The Judge Rotenberg Center has come under fire in recent weeks. Apparently, The Center is literally at the center of a legal battle regarding alleged abuse and neglect to one of its clients. For more detailed information about the ongoing hearings, you may read here, here, here, and here. You may also watch these videos here, here, and here. You should know, this is not the first time The Center has come under fire (read here, here, and here).
At Issue
As best as we can tell, the case appears to be about medical malpractice with regards to treatment for a client. The client, Andre McCollins, was a resident at The Center for a period of time. According to various sources, he engaged in challenging behavior such as aggression, non-compliance, and disruption. According to the video and various sources, the client was restrained for several hours during which he was shocked 31 times. Apparently, the entire incident began because the client wouldn’t take off his coat.
Under Fire
In addition to the lawsuit against The Center, a number of individuals have come under fire. In particular are The Center medical doctor (Dr. James Riley), The Center Clinical Director, (Robert Von Heyn), and The Center Founder (Matthew Israel).
Client Rights
We will not pretend to be experts in the ethical requirements for physicians, despite a previous post on The Hippocratic Oath. We will, however, address client rights as it relates to ethical principles for Psychologists and Behavior Analysts. Dr. Von Heyn and Dr. Israel appear to be psychologists and/or Behavior Analysts.
As a psychologist, one of the general principles is Beneficence and Non-maleficence. Generally speaking, psychologists are to Do No Harm to their clients. It seems as if this general principle was overlooked when the client received 31 instances of electric shock.
As a behavior analyst, the behavior analyst should “recommend reinforcement rather than punishment whenever possible“.
Do Unto Others
Our philosophy in designing programs for individuals with behavioral challenges is to improve quality of life through effective intervention. We do that in a number of ways.
- First we modify antecedents to prevent challenging behavior from occurring in the first place.
- Then we identify replacement behaviors for the challenging behavior. This is often communication skills but it also includes teaching compliance.
- Finally, we reinforce new, appropriate behaviors and we stop reinforcing the problem behavior.
But most important of all, we recommend strategies that are humane. We ask that adults interact with and provide discipline in a respectful manner. We often use the old saying “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”. If you are in the middle of a tantrum, would you want your husband, wife, or teacher to put you in a restraint and yell at you? Probably not.
Please share your thoughts on the case at The JRC. How would you want your loved one to be disciplined?
We are linking up again this week with Erica over at Yeah Write. Please hop on over there to see all the other wonderful posts this week.
Applied Behavioral Strategies 
All started because he wouldn’t take off his coat? Man. Shocked 31 times, *while restrained*? Jeez.
I know! I was shocked! And sadly, these people share my profession. I went to their website and they have at least 5 BCBAs on staff now. And they tout being the only place that still uses shock. It goes against our ethical guidelines as well as a moral code for humans.
Ugh! That case sounds awful.
I cannot imagine being the parent and having to watch it happen to your child during the hearing.
Isn’t amazing how the phrase “do unto others…” fits just about every facet of life, yet it is so difficult to practice? Very sad story.
Yes, you are so right! We should all apply it every day. What a wonderful world it would be. Thanks for stopping by!
I have to agree that “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” covers most situations in life. Ellen
AGREED! thanks for stopping by (again)!
I think if we imagined how we’d want our loved ones to be treated more often, it would calm down a lot of knee-jerk reactions on-line and in life. The situations in this case are intensely disturbing – as with the juvenile centers in NY that are closing down – it shows how those in charge no longer view these young people are PEOPLE, just subjects. I dont deny that the jobs are harrowing and difficult, and I don’t have a solution, but sensitivity is a must and treating people as what they are, not how they act is imperative. Thank you for these wonderful posts.
You are so right! Our society picks the lowest paid employees to put with the hardest/most difficult cases. Without proper training, those staff cannot handle the stress of caring for difficult clients. Thank you for your comment and thanks for stopping by!
This is just so disturbing. Shocked for not taking off his coat?! Really? How awful.
Yes, absolutely horrific. Sadly, the practice will continue until changes are made in policies.Thanks for stopping by!
Yikes, that is frightening. The Golden Rule, people. Listen to it.
Ahhhhh. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all followed the rule? Thanks for coming by!
[…] Do No Harm (appliedbehavioralstrategies.wordpress.com) […]
[…] Behavior Analysis (ABA) for improving quality of life. We advocate frequently for the use of reinforcement based strategies to address challenging behavior. As you know, the use of procedures such as timeout rooms (also […]
[…] stand up and refuse or question the treatment. When our children are being shocked (as those in Judge Rotenberg Center), restrained, and secluded, perhaps we should seek a 2nd opinion. Isn’t that what we do in […]