On 12 Apr 2006 at 19:51, Tollefsrud, Linda wrote: > The article to which you refer us, Stephen (at the end of your post) > is > fascinating -- at least, in part, because it is in many ways unrelated > to our thread. The only child mentioned in the article has ADHD, not > autism. And, the shock is apparently not for self-injurious behavior, > but for aggression toward staff members. >
You're right. I read the article too quickly and (believe it or not) missed all of that. It's not SIBIS, because the shock seems to be attendant-initiated, rather than triggered automatically. But that 's less significant than what the shock is given for. I think a case can be made for its use in severe self-injuring behaviour, when less drastic options have failed. I think a case can also be made when the problem is dangerous aggressive behaviour (e.g. biting or choking others), again when all other options have failed. Generally, the studies I've seen have been careful to demonstrate both the extreme dangerousness of the target behaviours (either to self or others) and the lack of effective alternatives. But I had never heard of using aversive shock in ADHD. I'd certainly like to know more about the kind of "acting out:" and aggressive behaviour against staff which that centre feels justifies its use. I tried to find out more details of the case. The individual, Antwone Nicholson, is a retarded 17-year-old who "cursed, threw things and attacked staff", and received electric shock for each of these. Moreover, while the mother signed a consent form to allow shock treatment, she now says that she was not adequately informed about how painful the shocks are. That and the fact that behaviours which don't seem especially dangerous (swearing, throwing things) are being shocked is cause to question the treatment. On the other hand, now that shock treatment has stopped, a staff member says "it took eight people...to restrain Antwone after he tried to attack a staff member". So it's not a simple case of ADHD either. It's also relevant that both a judge and the mother initially approved treatment, and the shock treatment stopped when the mother objected. Requiring both judicial and parental consent seem like appropriate safeguards against abusive treatment. But it looks as though the centre did a poor job of ensuring that the mother was fully informed about the treatment she consented to. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
