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

[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*