Petition against the JRC
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
The reason the therapy continues is that the courts allow it in Massachussetts. Nothing further may change, unless the Justice Department finds further abuses, or legislators at the Federal or State Levels, can be convinced to take action.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
U.S. government officials at the state and local levels are aware of the JRC and its practices, yet it has been allowed to carry out aversive therapy for 40 years. What U.S. laws are there to protect people with disabilities? What gaps exists in U.S. jurisprudence that would allow JRC to practice aversive therapy? The MDRI report tried to answers these questions.10
On the federal level, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s 8th amendment. The U.S. Supreme court limited these protection to criminal law, thus students in schools are not protected. No federal limits exist for the use of restraints in schools or for the use of corporal punishment. Children with disabilities are protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), although this act allows positive behavioral interventions, it does not prohibit aversives.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) protect children with disabilities and states that children with disabilities cannot be placed in a situation of greater risk than the general population. Though, a class action suit in a federal court resulted in a decision that the DD Act did not create any new legal rights or protections.
Since there are no federal laws limiting the use of aversives, states set their own regulations. Some states, such as California (the original home of the JRC) make it nearly impossible to use aversives. While in Massachusetts, aversives are permitted. JRC submits all high level aversives (level 3) to the court for approval. The courts have rarely denied JRC permission to use the requested aversive. While Massachusetts law limits the use of restraints, the Department of Developmental Services claims that these protections are not applied to children in an approved behavior modification. A theory that states that every human being responds to positive rewards or negative punishments and that all behavior can be manipulated through a combination of rewards and punishments plan.
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
It is horrific that this center has been allowed to stay open for the past 40 years. It is a travesty that legislators at the state and federal levels have not mandated a better solution for the most severe cases. Torture is never the answer.
So because of a bunch of stupid political crap these kids have to continue to suffer abuse until the federal government gets around to looking at the issue. This just pisses me off, the kids there are probably being abused as I type this but no one can lift a finger because there's not a specific law written somewhere that prohibits such abuse? grrrr makes me f*cking angry. Some justice department we have.
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
The reason the therapy continues is that the courts allow it in Massachussetts. Nothing further may change, unless the Justice Department finds further abuses, or legislators at the Federal or State Levels, can be convinced to take action.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
U.S. government officials at the state and local levels are aware of the JRC and its practices, yet it has been allowed to carry out aversive therapy for 40 years. What U.S. laws are there to protect people with disabilities? What gaps exists in U.S. jurisprudence that would allow JRC to practice aversive therapy? The MDRI report tried to answers these questions.10
On the federal level, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s 8th amendment. The U.S. Supreme court limited these protection to criminal law, thus students in schools are not protected. No federal limits exist for the use of restraints in schools or for the use of corporal punishment. Children with disabilities are protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), although this act allows positive behavioral interventions, it does not prohibit aversives.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) protect children with disabilities and states that children with disabilities cannot be placed in a situation of greater risk than the general population. Though, a class action suit in a federal court resulted in a decision that the DD Act did not create any new legal rights or protections.
Since there are no federal laws limiting the use of aversives, states set their own regulations. Some states, such as California (the original home of the JRC) make it nearly impossible to use aversives. While in Massachusetts, aversives are permitted. JRC submits all high level aversives (level 3) to the court for approval. The courts have rarely denied JRC permission to use the requested aversive. While Massachusetts law limits the use of restraints, the Department of Developmental Services claims that these protections are not applied to children in an approved behavior modification. A theory that states that every human being responds to positive rewards or negative punishments and that all behavior can be manipulated through a combination of rewards and punishments plan.
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
It is horrific that this center has been allowed to stay open for the past 40 years. It is a travesty that legislators at the state and federal levels have not mandated a better solution for the most severe cases. Torture is never the answer.
So because of a bunch of stupid political crap these kids have to continue to suffer abuse until the federal government gets around to looking at the issue. This just pisses me off, the kids there are probably being abused as I type this but no one can lift a finger because there's not a specific law written somewhere that prohibits such abuse? grrrr makes me f*cking angry. Some justice department we have.
Would that even work if someone were to call them from out of state? But yeah I will look more into this and see what sort of things people can do about it.
_________________
We won't go back.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
The reason the therapy continues is that the courts allow it in Massachussetts. Nothing further may change, unless the Justice Department finds further abuses, or legislators at the Federal or State Levels, can be convinced to take action.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
U.S. government officials at the state and local levels are aware of the JRC and its practices, yet it has been allowed to carry out aversive therapy for 40 years. What U.S. laws are there to protect people with disabilities? What gaps exists in U.S. jurisprudence that would allow JRC to practice aversive therapy? The MDRI report tried to answers these questions.10
On the federal level, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s 8th amendment. The U.S. Supreme court limited these protection to criminal law, thus students in schools are not protected. No federal limits exist for the use of restraints in schools or for the use of corporal punishment. Children with disabilities are protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), although this act allows positive behavioral interventions, it does not prohibit aversives.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) protect children with disabilities and states that children with disabilities cannot be placed in a situation of greater risk than the general population. Though, a class action suit in a federal court resulted in a decision that the DD Act did not create any new legal rights or protections.
Since there are no federal laws limiting the use of aversives, states set their own regulations. Some states, such as California (the original home of the JRC) make it nearly impossible to use aversives. While in Massachusetts, aversives are permitted. JRC submits all high level aversives (level 3) to the court for approval. The courts have rarely denied JRC permission to use the requested aversive. While Massachusetts law limits the use of restraints, the Department of Developmental Services claims that these protections are not applied to children in an approved behavior modification. A theory that states that every human being responds to positive rewards or negative punishments and that all behavior can be manipulated through a combination of rewards and punishments plan.
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
It is horrific that this center has been allowed to stay open for the past 40 years. It is a travesty that legislators at the state and federal levels have not mandated a better solution for the most severe cases. Torture is never the answer.
So because of a bunch of stupid political crap these kids have to continue to suffer abuse until the federal government gets around to looking at the issue. This just pisses me off, the kids there are probably being abused as I type this but no one can lift a finger because there's not a specific law written somewhere that prohibits such abuse? grrrr makes me f*cking angry. Some justice department we have.
Would that even work if someone were to call them from out of state? But yeah I will look more into this and see what sort of things people can do about it.
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
aspie48
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: up s**t creek with a fan as a paddle
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
The reason the therapy continues is that the courts allow it in Massachussetts. Nothing further may change, unless the Justice Department finds further abuses, or legislators at the Federal or State Levels, can be convinced to take action.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
U.S. government officials at the state and local levels are aware of the JRC and its practices, yet it has been allowed to carry out aversive therapy for 40 years. What U.S. laws are there to protect people with disabilities? What gaps exists in U.S. jurisprudence that would allow JRC to practice aversive therapy? The MDRI report tried to answers these questions.10
On the federal level, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s 8th amendment. The U.S. Supreme court limited these protection to criminal law, thus students in schools are not protected. No federal limits exist for the use of restraints in schools or for the use of corporal punishment. Children with disabilities are protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), although this act allows positive behavioral interventions, it does not prohibit aversives.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) protect children with disabilities and states that children with disabilities cannot be placed in a situation of greater risk than the general population. Though, a class action suit in a federal court resulted in a decision that the DD Act did not create any new legal rights or protections.
Since there are no federal laws limiting the use of aversives, states set their own regulations. Some states, such as California (the original home of the JRC) make it nearly impossible to use aversives. While in Massachusetts, aversives are permitted. JRC submits all high level aversives (level 3) to the court for approval. The courts have rarely denied JRC permission to use the requested aversive. While Massachusetts law limits the use of restraints, the Department of Developmental Services claims that these protections are not applied to children in an approved behavior modification. A theory that states that every human being responds to positive rewards or negative punishments and that all behavior can be manipulated through a combination of rewards and punishments plan.
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
It is horrific that this center has been allowed to stay open for the past 40 years. It is a travesty that legislators at the state and federal levels have not mandated a better solution for the most severe cases. Torture is never the answer.
So because of a bunch of stupid political crap these kids have to continue to suffer abuse until the federal government gets around to looking at the issue. This just pisses me off, the kids there are probably being abused as I type this but no one can lift a finger because there's not a specific law written somewhere that prohibits such abuse? grrrr makes me f*cking angry. Some justice department we have.
Skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC have been determined legal in the Massachussetts courts for existing patients. New regulations prohibit the use of it for new admissions, but it still can be used for existing patients, as documented in the link I provided.
Electroconvulsive therapy, is legal in Massachussetts, for new and existing patients, however it is a completely different treatment, than skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
Skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC have been determined legal in the Massachussetts courts for existing patients. New regulations prohibit the use of it for new admissions, but it still can be used for existing patients, as documented in the link I provided.
Electroconvulsive therapy, is legal in Massachussetts, for new and existing patients, however it is a completely different treatment, than skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
madpride.org here is a website that might be able to help,many people here experieced places like the metropoltan state hospital and gaebler childrens center
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC have been determined legal in the Massachussetts courts for existing patients. New regulations prohibit the use of it for new admissions, but it still can be used for existing patients, as documented in the link I provided.
Electroconvulsive therapy, is legal in Massachussetts, for new and existing patients, however it is a completely different treatment, than skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC.
And how do they justify continuing to abuse the kids already being subjected to that treatment? I don't think just preventing it from happing to more kids is good enough it should not be happening to them in the first place.
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
Yes those things could easily cause long term psychological damage.......so why should the current patients continue to suffer? that is BS.
Skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC have been determined legal in the Massachussetts courts for existing patients. New regulations prohibit the use of it for new admissions, but it still can be used for existing patients, as documented in the link I provided.
Electroconvulsive therapy, is legal in Massachussetts, for new and existing patients, however it is a completely different treatment, than skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC.
http://www.globalization101.org/torture-in-the-u-s-shocking-disabled-children-at-the-judge-rotenberg-center/
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
The source I provided was an international disability rights organization. However, Wiki, also sources the facts as well.
Here is a 60 page report on the JRC provided from that disability organization as an appeal to the United Nations. http://www.disabilityrightsintl.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/USReportandUrgentAppeal.pdf
Your friend is misinformed. This isn't my opinion, it is a legal fact, that is verified by scores of reputable sources. The Judge Rottenberg Center is the only organization in Massachussetts that continues to use aversive skin shocks in behavioral therapy methods in disabled children; they are still allowed to do it legally, on existing patients.
All requests for this type of therapy have to go through a process through the court system in Massachussetts. They have been doing this legally, for decades, and it was only last fall, that they were restricted from using the aversive skin shocks as part of their behavioral therapy program, on new admissions.
People have been fighting to get the procedure completely banned in the Center for Decades, but to date they have only been partially successful, in the restriction for new admissions.
Here is a quote from another report, from a news organization in Boston Massachussetts, that is only several days old:
New York and Massachusetts recently barred shocks on new students, though the school is fighting those restrictions in New York and is planning to do so here.
This is also not the first time this kind of video has become a problem for the center. Last year, the school's founder, Matthew Israel, was indicted on charges that he ordered video of improperly shocked students to be erased despite an ongoing investigation.
Israel agreed to a deal that gives him pre-trial probation in exchange for his stepping down from the school.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/undercover/teen-tied-and-shocked-for-hours-mom-calls-it-torture-20120219#
At this point there is nothing the state police, or justice department can do, to end the practice on existing patients, unless further abuses of existing regulations that allow the aversive skin shock therapy on existing patients, are found.
Beyond that it will require a change in regulations, iniated by another executive order by the Governor, or new Federal or state legislation to completely ban aversive skin shock behavioral therapy on disabled youth.
Skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC have been determined legal in the Massachussetts courts for existing patients. New regulations prohibit the use of it for new admissions, but it still can be used for existing patients, as documented in the link I provided.
Electroconvulsive therapy, is legal in Massachussetts, for new and existing patients, however it is a completely different treatment, than skin shocks used in the behavioral therapy program at the JRC.
And how do they justify continuing to abuse the kids already being subjected to that treatment? I don't think just preventing it from happing to more kids is good enough it should not be happening to them in the first place.
Current patients could continue to receive the shock treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice also opened an investigation of the children at the JRC. While this decision and investigation is a great step forward, the MDRI has called for a blanket ban in the U.S. on shock therapy and aversive treatment for children and adults with disabilities.17
Yes those things could easily cause long term psychological damage.......so why should the current patients continue to suffer? that is BS.
People have been attempting to get the JRC closed down for decades now.
However, until the abuses of the regulations that allow the aversive shock therapy in behavioral modification techniques, were found, and have now resulted in the restriction of the therapy in new patients, the Center had a compelling enough argument to defend the therapy, as justified, for the state to allow the continuance of the use of the therapy.
This an outline, provided by the organization, of the state laws/regulations in Massachusetts that have allowed the organization to justify their use of the aversive shock therapy, for decades now.
The most commonly used “aversive” procedure at JRC is an electrical stimulation device[1] manufactured by JRC called the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (“GED”). The GED unit consists of a transmitter operated by a JRC staff member and a receiver and stimulator worn by the student. The receiver delivers a low-level surface application of electrical current to a small area of the student’s skin upon command from the transmitter, as part of a designed behavioral treatment. There are no harmful side effects and minor side effects may consist of reddening of the skin and, on rare occasions, the appearance of a small blister, both of which are temporary. For many individuals, the GED is required only during the first few months of treatment, and is no longer necessary, or is necessary to a far lesser and diminishing degree, after that period. The students receive only one application per week on average. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has affirmed a Probate Court order authorizing the use of the GED at JRC as an appropriate intervention. See Guardianship of Brandon Sanchez, 424 Mass. 482 (1997); see also JRC v. DMR, 424 Mass. 430 (1997). Over one hundred peer-reviewed articles have been published in the professional literature supporting the safety and effectiveness of skin-shock and eight articles deal with the specific device (“SIBIS”) which is the forerunner of JRC’s GED device.
And this is their argument, that has justified the treatment as a last resort method of behavioral therapy, for the children in their treatment program that have been turned away from other programs.
JRC’s policy is to use a highly consistent application of behavior modification treatment and minimal or no psychotropic medication. JRC offers intensive behavioral treatment based on peer-reviewed and accepted methods of behavioral psychology, which has been extremely effective and life-saving for students who could not be effectively treated with psychotropic medication or psychotherapy. JRC’s treatment procedures are so effective that they rapidly reduce to a zero or near zero level the major problem behaviors of students with the most difficult-to-treat behavior disorders in the country.
There is another side of the issue, and that is what happens to these children if the JRC can no longer use the treatment that they justify as effective for these last resort cases, and turns them away as the other facilities have done.
Picture a young adult biting their body parts off, homeless on the streets; in a corrections facility that has no idea how to deal with them; or in a state institution, if one can be found for them, heavily sedated for life.
It's a harsh potential, that has likely kept the JRC open for the last several decades. There don't appear to be many good answers for some of these patients, outside of the JRC, either.
Institutional abuse can happen in any institutional environment, and the potential increases as the level of difficulties with patients increase.
That's no justification of the abuse, but it is a reality of the human condition, both for the patient and for the individuals providing treatment, that overstep the boundries established for behavioral therapies. As, has been evidenced in the past, at the JRC, and in many other institutions.
I don't like any of the potential scenarios. They are all horrifying. It is a large part of the reason, why I have tried to provide evidence for why continuing research into causes, prevention, effective therapies, and the remote possibility for a cure, is so important for the children that have these type of debilitating behavioral problems associated with some forms of Autism.
@aghogday.your right treatment programs may use some forms of corporal punishment or aversion therapy with a special court order.as to whether or not that makes it right i dont know.some children are very violent.but either way its a sad situation
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
@aghogday.your right treatment programs may use some forms of corporal punishment or aversion therapy with a special court order.as to whether or not that makes it right i dont know.some children are very violent.but either way its a sad situation
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
@aghogday.your right treatment programs may use some forms of corporal punishment or aversion therapy with a special court order.as to whether or not that makes it right i dont know.some children are very violent.but either way its a sad situation
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined