|
 |
| Comments on Bradley Bernstein’s Treatment from 3 Massachusetts Disability Advocates: |
|
| |
| |
Shock was used for over 20 years with Bradley and, although the parents said it is still needed, the group home was able to eliminate it without seeing serious, life-threatening injuries. Also, the court permitted them to wean him off the device last April. Despite this, they were still using it 11 months later when the court ruled that it had to be discontinued. It doesn't appear that they either tried or were successful in weaning him from the shock device. Moreover, I would question whether the frequency and intensity of his behavior justifies the continued use of shock.
If you want to suppress behavior using punishment, you need to consistently have the punisher follow the inappropriate behavior in all settings. If you only apply the punisher in some settings, then you will not eliminate the behavior, but may actually strengthen it. So, continuing to use the shock device in some settings (i.e., home) and not others may be counterproductive.
It is difficult to see how trained clinicians would allow shock to be used for over 20 years without fading it or eliminating it altogether by reinforcing positive behaviors and employing other procedures when self injury occurred.
(MA) State Rep. John Scibak, Ph.D. Before running for the state legislature, Scibak was a Director of Psychology at Belchertown State School, and was Assistant Professor, Indiana University, Department of Special Education.
I find this treatment deplorable in an age of highly successful, scientifically validated, less restrictive treatment interventions for self-injury, that anyone would use a cattle prod, much less continue to use it for 30 years. There is no excuse for such a barbaric intervention and I hope that it is finally brought to an end.
However, reliance on physical and chemical restraints is not the answer either - neither teach the man alternatives and once they are stopped, he will likely return to this pattern of behavior. More specifically, there was no mention of a functional behavior analysis being conducted to understand why this man engages in self-injury, the use of positive reinforcement interventions to teach replacement behaviors, or any of the numerous other standard approaches that are required under the Behavior Analysis Certification Board's Guidelines for Responsible Conduct.
My only hope is that this story will shed enough light on this man's needs to cause well trained professionals to come to his aid.
Michael F. Dorsey, Ph.D., BCBA, is a board-certified psychologist and professor at Simmons College.
In addition to the human rights concerns about using this type of device, there are clinical concerns. The only possible effect of such a device is to suppress certain behaviors. In the course of my court advocacy, I have retained a number of different experts with training in functional behavior analysis. My experience has made clear to me that continued reliance on suppression of behaviors without addressing the underlying reasons for the behaviors and the need to learn adaptive skills, is of very limited value and cannot be beneficial in any environment that does not include the device. For that reason, I have witnessed examples whereby individuals are subjected to such devices for between 10 and 20 years.
Matthew Engel is a Senior Attorney at the Disability Law Center, where he has served for the past 20 years. He represents individuals with disabilities in court mandated reviews of behavioral treatment plans.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|