Joyce's bills would curb shock treatments at Canton school

[Whooter]

Here is a more recent article:


Boston Globe Article



Yet somehow the arguments of the center’s detractors seem too pat. A recent five-hour visit to the school revealed nothing inhumane. Granted it’s a small window of time and the 214 students arrive each day from 32 scattered group homes. But the behaviors of many of the students, who range in age from 7 to 50, can be so unpredictable that it would be almost impossible to create a Potemkin village to dupe outsiders.

The Rotenberg Center is a highly structured behavior modification program that requires students to earn nearly every privilege - even a chance to relax with each other - by staying on task and not acting up. The road to its door is long. Parents, as a rule, don’t even consider placement until their children have been expelled from several other special needs schools.

On arrival, no one slaps electrodes on the students or fits them for the backpacks that contain the shock devices. Court-approved treatment plans require the school to use a positive rewards system, often for several months, before skin shocks can be administered via the transmitters that hang from the belts of some staffers. Supervisors in two video monitor rooms watch every classroom, group home, and common area through live camera feeds.
No shocks on this tour, it turns out, though there was one peck on the cheek exchanged by a student and a popular staffer.



...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szal ... 92351.html

Shocking Stupidity: Boston Globe Ignores Research to Support Dangerous Autism Program

The Boston Globe ran an op-ed today that perfectly characterizes a key failure of American journalism: that is, it reports on a medical question that can be answered by scientific research, but fails to even mention that such data exists or should exist.

The piece, headlined "Shocking Truths," claims that the arguments of critics of the Judge Rotenberg Center -- who oppose its inhumane electric skin-shock treatment of people with developmental disabilities -- are "too pat." The Department of Justice is currently investigating the school for human rights violations, after complaints from disability rights advocates.

Those concerns are groundless, author Lawrence Harmon argues. His proof? A five hour visit he made to the school in which he saw "nothing inhumane." Sure, he concedes, abuses have been found in the past -- but that's no reason to pay attention to the opposition of no fewer than 31 major disability advocacy groups.

As shallow as this reasoning is, it hides an even more profound failure of critical thinking. Harmon accepts at face value the claims of the school and of parents of students who support it that skin shock treatment "works" and is superior to what he calls "stupefying" doses of medication sometimes used by other programs.

But this is an empirical question -- and in decades of advocating a treatment its victims compare to "an attack by a swarm of wasps" -- the Rotenberg Center has yet to produce a single randomized controlled trial showing that its approach is effective -- let alone superior to others.

Rhetorically, Harmon asks, "Why do no practitioners other than Israel [Rotenberg's director] adopt this approach? Do they view skin shocks as cruel or do they fear the outcry of disability advocates and inevitable probes? Is skin shock, in some cases, a more humane treatment than heavy drugs and mechanical restraints?" He has a psychiatrist answer that he "doesn't know."

The disability rights groups know, however: they know that there is research from randomized controlled trials that supports other, more humane approaches. They know that there is none to support Rotenberg -- and they also know that research increasingly shows that sensory oversensitivity is a huge part of the autistic spectrum disorders often treated at the center. Given this, use of painful stimuli could be even more harmful to autistic kids than to others.

Using science to make medical decisions is not making a pat or black and white argument -- it is the same method that the FDA uses to clear drugs for marketing. If they are not first proven safe and effective, medications aren't allowed to be sold to the public. That standard is good enough for medications -- why shouldn't we use it for other treatments that can potentially do harm?

Why should we have lower standards for a skin-shock treatment used on our most vulnerable children? Parents' anecdotes and those of clinicians who profit from skin shock treatment aren't enough: you can find plenty of these in support of harmful, quackish cancer treatments, too. The fact that Harmon thinks that these anecdotes prove anything just shows how low his standards of evidence really are.

The Justice Department is right to have answered the disability rights groups with an investigation. It should conclude that the Rotenberg Center is conducting an unauthorized and inhumane experiment -- and refuse to allow any further use of its approach until it can prove that it is more effective than more humane alternatives. Given that the center hasn't been able to do that in its decades of existence, the program should be shuttered.

You left out that she never set foot inside the facility herself.  She is commenting on the article she read in the paper. Anyone who reads it can have an opinion (just like you or I).  But we have never been there and neither has Maia.

So we are seeing opinions on boths sides of the issue which is healthy and they are moving to place stricter regulation on the center.  If it were abusive or inhumane they wouldnt spend time regulating it.  So I think we will see this center in operation for many years to come.  It will be interesting to hear from those who have been thru the therapy successfully.



...

[Ursus]

Here is a more recent article:

Boston Globe Article

"Article?" ... That is clearly defined as an op-ed piece:

Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed

Lawrence Harmon
The Boston Globe
Shocking truths
The Rotenberg Center's methods are undoubtedly unorthodox. But they work.[/list]

Funny how you refer to Maia's piece as "comments," and yet Harmon 's piece as an "article." Odd how those "subtle difference" work:

"She is commenting on the article she read in the paper."[/list]

Incidentally, that a "recent five-hour visit to the school revealed nothing inhuman" ... to one already clearly sold on Israel's aversive "therapy" is not surprising. But, seriously, do you honestly think that five hour walk-through could possibly be comprehensive enough?

You should read some of the (well over 200) blistering comments left for this Opinion piece. Here's one:


DerrickJeffries wrote: 3/9/2010 4:51 PM EST

Mr. Harmon, did you communicate with any former employees of BRI/JRC before sending this article to the editors? Did you read the Dr. Hurt article written by Ric Kahn (formerly with the Boston Phoenix, now a Globe journalist)? *I have a copy if you need it* Did you meet with any parents who removed a child from this "school"? Did you look at the overall history of BRI/JRC in Rhode Island, California, and Massachusetts? Did you research the deaths of Danny Aswad, Linda Cornelison, or Vincent Milletich? *I can send you some information* Was JRC allowed time to plan/prepare for your visit? Now after considering these valid questions, do you honestly believe your version of journalism regarding JRC is unbiased and accurate?

As a parent of a child diagnosed with Autism, I wonder how much you really know about truly effective treatments verses fear and pained based methods that would be considered torture if used on any other group of people.

We would not allow the government to use these methods on enemy combatants, but it is somehow okay to use them on innocent children who have committed no crimes other than being born with Autism or some other different way of being human.

I am one individual who hopes that you will gather some other perspectives next time prior to sitting down at your keyboard and typing out a lopsided article.

[Anne Bonney]

You left out that she never set foot inside the facility herself.  She is commenting on the article she read in the paper. Anyone who reads it can have an opinion (just like you or I).  But we have never been there and neither has Maia.

And you tried to imply that an Op-Ed piece was an actual news article.  Par for the course for you though.

[SUCK IT]

You left out that she never set foot inside the facility herself.  She is commenting on the article she read in the paper. Anyone who reads it can have an opinion (just like you or I).  But we have never been there and neither has Maia.

So we are seeing opinions on boths sides of the issue which is healthy and they are moving to place stricter regulation on the center.  If it were abusive or inhumane they wouldnt spend time regulating it.  So I think we will see this center in operation for many years to come.  It will be interesting to hear from those who have been thru the therapy successfully.



...

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! You guys should thank Whooter for posting here, one of the few posters who is not an extremist and can see both sides of an argument without being blinded by emotional bias. It's easy to condemn others but try walking a mile in the parents shoes for once! Normally maturity and time, when a kid grows from a kid into a adult and becomes their parent they grow up and see both sides of the argument. Fornits must be filed with peter pans or something, the children who never grew up???

[Whooter]

Lols. "A recent five-hour visit to the school revealed nothing inhuman" ... to one already clearly sold on Israel's aversive "therapy." Think that five hour walk-through could possibly comprehensive enough?

Granted it’s a small window of time and the 214 students arrive each day from 32 scattered group homes. But the behaviors of many of the students, who range in age from 7 to 50, can be so unpredictable that it would be almost impossible to create a Potemkin village to dupe outsiders.

  Plus it is five hours more than Maia spent there.

Here are some probable responses that you left out:
Did you communicate with any former employees of BRI/JRC before sending this article to the editors?

Ans.: Yes I did.  Before and after the article was submitted.

Did you read the Dr. Hurt article written by Ric Kahn (formerly with the Boston Phoenix, now a Globe journalist)?

Ans: Yes, I did thank you.  A very detailed piece, I know Ric and his family well.

I have a copy if you need it

Ans:  I have one in my hand here, thanks.

Did you meet with any parents who removed a child from this "school"?

Ans: Yes, Several. But I don’t want to go into detail at this time.

Did you look at the overall history of BRI/JRC in Rhode Island, California, and Massachusetts?
Ans:  I always review the history prior to researching my articles.  Don’t you?

 Did you research the deaths of Danny Aswad, Linda Cornelison, or Vincent Milletich?

Ans:  Yes, that was included in my studies.

I can send you some information?
Ans: Yes, I can always use more.

Was JRC allowed time to plan/prepare for your visit?
Ans: Yes, they were given some notice.


 Now after considering these valid questions, do you honestly believe your version of journalism regarding JRC is unbiased and accurate?

Ans: Yes, I do.  I wrote it and it was published under my name wasn’t it?



...

[Froderik]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! You guys should thank Whooter for posting here, one of the few posters who is not an extremist and can see both sides of an argument without being blinded by emotional bias. It's easy to condemn others but try walking a mile in the parents shoes for once! Normally maturity and time, when a kid grows from a kid into a adult and becomes their parent they grow up and see both sides of the argument. Fornits must be filed with peter pans or something, the children who never grew up???

Ok, I find this post disturbing and will reply later.

[Ursus]

Here are some probable responses that you left out:

Let me get this straight... I post someone's actual comment, and you chastise me for leaving out some PROBABLE other comments?


 :beat:

[Ursus]

Ding ding ding ... Fornits must be filed with peter pans or something, the children who never grew up???

Oh, I always put on my green tights before I put on my bear suit! No fashion gaffes fer me, Mistah Ding Dong!    :twofinger:  

[Anne Bonney]

 It's easy to condemn others but try walking a mile in the parents shoes for once! Normally maturity and time, when a kid grows from a kid into a adult and becomes their parent they grow up and see both sides of the argument.

What makes you think I haven't?  I've got two grown kids.

[Anne Bonney]

Here are some probable responses that you left out:

Probable responses???   So, they weren't actually there then.  How could he leave out what wasn't there to begin with?

So, you post an Op-Ed piece, trying to pass it off as an article and we're supposed to take that as gospel.  We post an Op-Ed piece clearly identified as such and you dismiss it.

Ursus posts actual comments that we're supposed to dismiss but your probable comments are to be taken seriously?

You are a joke.

[Whooter]

Here are some probable responses that you left out:

Probable responses???   So, they weren't actually there then.  How could he leave out what wasn't there to begin with?

So, you post an Op-Ed piece, trying to pass it off as an article and we're supposed to take that as gospel.  We post an Op-Ed piece clearly identified as such and you dismiss it.

Ursus posts actual comments that we're supposed to dismiss but your probable comments are to be taken seriously?

You are a joke.

Why would you want to dismiss the questions?  I dont see where I did either.  I just added probable answers.  Its done here all the time... lets see someone asked why the two girls ran away from SUWS and you answered that with what you thought was a probable answer.  Why the double standard?  Does that mean you are a joke?

lol, see what I mean.



...

[Anne Bonney]

Why would you want to dismiss the questions?  I dont see where I did either.  I just added probable answers.  Its done here all the time... lets see someone asked why the two girls ran away from SUWS and you answered that with what you thought was a probable answer.  Why the double standard?  Does that mean you are a joke?

Big difference.  You do it on the sly, hoping that people won't catch it.  When I post something like that, it's openly stated that it's my opinion or belief or experience.  You said that Ursus "left out" the probable answers.  How could he "leave them out" if they were only in your head to begin with?

lol, see what I mean.

No.  Not at all.

[Froderik]

Whooter tells his version of the truth, which is almost always lies. There is perhaps just enough truth mixed in to make what he says almost believable to the average reader (someone unaware of his wiles).

How long has this entity (formerly known as TheWho) been posting on Fornits?

Where is Ottawa5 these days?

[Froderik]

Joyce's bills would curb shock treatments at Canton school
http://http://www.wickedlocal.com/stoughton/news/x43863018/Joyces-bills-would-curb-shock-treatments-at-Canton-school

By Candace Hall
Canton Journal
Posted Apr 20, 2010 @ 02:40 PM
Canton — State Sen. Brian Joyce hopes that two ongoing investigations will bring more scrutiny to the practice of aversive therapy at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Canton, spurring legislators to pass his bills that will more strictly regulate the practice.

The JRC is a private, public-funded school for special education children with severe challenges, including those who are developmentally delayed, autistic and emotionally disturbed.

Both the state’s attorney general and the U. S. Department of Justice have been investigating the center after complaints about a 2007 incident at the center, as well as complaints from more than 30 disability groups.

“We’ve seen horrible abuses, and family members have been interviewed, and I’m hopeful,” Joyce said.

The senator has been trying to ban the practice, which gives electric shocks and other pain-inducing treatments to students who have severe behavior problems, for about 10 years. He said the JRC is the only school in the country that uses this type of therapy.

The practice that Joyce most strongly objects to is shock therapy using a remotely controlled shock devise that is attached to the student through a fanny or backpack. According to a report of the New York State Educational Department, the students wear the devises for the majority of their sleeping and walking hours, and some are required to wear them during shower/bath time.  

hough JRC lawyers argue that aversive shock therapy is already heavily regulated, Joyce said it’s not enough. He said he has heard of children being shocked “hundreds, sometimes thousands for times,” with some children being burned through the shock treatment.

One of the most alarming cases, he said, was in 2007, when a person made a prank call to the school pretending to be a JRC staff member. Joyce said the caller ordered the staff to awaken two students who were shocked repeatedly while their arms and legs were bound. One of the students was burned 77 times over a period of three hours.

The incident led the state attorney’s office to investigative the incident, which is still ongoing.    Since then, the JRC has cooperated with law and state officials in every way, and a number of changes have been made to prevent a similar occurrence, said Michael Flammia, a lawyer for the JRC.

Flammia also said students who undergo the process have to have parent permission, and approvals by a judge in a probate court, as well as a peer review committee and doctor before getting the treatment.

“It’s the most regulated form of therapy that exists,” he said.

But Joyce is not satisfied with current regulations, and he is pressing for more. His two bills aim to better control the aversive therapy, rather than ban it, which he thinks is a compromise that could sway house members to vote yes.

One bill would set up unified standards that specify the scope of techniques permissible under laws. The other bill would establish a commission to investigate electric shock therapy, as well as a peer review group, which would work with the states’ Department of Developmental Services to set up new standards.   Joyce said even though a peer group is currently involved with the approval process, it consists mostly of people who are affiliated with the JRC and he does not feel they provide adequate oversight.

“I want a true objective look at this - not a review by interested parties,” Joyce said.

Even though he is still in favor of banning shock therapy, Joyce said that he moderated his stance because he’s faced strong opposition in previous bills, including Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez, D-Boston, who has a nephew who is a JRC student and receives shock therapy. He said that Sanchez has been an effective spokesperson for the aversive therapy, saying it’s the only method that can keep his nephew from harming, and even killing himself.

 Joyce feels that legislators have voted repeatedly against the ban, through the urging of Sanchez, and JRC supporters. Now, he thinks these two bills could be the compromise that spurs both the house and senate to pass his bills.

“It’s a harder thing to argue against than the outright ban,” he said.

The new legislation has the support of many educators, including Alan Dewey, who oversees special education for the Canton School Department. He thinks there’s a need for the treatment because of severe cases that he’s seen, including a child who tried to take his own eyeball out with his thumb. But he also feels that there has to be stricter regulations enforced.

“It needs stronger oversight, so I think it’s a good bill,” he said.

The school has about 220 students from seven states, including Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida. About half those students receive aversive therapy.

Sen. Brian Joyce said that his legislation aims to limit aversive therapy to “just a few of the most extreme cases” performed with licensed clinicians, used only on self-abusive or dangerous kids.

But Flammia argued that there are some students who may not be dangerous to themselves or others, but are capable of disrupting classrooms, and are in need of the treatment.

 “If students were smashing computer on the ground, or disrobing, or screaming at the top of their lungs, they could not be treated,” he said.

Adding that the JRC treats the most serious behavior problems imaginable, Flammia said students on aversive therapy have been exposed to every other treatment possible. He said the only other alternatives have been to place the children on powerful psychotropic drugs, which had led to them being barely conscious during the day and in some cases becoming obese. JRC parents prefer aversive therapy to their children being heavily drugged, he said.

Whether or not the legislation is passed, the JRC is bound to be under intensive scrutiny as long as it continues aversive shock therapy. The U. S. Department of Justice’s investigation, launched this February, was spurred by letters from 31 different disability groups. The September 30 letter states that “almost every national disability organization agrees that the use of painful procedures to change a person’s behavior is unnecessary, inhumane, and should be banned.”

The center has also been the target of complaints and investigations by a number of state and out-of state agencies. Since the school was founded in 1971, the states of California and Rhode Island have withdrawn their students and passed forms of legislation banning aversive therapy in their own states. New Jersey has suspended any new referrals to the school.

“My hope is that these investigations will shed light on what is happening behind the walls of the JRC,” Joyce said.

Candace Hall can be reached at [email protected]
Copyright 2010 Stoughton Journal. Some rights reserved

/bump

[Ursus]

Here are some more ACTUAL comments on that Boston Globe Op-Ed Puddinpiece, from a former staff member, no less:


bostonluva wrote: 3/9/2010 4:28 PM EST

Interesting that Mr. Harmon glossed over the reason why JRC is being investigated for inhumane practices, that is, the minor and benign behaviors for which children are shocked. Whispering, rolling eyes, standing up, moaning, being involuntarily incontinent,stopping work for a brief period of time, to name a few. The list is long. Yes, Mr. Harmon that does need to be investigated. Be wary of people who look at this as a matter of black and white, you said so yourself. Well, there's the gray. And it needs to be addressed. The shocks ARE painful, and to an impaired individual, they can be terrifying. I've heard the shrieks, the screams and cries. To minimize the suffering serves no one's purpose but your own. There are LEGITIMATE concerns, and how dare you or anyone try to deny it. Sickening.

bostonluva wrote: 3/10/2010 3:10 PM EST

Despite what some might insist upon, JRC will not just be "left alone". Society cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the sick things that are going on in this hellhole forever. Parents obey the methods of Dr. Israel with cult-like loyalty. It's the purest form of desperation, and it has blinded parents to the reality of what is happening. The reality is, you can't expect to electrocute children for behaviors which pose no threat or danger to anyone and continue to get away with it forever. If a child has a shirt untucked, or an untidy appearance, or politely asks for a tissue, or vocalizes because he can't speak, or can't control bodily functions due to a disability, and on and on, the are electrocuted. If you see nothing wrong with this, that says more about your own state of mind than anyone else's. You don't own your children. They have rights whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

finallythetruth wrote: 3/11/2010 1:04 PM EST

All the cynical people that are posting negative comments on this board need to sit back and realize that these parents are making the best decision for their child’s individual needs; not you, not me. They alone have to make these extremely difficult decisions. You can sit here and say what they should do, or what you think is best, but you are not the one struggling with a child that self mutilates or will harm your other children; or that is so aggressive you are scared to be alone with them. You will never know the difficulties they are faced with, or what they are going through. Yet you continue to make your personal assessment of what’s best for their children. You continue making your one sided judgments based on propaganda provided by people with a polarized agenda, or nonfactual articles that are biased and written by reporters that are told to spin the story to create a larger audience. This treatment is approved by the parents, a judge and is written in their Individual Education Plan. You keep commenting on an investigation that is being conducted, what are you going to do when the Federal government does not find any wrong doings. Will you move on, or will you continue to berate and belittle the parents and program that have done so much to improve the lives of these children and adults. What will happen, will you begin harassing some other group of parents, maybe a small business for something you felt was wrong, or against your own personal code of ethics. Until you have walked in their shoes, you should keep your comments to yourself. Being a parent is hard enough, adding negative comments or having people try to make you feel shameful for your parental decisions is down right disgusting.
I commend Larry Harmon and the Boston Globe for finally telling the truth. And I admire and praise all of the parents that are struggling with an autistic child that has behaviors severe enough to warrant this type of treatment. You are all wonderful parents that are doing what is best for your children; do not let any of these critics make you think otherwise.

bostonluva wrote: 3/11/2010 3:55 PM EST

"finally the truth" I am not basing my opinions on hearsay or articles I've read. I worked there! And I am involved with mentally ill people on a very personal level as well. Don't presume to know the first thting about me or my motivations. I took the job because I believed in doing anything possible to help these people stop injuring themselves, even if it meant physical aversives. I still belive in that. Whateve rit takes to keep these people as SAFE as possible, I am 110% FOR! If a person is hurting themselves or others and nothing else has worked, by all means, intervene in any way possible. But if you honestly think shocking a child for benign behaviors which pose no threat to anyone is keeping them safe, you're delusional. Period. ELECTRORCUTION FOR WHISPERING? Are you kidding me??!!! Get real! If you think this is going to be allowed to go on forever, you're dead wrong. It may not be this battle, or the next, but eventually this state will evolve and stop the MADNESS! Because that's exactly what it is.