I wrote some thoughts on the JRC about a year ago when the FDA came out in opposition to Electrical Stimulation Devices ESDs. Recently, Applied Behavioral Analysis International (ABAI) held a conference in which they reiterated their support for ESDs. The fact that this is still an issue is deeply disturbing.
I struggle to imagine what kind of person can stand by and witness the involuntary electrocution of another human being. Electrical therapy has its place within the medical field, but in those settings informed consent by the patient is required, and it can ALWAYS be withdrawn. The involuntary nature of the ‘treatments’ imposed at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is the key difference. This distinction clearly indicates their underlying purpose… punishment.
The well documented mindless punishment and excessive physical/mental abuse at the JRC are just symptoms of a pervasive culture which devalues the lives of disabled people. Rather than protect these individuals or provide supports for them to live fulfilling lives, the staff at the JRC routinely traumatizes people through verbal, physical, and psychological abuse tactics. The trauma inflicted from the use of the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED) device extends beyond the shock, no matter how brief. The pain of the jolt leaves lasting physical markers which can cause days of discomfort, especially for those with sensory differences.
But the true damage results from psychological trauma and a seemingly fanatical assault on disability culture and identity. At the JRC, disabled people are taught that their innate way of being is wrong, they are pathologically berated, brainwashed, and bruised until they surrender and decide to become what the staff desires them to be. Within the halls of the JRC, self esteem is elusive, freedom of speech is suppressed, and individuals can always obtain a clear visual reminder of how wrong they are in the form of a GED burn.
The ace in the hole in their bag of coercive tricks are (GED) devices, which they reportedly use as a ‘the last resort.” The JRC claims to primarily use positive behavior supports as a first line of intervention reverting to aversives (like GED, restraint, isolation, and sensory deprivation) only when they have no other option. Let me interpret that for you, they try a less traumatizing way to control people first, but they have a short patience, and are happy to bring out the big guns when individuals do not conform to staff demands. Even if GED and aversives are used infrequently as a last option, the very existence of them calls the validity of their efforts into question. The methods used by institutions like the JRC are designed to inflict conformity upon persons/groups who are presumed invalid.
To allow the JRC to continue to perpetuate a message which sees individuals as broken or less than, is extremely problematic because it promotes a ‘fix it’ mindset. To permit them to traumatize and abuse individuals with disabilities, sends a clear message… Disabled people are not worthy of basic human dignity. Equity seems to only be important when those in power decide it is worth their while. Perhaps the supporters of the JRC need to look in the mirror and honestly examine what themselves, rather than projecting their fears upon the disability community.
To learn from the voices of the people directly affected by the JRC please explore this resource: https://autistichoya.net/judge-rotenberg-center/
For an interesting article about BCBA's/ABA practitioner opinions on the use of ESDs, see here: https://neuroclastic.com/900-aba-professionals-have-weighed-in-on-the-use-of-electroshock-at-judge-rotenberg-cennter/
Comments