What is Aversion Therapy?
Aversion therapy is a form of psychological treatment that aims to help people overcome unwanted behaviors or habits by pairing them with unpleasant experiences or stimuli. The idea behind aversion therapy is that by creating a negative association with a particular behavior or habit, a person will be less likely to engage in that behavior or habit in the future.
For example, if someone has a drinking problem, aversion therapy might involve exposing them to a noxious odor or taste while they drink in order to create an unpleasant experience that they will associate with alcohol. Similarly, if someone has a smoking habit, aversion therapy might involve giving them a mild electric shock while they smoke in order to create an aversion to smoking.
Critics and Advocates for youth and persons with disabilities argue that it can be unethical or even harmful, particularly if it involves physically or emotionally traumatizing experiences. As a result, advocates have supported a ban on the use of Aversion Therapy, particularly practices involving the use of electric shock devices.
Why is Aversion Therapy Controversial?
Aversion therapy is controversial because it can be perceived as a form of coercion and a violation of personal autonomy. It involves subjecting individuals to unpleasant or painful stimuli, which can become a form of punishment or abuse. Additionally, aversion therapy has been criticized for its potential to cause lasting harm to individuals, particularly those who may already be vulnerable due to mental health issues or disabilities.
Some specific circumstances in which aversion therapy may be harmful and a violation of human rights and ethics of treating disabled persons include:
Lack of informed consent: It is important for individuals to fully understand the potential risks and benefits of aversion therapy before undergoing the treatment. If individuals are not properly informed or if they are coerced into undergoing the treatment, it can be considered a violation of their autonomy and human rights. This can be particularly unethical when persons subjected to aversion therapy may be non-verbal or otherwise unable to give consent to the use of such practices.
Trauma and distress: The use of aversive stimuli can potentially cause trauma and distress in individuals, particularly those with a history of trauma or other mental health conditions.
Discrimination: There have been instances in which aversion therapy has been used to “treat” certain behaviors that are considered socially unacceptable or stigmatized, such as homosexuality. Using aversion therapy in this manner is a violation of the ethical principle of non-discrimination and can be harmful to individuals who are already marginalized.
Lack of effectiveness: Aversion therapy is not proven to be effective, and some individuals may experience only temporary improvements or no improvement at all. If aversion therapy is used as a first-line treatment without considering other options, it can be a violation of the ethical principle of beneficence, which requires healthcare providers to act in the best interests of their patients.
The Judge Rotenberg Center
The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is a controversial residential school located in Canton, Massachusetts, that serves individuals with developmental disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and other special needs. The JRC has come under scrutiny for its use of aversive techniques, including electric shock devices, to control behavior.
The use of electric shock devices at the JRC has been particularly controversial. The devices, known as “Graduated Electronic Decelerators” or GEDs, are attached to the skin and deliver a shock in response to certain behaviors. Supporters of the JRC argue that the devices are necessary to control self-injurious or aggressive behaviors that may pose a danger to the individual or others around them. However, opponents of the JRC and the use of GEDs argue that the devices are inhumane, traumatizing, and can cause physical and psychological harm.
The controversy surrounding the JRC and its use of electric shock devices has resulted in legal challenges and regulatory action. In 2012, the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services attempted to ban the use of electric shock devices at the JRC, but the ban was not implemented due to legal challenges. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a ban on the use of electric shock devices for self-injurious or aggressive behavior, citing potential harm and the availability of alternative treatments. However, the JRC has challenged the ban in court.
Overall, the controversy surrounding the JRC and its use of electric shock devices highlights the ethical and moral considerations involved in using aversive techniques to control behavior, particularly in vulnerable populations such as individuals with disabilities or special needs.
Shocking Revelations
There have been numerous reports of abuse and misuse of electric shock devices in various settings, including schools, residential facilities, and even in some cases, in the home. While data specifically related to the prevalence of abuse and misuse of electric shock devices is limited, here are a few examples of incidents and statistics that have been reported:
The JRC: As mentioned earlier, the Judge Rotenberg Center has come under scrutiny for its use of electric shock devices. In 2009, a report by Disability Rights International documented instances of abuse and mistreatment at the JRC, including the use of electric shock devices as a form of punishment.
- There have been six deaths reported at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) as a result of the shock therapy.
- Multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with the use of shock therapy.
- In 2007, the founder of JRC, Matthew Israel, was forced to step down due to criminal charges related to shocking two residents over 100 times.
- Residents generate $43,000,000 in public funds; taxpayers are funding torture.
Schools: A 2009 report by the US Government Accountability Office found that hundreds of students with disabilities across the United States were subjected to seclusion and restraint, including the use of electric shock devices. Further reports also found that the Department of Education does not collect comprehensive data on the use of these techniques.
Home use: There have been instances of parents using electric shock devices as a form of punishment or behavior modification at home. In 2014, for example, a mother in Pennsylvania was sentenced to jail time for using a shock collar on her children as a form of discipline.
While these examples are not representative of all instances of the use of electric shock devices, they highlight the potential for abuse and misuse when aversive techniques are used in the treatment of behavior disorders or other conditions.
Legislative Efforts Underway
Legislation to address the use of aversive therapy has been introduced at both the state and federal levels. The nature and scope of these bills can vary, but they generally seek to limit or ban the use of aversive techniques, including electric shock devices, as a form of behavioral modification or treatment for individuals with disabilities.
At the federal level, the Keeping All Students Safe Act has been introduced in several sessions of Congress since 2010. The bill would ban the use of seclusion and restraint, including electric shock devices, in schools that receive federal funding. While the bill has not yet been passed, it has gained support from a variety of disability rights organizations and advocates.
In 2023 MA H.180 – An Act Regarding the Use of Aversion Therapy, has been introduced in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which remains the only state in the country that allows electric skin shock devices to be used on the disabled residents of the Judge Rotenberg Center. H.180 is a crucial legislative proposal that aims to protect the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities in Massachusetts. This bill seeks to prohibit the use of aversive conditioning techniques, including electric shock devices, in any form of treatment or intervention. By banning these harmful practices, H.180 recognizes the need for compassionate and evidence-based approaches that prioritize the dignity and autonomy of individuals with disabilities. This bill represents a significant step forward in promoting inclusive and respectful care for the disabled community, ensuring their safety and safeguarding their rights.
Overall, legislation addressing the use of aversive therapy represents an important step in protecting the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities and promoting evidence-based, humane treatment approaches. However, the effectiveness of these laws may depend on their enforcement and implementation, as well as continued advocacy and awareness-raising efforts.
The shocking reality of aversion therapy and the use of electric shock devices underscores the ethical and moral concerns associated with these practices. The controversies surrounding the Judge Rotenberg Center and other instances of abuse and misuse highlight the need for comprehensive legislation to protect individuals with disabilities. Efforts such as MA H.180, which seeks to ban aversive conditioning techniques, including electric shock devices, represent crucial steps towards promoting compassionate and evidence-based care. It is imperative that we continue to advocate for the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities, ensuring their safety and dignity are prioritized in all forms of treatment and intervention.