Petition against the JRC
aspie48
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: up s**t creek with a fan as a paddle
26 Feb 2012, 10:36 am
vermontsavant wrote:
@aghogday.your facts are correct and as usual you have done your research well.all my arguements were based on knowing all those facts in the first place and i dont see exactly how those facts prove that shuting down the JRC would make mass amounts of children homeless.im not sure what or who funds the JRC but budget cuts and all there are still plenty of recources.they used to say the same thing when there was the proposition 2 and 1\2 override in the eighties.in the mass closing of state hospitals in the early 90's group homes took in the over flow
maybe the solution is for the state to confiscate the JRCs property and funds and use them to build better hospitals.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
26 Feb 2012, 11:32 am
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well that was kind of a wall of text, but I guess what I am really wondering how hurting a child for hurting them self is going to teach them not to hurt them self especially if they have a mental disability in which such behavior is more common. I still see no justification whatsoever.
I don't have personal justification for it, but the state of massachussetts does, and has supported it to date, based on evidence that it is an effective treatment, for these serious examples of self injury where no other therapy has been evidenced as effective.
The skin-shock therapy is one of the most severe type of aversives that have been studied. The rational for those in the medical/legal/human rights fields is that the benefits of the evidenced effectiveness of the therapy outweigh the costs of the harm that the therapy may inflict upon the patient.
The problem identified with the therapy in Massachussetts, is that it has been abused, therefore restrictions were imposed, on new admissions, because the costs were determined to be higher than the benefits, because of those abuses.
In actually trying to understand why aversives are effective in extinguishing undesirable behavior, one could read an analysis of studies of which therapies are proven effective to modify undesirable behaviors.
http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/106/656/CER26_Autism_Report_04-14-2011.pdf
A government supported study through the Health and Human Services Department recently did a meta-analysis on research into which therapies were actually evidenced to help improve symptoms associated with autism, and the widely accepted benefits of ABA therapy, which no longer uses aversives in it's mainstream approach, was found to be effective in a minority of the cases of autism, however it was not determined through a meta-analysis of current research as an effective treatment for self-injurious behaviors.
Drugs were also studied, in controlling self harming behavior, but the side effects were extensive enough were they were considered as not having a net positive benefit.
Aversives are no longer a mainstream part of ABA, so they were not included in this study.
Studies that have focused on Aversives have found them to be effective for dangerous cases of self-injurious behaviors.
A less severe form of skin-shock therapy, SIBIS, is currently used in the school system, in Michigan to prevent the self-injurious behavior of head banging. With this system the shock is automatically administered after the children iniate head banging behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Injurious_Behavior_Inhibiting_System
Quote:
Though the American Psychological Association and the National Association of School Psychologists have attempted to direct school psychologists in the administration of behavioral treatment, the use of SIBIS has proven to be a very controversial topic in the public school system.[5] Those that oppose the SIBIS device as a form of treatment in a school setting claim the shock delivered to the subject qualifies as corporal punishment. However, researchers claim that aversive therapy adheres to a systematic treatment plan that is carefully constructed to diminish the dangerous, and sometimes even life-threatening, actions exhibited by children with self-injurious behavior.[5] Corporal punishment, unlike an aversive stimulus treatment plan, uses the administration of pain as a disciplinary action in order to punish an unwanted behavior.
Schools in some states, such as Michigan, have found SIBIS to be lawful and have allowed its use within the classroom setting.[5] Three stipulations are met, however:
1.The participant must be fully aware as to what he or she is consenting and the implications it may incur.
2.The participant must be competent and capable of making decisions regarding his or her health.
3.The participant must voluntarily consent to the treatment method without coercion or intimidation.
Schools in some states, such as Michigan, have found SIBIS to be lawful and have allowed its use within the classroom setting.[5] Three stipulations are met, however:
1.The participant must be fully aware as to what he or she is consenting and the implications it may incur.
2.The participant must be competent and capable of making decisions regarding his or her health.
3.The participant must voluntarily consent to the treatment method without coercion or intimidation.
Research backs up the claim that it reduces the self injurious behavior of head banging. The children are willing to voluntarly undergo the procedure, because the results of the head banging are much more dangerous and painful than the shocks that the SIBS system deliver.
Skin shock therapy, particularly the severe type used at the JRC, is obviously not a good option, but one that has been determined to be an option of last resort, in the state of Massachussetts, and one that is used in less severe forms, in other states, on a voluntary basis, in the school system.
This is the importance of research. To find better options that work.
I think it's pretty likely that the skin-shock aversives may be voted on and banned by the general public, in Massachussetts if it comes to a vote this November.
However, the children/young adults with these severe self-injurious behaviors, are still going to need a solution for success in modifying those dangerous behaviors.
As of right now there doesn't appear to be any effective ones, as evidenced in some of these children/young adult's treatment histories, and per research that has been conducted on other currently available methods of treatment.
Skin-shock therapy is one of the most severe type of aversives, it's why it currently takes a court approved order to use the therapy, in Massachussetts; it is only used when the dangers of the self-injurious behavior exceed the negative effects of the skin-shock therapy. Which becomes a matter of judgement for the Massachussetts courts, based on the facts that are available, in regard to each individual.
An issue with the state legislature in Massachussetts, is that one of the members of the legislature has a son who was in the therapy at the JRC, whom he credits as saving the boy's life, and is also doing quite well in life now. This appears to have been part of the decision making process for years now in the legislative process.
This member of the legislature is taken very seriously, in comparison to what the testimony of anonymous parents might bring to the table, who are also very adament that the therapy has saved their children's lives, present at every legislative hearing that has taken place now for decades on this issue.
Again, I am not providing a personal opinion of defense of the treatment, just the facts as they exist, in attempting to understand why this therapy has been practiced for decades, and continues to be allowed, through the restrictions that exist, in Massachussetts.
And surprising too, to find out that skin shock therapy is used in behavioral therapy in schools across the country, in a less severe form. I was under the impression that it was only used at the JRC.
And I am saying they are full of sh*t, punishing symptoms is wrong no matter how you slice it.....I don't care how many walls of text I see about it. I understand their stupid justifications just fine I simply strongly disagree based on what I know of psychology and the fact that abusing kids with mental disabilities is wrong....abusing kids in general is wrong.
Also what research proves that Yelling, spraying with a hose, force feeding of hot chili peppers and electric shocks are appropriate ways to reduce self harming behavior? Their own biased studies? I mean that seems contrary to everything I learned in psychology before dropping out of college. Clearly the people who run the place are more concerned with making money and keeping their abuse going than the welfare of the patients there.
Legally, it's neither considered corporal punishment or abuse, when used under legal guidelines as provided.
This issue is determined by the courts in Massachussetts, not by the JRC.
The JRC has been caught abusing the therapy, so they have been restricted in their use of it on new patients.
Sometimes the law is wrong, this is a good example.......also what about the patients they still are allowed to abuse? Just barring it from happening to new patients is simply not good enough.
The simple justification that those that support the therapies use, is that it saves lives. An alternative to serious injury and death. That is the way that the legislator from Massachussetts that had a son in the JRC, describes the benefit of the therapy.
He states it saved his son's life. And it has been an argument so far that has worked to keep the techniques used at the JRC, lawful, for existing patients, and a claim that is backed up by research as well.
Aversive therapy for dangerous self injurious behavior is not something that the JRC invented. The particular instruments and techniques used there are unique, and extremely controversial, but never the less approved behavioral therapy methods, by the disability services agency of the state government there.
Again the state government is clearly wrong.....of course they did not invent that sort of horrendous therapy, but this sort of hourrendous treatment of mental health patients is so 18th century meaning it should have been banned by now, everywhere. The argument 'it saves lives.' can be used for anything one could argue sending sucidal people to prison will save lives........but obviously the life quality is not going to be all that great. So it might save lives but at what cost to the psychological and physical well-being? Same with spraying mentally disabled kids with hoses, force feeding them hot peppers, screaming at them or shocking them with electricity.......it might make them so afraid to express themselves in any way they they live in a constant state of fear of being hurt if they can't express their frustration correctly do to their mental condition and thus 'behave' better..........but it probably does not actually improve their mental health and is likely to be detrimental. Not to mention force feeding hot peppers could cause mouth and throat problems so I would like to see specifically how their the state can possibly veiw this as an appropriate therapy.
As one can see in the article below from Wiki, the use of aversives were developed as a less restrictive alternative to practices prevalent in mental institutions such as shock treatment, hydrotherapy, straightjacketing, and frontal lobotomies.
And now are only evidenced to be of effective use when the aversive presents less risk than the self injurious behavior
As far as the sources of this information and research associated with aversives, it is provided by Wiki, not the JRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversives
The only way to stop this type of therapy, in the US, is to petition to have laws created that ban the therapy. This is what organizations like the disability international organization, and the ICAA organization are attempting to do. But, as of right now where it is legal, it is neither considered corporal punishment or abuse, per the laws as they exist.
Also I was already aware of what you got from wikipedia.....and that in psychology I learned the mental health field has been moving away from such damaging ways of handling mentally ill/disabled people. And that such techniques are looked down on by most educated mental health professionals. So I still do not see an value in it.
And I am aware of the law having to be changed.....and by the definition of abuse it is abuse I don't care what their state law says, abuse is abuse.....its just not a very friendly word so of course the law is not going to consider it abuse because that would make the state government look bad if they admitted to allowing abuse.
_________________
We won't go back.
26 Feb 2012, 11:52 am
@sweatleaf.yes at this point all handling and restraints are today viewed a draconian by the educated levels of the mental health profession.that is why i was so shocked and at first didnt believe the accusations against JRC because mass is so progresive usualy. @aspie48.they wont do that,the grounds of gaebler,westboro and northamton state hospitals remain in a undeveloped state of decay.aghogday is right about there being money problems for state care facilities.there are still places that could handle the overflow
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
26 Feb 2012, 11:57 am
vermontsavant wrote:
@sweatleaf.yes at this point all handling and restraints are today viewed a draconian by the educated levels of the mental health profession.that is why i was so shocked and at first didnt believe the accusations against JRC because mass is so progresive usualy. @aspie48.they wont do that,the grounds of gaebler,westboro and northamton state hospitals remain in a undeveloped state of decay.aghogday is right about there being money problems for state care facilities.there are still places that could handle the overflow
I don't see how it would be more expensive to stop spraying the patients with hoses, screaming at them, shocking them with electricity or force feeding them hot peppers. I am sure there are better ways to prevent these kids from hurting themselves without hurting them. But yeah this sort of thing just pisses me off
_________________
We won't go back.
26 Feb 2012, 12:06 pm
when i mentioned budget cuts i was refering to aspie48 sugestion of building a new hospital on the ground of JRC if it were shut down.stopping electric shocks and restraints would if anything save the state money.if the state could sell some of the old state hospitals to private corporations and use the money to build a new facility that would work.very few businesses want to buy those facilities(maybe superstition).a lot of like goth type teenagers go to the ground of these places and think there getting intouch with spirits and things.the stigma may make these places undesireable to comerce
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
26 Feb 2012, 12:10 pm
vermontsavant wrote:
when i mentioned budget cuts i was refering to aspie48 sugestion of building a new hospital on the ground of JRC if it were shut down.stopping electric shocks and restraints would if anything save the state money.if the state could sell some of the old state hospitals to private corporations and use the money to build a new facility that would work.very few businesses want to buy those facilities(maybe superstition).a lot of like goth type teenagers go to the ground of these places and think there getting intouch with spirits and things.the stigma may make these places undesireable to comerce
Well restraints might be nessisary in very extreme cases, but certainly not as a long term treatment strictly to restrain a patient if they are likely to cause a lot of harm to themself or others until they are more calm...but even that should be a very last resort the other things should not even take place as they serve no therapeutic or helpful purpose other than providing a way for the employees to take out their frustration on the patients which is not the purpose of a mental hospital.
_________________
We won't go back.
26 Feb 2012, 5:54 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
@sweatleaf.yes at this point all handling and restraints are today viewed a draconian by the educated levels of the mental health profession.that is why i was so shocked and at first didnt believe the accusations against JRC because mass is so progresive usualy. @aspie48.they wont do that,the grounds of gaebler,westboro and northamton state hospitals remain in a undeveloped state of decay.aghogday is right about there being money problems for state care facilities.there are still places that could handle the overflow
I don't see how it would be more expensive to stop spraying the patients with hoses, screaming at them, shocking them with electricity or force feeding them hot peppers. I am sure there are better ways to prevent these kids from hurting themselves without hurting them. But yeah this sort of thing just pisses me off
Just for clarification on the facts, the quote from the early part of this thread about hot peppers, spraying the children with water, pinching, spanking, ammonia, were aversives used at the school before 1991. Those aversives were replaced by the skin shock method, along with food deprivation, and temporary restraints.
The report provided earlier on from the international disability rights organization that was presented to the UN describes the history of aversives used at the facility and current methods used in complete detail, that are presented as meeting the UN definition of torture.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
26 Feb 2012, 6:22 pm
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
@sweatleaf.yes at this point all handling and restraints are today viewed a draconian by the educated levels of the mental health profession.that is why i was so shocked and at first didnt believe the accusations against JRC because mass is so progresive usualy. @aspie48.they wont do that,the grounds of gaebler,westboro and northamton state hospitals remain in a undeveloped state of decay.aghogday is right about there being money problems for state care facilities.there are still places that could handle the overflow
I don't see how it would be more expensive to stop spraying the patients with hoses, screaming at them, shocking them with electricity or force feeding them hot peppers. I am sure there are better ways to prevent these kids from hurting themselves without hurting them. But yeah this sort of thing just pisses me off
Just for clarification on the facts, the quote from the early part of this thread about hot peppers, spraying the children with water, pinching, spanking, ammonia, were aversives used at the school before 1991. Those aversives were replaced by the skin shock method, along with food deprivation, and temporary restraints.
The report provided earlier on from the international disability rights organization that was presented to the UN describes the history of aversives used at the facility and current methods used in complete detail, that are presented as meeting the UN definition of torture.
Food deprivation? For f*cks sake are they insane?
_________________
We won't go back.
26 Feb 2012, 9:11 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
@sweatleaf.yes at this point all handling and restraints are today viewed a draconian by the educated levels of the mental health profession.that is why i was so shocked and at first didnt believe the accusations against JRC because mass is so progresive usualy. @aspie48.they wont do that,the grounds of gaebler,westboro and northamton state hospitals remain in a undeveloped state of decay.aghogday is right about there being money problems for state care facilities.there are still places that could handle the overflow
I don't see how it would be more expensive to stop spraying the patients with hoses, screaming at them, shocking them with electricity or force feeding them hot peppers. I am sure there are better ways to prevent these kids from hurting themselves without hurting them. But yeah this sort of thing just pisses me off
Just for clarification on the facts, the quote from the early part of this thread about hot peppers, spraying the children with water, pinching, spanking, ammonia, were aversives used at the school before 1991. Those aversives were replaced by the skin shock method, along with food deprivation, and temporary restraints.
The report provided earlier on from the international disability rights organization that was presented to the UN describes the history of aversives used at the facility and current methods used in complete detail, that are presented as meeting the UN definition of torture.
Food deprivation? For f*cks sake are they insane?
Not likely anymore insane than the state legislators and courts that have approved the therapy for decades.
Ethical options that work for these individuals, are what should be required, and no one has provided an answer for them, so far, in the state of Massachussetts, or in other treatment facilities that have not been able to find one for them.
Drugging the individuals into oblivion, is the only legal option of treatment, currently available for some of these individuals, beyond the therapies being used at the JRC. That is no more of a sane option than using a therapy that restricts caloric intake.
One inhibits all function, and one attempts to improve function, through procedures that many consider unethical, that meet the UN standards of abuse, and torture.
While the abscence of most functionality through heavy sedation, may not be considered physical torture or abuse, it is chemical restraint, that can take away one's conscious awareness of the world. And, potentially any possibilities for freedoms in life.
From the perspective of some, the life of a zombie, is not a good option either.
If a young adult could not stop banging their head on the wall, through conventional therapies, what would be a better restriction for them, restriction of caloric intake as a therapy, or the life of a zombie through chemical restraint by drugs?
Perhaps, they would choose a third controversial treatment through the SIBIS skin-shock method. Is that better than living the effective life of a zombie through drugs that result in chemical restraint, or being deprived of caloric intake, in a controversial technique in a program to modify their behavior?
It might be the choice some individuals legally choose for themselves in states where it is a legal method of controlling the head banging behavior. And it may be a choice that some in the JRC, would prefer over chemical restraint, through drugs. Some of those students have testified it has saved their lives, when not abused as has recently been evidenced at the JRC.
If it works for them, and saves their health and lives, would it be fair to outlaw it nationwide, because organizations feel the only way to control the abuses of the skin-shock therapy, at the JRC, are to completely ban it nationwide?
While food deprivation, or skin shock behavioral therapy might seem like an insane solution to a problem; when the only alternative legal treatment results in the life of a zombie, is that a less insane solution?
This is a question that the state of Massachussetts has wrestled with for decades. So, far they have determined that the zombie option is not the best option. Does that make them insane, or does it mean they have chosen what they have determined as the lesser of two evils?
There obviously are no good options in any of this, but objectively, because of that reality, it has not made the decision making process on restrictions of the options that are available an easy one for the Massachussetts state legislature.
The abuses of the legal use of the therapy at the JRC, appears to be what could potentially lead to the outlawing of all skin-shock therapy in the US.
Whether one considers skin-shock aversive therapy a good thing or a bad thing, outlawing it nationwide will also result in the legal involuntary treatment of heavy sedation for some of these individuals whom present harm to themselves; whom no longer would have access to these controversial therapies, such as the SIBIS method, currently used across the country.
Options that work better than the zombie choice, and the controversial methods at the JRC, should be developed and made available, before some of these individuals are potentially sentenced to the life of a zombie, because of the possibility of changes in the laws of the nation. And, right now, it appears that no one has an answer for that.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
26 Feb 2012, 10:32 pm
Why can't they just medicate enough to reduce symptoms enough to reduce violent behavior and add positive therapy to that? And I can't help but not be more glad than sad they won't have access to skin shock therapy or any other painful things that don't truly help with the underlying issues.
_________________
We won't go back.
27 Feb 2012, 12:37 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why can't they just medicate enough to reduce symptoms enough to reduce violent behavior and add positive therapy to that? And I can't help but not be more glad than sad they won't have access to skin shock therapy or any other painful things that don't truly help with the underlying issues.
In the cases of some of these individuals, functional assessments have been done at other facilities, temporary restraints have been used, positive cognitive and behavioral intervention methods have been used, and every drug available has been tried to help them, to no avail.
This type of hopeless scenario is why electro-convulsive therapy is still used in rare cases in hospitals across the US; it is still a last resort method of treatment for severe mental illness when nothing else works. It is a much more severe method than skin-shock therapy, but for some there is simply no other alternative, but suffering and/or death.
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is now being used in the place of electro-convulsive therapy, in some cases of intractable depression, and is also being studied for treatment of autism as well.
It is definitely a more positive solution than electro-convulsive therapy. Unfortunately it is not known to help with these severe cases of self-injurious behavior.
A nation wide legal ban on skin-shock therapy would certainly reduce the potential for abuse in the clinical setting, but it would also be the elimination of a controversial therapy that has been shown to prevent self injurious behavior, that can and does lead to permanent disability, and death.
Hopefully, further research will provide another answer for these individuals that display serious self-injurious behaviors, as TMS has provided for cases of intractable depression.
Most insurance companies still won't cover TMS, whereas medicare covers Electro-convulsive therapy.
27 Feb 2012, 7:45 am
1.im not that liberal and i can be willing to suport some corporal punishment,but electicuting people is indefensable.
2.when i was young i saw many kids who were so violent bed restraint,medication and body bags were justifiable restraints,but NEVER electricuting people.
3.if this was realy a therapy a way to not just protect people but change people than why is it not used everywhere
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
27 Feb 2012, 12:51 pm
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why can't they just medicate enough to reduce symptoms enough to reduce violent behavior and add positive therapy to that? And I can't help but not be more glad than sad they won't have access to skin shock therapy or any other painful things that don't truly help with the underlying issues.
In the cases of some of these individuals, functional assessments have been done at other facilities, temporary restraints have been used, positive cognitive and behavioral intervention methods have been used, and every drug available has been tried to help them, to no avail.
This type of hopeless scenario is why electro-convulsive therapy is still used in rare cases in hospitals across the US; it is still a last resort method of treatment for severe mental illness when nothing else works. It is a much more severe method than skin-shock therapy, but for some there is simply no other alternative, but suffering and/or death.
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is now being used in the place of electro-convulsive therapy, in some cases of intractable depression, and is also being studied for treatment of autism as well.
It is definitely a more positive solution than electro-convulsive therapy. Unfortunately it is not known to help with these severe cases of self-injurious behavior.
A nation wide legal ban on skin-shock therapy would certainly reduce the potential for abuse in the clinical setting, but it would also be the elimination of a controversial therapy that has been shown to prevent self injurious behavior, that can and does lead to permanent disability, and death.
Hopefully, further research will provide another answer for these individuals that display serious self-injurious behaviors, as TMS has provided for cases of intractable depression.
Most insurance companies still won't cover TMS, whereas medicare covers Electro-convulsive therapy.
Well first off they still use ECT for extreme cases of depression with the consent of the patient........so I don't know why your bringing that into this as it does not seem to be related to the topic at hand which is a facility using treatments that can damage the patients. Not using ECT on an extremely depressed person who cannot be helped by therapy, meds or any other therapies and consents to the treatment as a last resort.
Also of course hurting the patient when they do something that harms themselves due to the symptoms of their psychological condition might reduce it because you are basically training a mentally disabled to be afraid to express anything at all. So I am not arguing it wont reduce those behaviors..........My argument is using harmful methods of reducing the behaviors related to their symptoms is wrong and should not be allowed. And I am not changing my mind on that anytime soon.
_________________
We won't go back.
27 Feb 2012, 3:04 pm
aghogday wrote:
ProfumoAffair wrote:
I don't see why Aghogday insists on defending JRC if this is the case by constantly downplaying the numbers or exaggerating the extremeness of autism in reality by appealing to the extremes.
Again, I am not defending the abuses at the JRC, and have presented facts, that are sourced. My concern is for the welfare of the children and adults in the program, and their accessibility to care in the future, if the Center closes down.
[quote=ProfumoAffair]
aghogday wrote:
Only about 80 children in the country, have been determined to have behavioral problems bad enough to warrant this type of therapy. They are not all autistic children or young adults. I think you mentioned restraining them from biting their body parts off. This is obviously the first step anyone would do, if they found their children trying to bite their fingers off, etc. However it is not a permanent solution. The only way better solutions are going to be found is through further research.
Putting them out on the streets, is the worse possible solution. I certainly hope they will find ones better than that for the children and young adults in question.
I am sorry aghogday but I find your analysis to be wrong. Only 80 children or less are present in JRC at any one time. That doesn't mean that this is somehow a nationwide plan that selectively picks the 80 most self-injurous. No, it picks up those who it considers needs treatment, and the total number it would accept would likely be larger that eighty if given the chance.Putting them out on the streets, is the worse possible solution. I certainly hope they will find ones better than that for the children and young adults in question.
The fact remains that numbers are completely pointless. The JRC has killed multiple people with its treatment. I know it well. It is a complete disgrace, killing the vulnerable in the name of progress.
There is no point trying to make a dramatic spin on this aghogday. It is unlikely that such children would be somehow thrown on to the streets. This is just plain black-and-white thinking. I don't doubt that they will probably be put in another institute where they can be helped.
Trying to defend this multiple manslaughter on grounds of research just sounds plain selfish Aghogday. Why do you insist on defending the institution via such subtle ways?[/quote]
Your attempt at presenting facts has been little more than spin. Why try and divert from that aghogday? I think the case was settled when Sweetleaf said there was no excuse for your constant attempts to defend the barbaric practice of electroshock therapy and of course the misery it has caused.
27 Feb 2012, 4:53 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why can't they just medicate enough to reduce symptoms enough to reduce violent behavior and add positive therapy to that? And I can't help but not be more glad than sad they won't have access to skin shock therapy or any other painful things that don't truly help with the underlying issues.
In the cases of some of these individuals, functional assessments have been done at other facilities, temporary restraints have been used, positive cognitive and behavioral intervention methods have been used, and every drug available has been tried to help them, to no avail.
This type of hopeless scenario is why electro-convulsive therapy is still used in rare cases in hospitals across the US; it is still a last resort method of treatment for severe mental illness when nothing else works. It is a much more severe method than skin-shock therapy, but for some there is simply no other alternative, but suffering and/or death.
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is now being used in the place of electro-convulsive therapy, in some cases of intractable depression, and is also being studied for treatment of autism as well.
It is definitely a more positive solution than electro-convulsive therapy. Unfortunately it is not known to help with these severe cases of self-injurious behavior.
A nation wide legal ban on skin-shock therapy would certainly reduce the potential for abuse in the clinical setting, but it would also be the elimination of a controversial therapy that has been shown to prevent self injurious behavior, that can and does lead to permanent disability, and death.
Hopefully, further research will provide another answer for these individuals that display serious self-injurious behaviors, as TMS has provided for cases of intractable depression.
Most insurance companies still won't cover TMS, whereas medicare covers Electro-convulsive therapy.
Well first off they still use ECT for extreme cases of depression with the consent of the patient........so I don't know why your bringing that into this as it does not seem to be related to the topic at hand which is a facility using treatments that can damage the patients. Not using ECT on an extremely depressed person who cannot be helped by therapy, meds or any other therapies and consents to the treatment as a last resort.
Also of course hurting the patient when they do something that harms themselves due to the symptoms of their psychological condition might reduce it because you are basically training a mentally disabled to be afraid to express anything at all. So I am not arguing it wont reduce those behaviors..........My argument is using harmful methods of reducing the behaviors related to their symptoms is wrong and should not be allowed. And I am not changing my mind on that anytime soon.
ECT is a type of electro shock therapy that has the potential for much greater harm when used properly than a system like the SIBIS sytem for skin-shock aversive treatment that is currently being used across the country, for head banging in the school systems, where approved.
The type of skin-shock treatment used now at the JREC, that has been evidenced as used in an abusive way, is a different type of system than the SIBIS, just like ECT is a different type of system of using electrical shock for therapy in depression.
My point is, that they have developed a safer alternative for ECT, that can be used on patients that have not responded to therapy for depression.
ECT does not cure any underlying problems associated with Depression anymore than SIBIS cures underlying causes for Severe Self-Injurious behavior that has not been reduced by any known method of treatment other than SIBIS. Both treatments eliminate symptoms through the use of Electrical shock; ECT is a much stronger method of shock.
Taking away SIBIS from these students, as a last resort, with self injurious behaviors, whom are using it as a life savings measure, across the country, would be no different than taking away ECT, from Individuals, as a last resort, with symptoms of severe depression, as a life savings measure, across the country.
My point is, that there is the potential that research may lead to effective alternatives to SIBIS for these children with self injurious behaviors, that have no other options, than this method of last resort treatment, at this point in time.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should believe in any specific form of treatment, I'm just providing the facts, as they exist, in regard to the problem.
However, no effort to provide an effective solution, is not an answer that is going to work for these children and adults, whom are using the current methods as an alternative to permanent disability or death, as a result of self injurious behaviors.
I don't like any of the shock methods, including ECT, but currently no one has a better solution for these individuals, except for TMS; that is why the controversial methods of shock therapy, including ECT and SIBIS, are still being used across the country
27 Feb 2012, 5:07 pm
ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf said there was no excuse for your constant attempts to defend the barbaric practice of electroshock therapy and of course the misery it has caused.
Will you please stop misquoting people as stating they said things they did not say, including me. I've already fully addressed your last comment two or three pages ago and I don't care to repeat the quote again. If you want to look at my answer, look at the one I already provided to your question. My opinion on this is clearly stated in my last post.
Sweetleaf asked questions, and I answered them based on available facts that I was able to find from reputable sources. And, I clearly stated several times, that I was not defending the abuses that have been evidenced at the JRC. The medical profession recommends the use of electroshock therapy, and the legal system justifies it, not me. I would like to see a kinder alternative to SIBIS through research, like TMS used in the place of ECT, for these individuals with self injurious behaviors, that currently do not respond to anyother type of treatment.
