First, the isssue is never - aversives vs positive only treatment - the issue
is - does an aversive need to be added to a positive intervention to achieve
the desired success?  Anti-aversive advocates would have you believe that you
have to choose between the two - not true.

Second, people often assume that shock treatment means that the person is
shocked on some ongoing basis.  Indeed, if contingent shock treatment is
ultimately successful, the person isn't getting shocked.  That is, if the
rate of head hitting is zero, no shocks are given.  One boy treated with
SIBIS went an entire school year without a shock because he did not hit
himself.  His rate had been 120 hits per minute during baseline sessions
prior to treatment.  If shock treatment does not result in a dramatic
reduction in SIB then it should not be continued.......  deciding on how many
shocks vs how much suppression is the job of parents, clinicians and
oversight committees.

Third, in response to the choice issue, over half of the individuals that I
know of who have been treated with SIBIS show behaviors indicating that they
want the device on.  If these people actively went to the refrigerator and
got a glass of soda, we would conclude that they wanted soda, correct?

Stephen Drake's arguement that some choices should never be given (e.g.,
slavery) is ludicrous and irrelevant in this case.  Slavery is illegal
because a person is not given a choice.  If I want to make an agreement to
serve someone in return for food and lodging, I can do so of my own free
will, the person can't force me - that is the illegal part.  Parents or
guardians can legally make informed choices for their children.  If that
choice is not illegal and is made in good faith then so be it.  It is not a
problem that people have different opinions regarding aversives, it is a
problem when some try to impose their opinions on others through legislation
or intimidation.  Sojolan  can tell you about that feeling....

Many in the academic and DD community don't give much credence to Syracuse
University Special Education anyway because of the debacle of FC and other
matters (cf. Linscheid & Landau, Going all out pharmacologically: A re-
examination fo Berkman and Meyer's, Alternative strategies and multiple
outcomes in remediation of severe self-injury: Going all out non-aversively,
Mental Retardation, 31, 1-6).

Power to responsible parents who make the efforts to help their children when
the system fails them, let's listen to them and lets also get the facts
before we judge.

The amount of misinformation about SIBIS and aversives is disheartening.  I
recently heard a lecture by an anti-aversive advocate who stated that SIBIS
delivers 64 jolts of electricity.   This is blatantly false. The fact is that
electricity cycles on and off 16 times during the 0.2 seconds of shock
duration.  It is perceived as only one shock, not 16 and certainly not 64
shocks.  The cycling on and off was specifically planned to reduce the total
amount of electricity not as a way to make it more aversive.  These facts are
contained in the original research article on SIBIS (Linscheid et al, 1990,
Joural of Applied Behavior Analysis)-  Clearly this rabid anti-aversive
advocate was wrong, most likely had never even read the research and was
stating things in a way to make the treatment appear in the worst light.

1. I agree very much with your first point. Dr. Leo Reyna has suggested
that the phrase ³aversive therapy² is inaccurate as applied to programs
such as the SIBIS programs you have overseen or those which take place at
the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC). A more accurate description
would be ³reward therapy, with supplementary aversives, if needed, to
treat those behaviors for which reward therapy alone is ineffective.²

2. It is true that most persons do not realize how infrequent is the need
for the use of supplementary skin-schock aversives in an effective
program. At JRC, about 45% of the students do not require any
supplementary skin-shock aversives. Of those who do require them, the
average (median) student receives three 2-second applications per week.

Syracuse has a long history of being involved in research and activities
not popular in the field of developmental disabilities.  Burton Blatt,
the late Dean of Education here, broke the professional silence on the
hellish conditions in custodial institutions in the book _Christmas in
Purgatory_.  Many academics and professionals were, of course, publishing
study after study in these ready-made "laboratories" - none of these
peer-reviewed articles ever alluded to the conditions of squalor, neglect
and abuse that Blatt exposed to the world.

Syracuse has also actively advocated and supported inclusion of people
with disabilities in public schools and the community.  The successful
efforts toward integrating students with disabilities have been going on
for about a quarter century here.  SU was also active in the beginnings
of deinstitutionalization, parent advocacy, and self-advocacy of people
with disabilities.

I guess I would have to agree that there are many in the academic and DD
community who don't give credence to these developments or organizations
that support them.

By the same token, it should be noted that "radical" organizations like
the Arc, as evidenced by their position statement on behavior
programming, don't give much credence to researchers who focus on pain,
deprivation, etc.  as behavior modifiers.

 >It is not a

If you are a reader of messages in this forum, and would like to obtain
accurate information about any aspect of JRC immediately, I suggest that
you telephone me or visit  our program. I would also be happy to put you
in touch with past or current parents of students at JRC. Also, as I have
noted in an earlier post, we have an open door policy, and welcome all
visitors, with or without notice. I would welcome the opportunity to speak
to you about your concerns or questions.