ABA Controversy

[borne_before]

---

Members don't see this ad.

As others have said, there is strong family advocacy for the use of the skin shock procedure. The families often state (and I believe them) that no other facility will work with their family member other than by using significant chemical and/or physical restraint. The argument is that relative short durations of shock are a trade-off for relatively larger (compared to other settings) durations of freedom of movement and not being "snowed" by psychotropics. I'd be more amenable to that argument had I not seen firsthand some of the misuses (or read credible reports of the abuses) of the technology.

I am not a BCBA, but I view myself as a behavioral psychologist.

I do view hold a view positive punishment through administration of shock as having it's place. But, I also view that as a sort of a last means necessary, for only the most aggressive and self-injurious behavior, that are not responsive to medication and other means of behavioral modification. IRC, there are three other centers that do implement this practice very ethically and it has "saved" many from detached retinas, etc. However, I think they use a review board to show oversight in these places. But, using it for things like not taking your jacket off when told is insane.

My older professor did bring in some black and white tape and his hand shocker...

But, my main issue with that place has to be that it probably exists because many people hold an anti-medication bias...