physical restraint or drugs.

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.

[serena-lesley.livejournal.com]

1. Physically hurting someone in a way that causes damage to them is not better than simply restraining them.

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*

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

1. I don't think it's been proven that it causes damage greater than restraining them.

..

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*