COALITION AGAINST INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILD ABUSE
HEADLINE NEWS                                                                                                                                                                                                             CAICA EN FRANÇAIS
 

CAICA     HOME   │   NEWS    PROGRAM NEWS   STORIES  DEATHS  │   WWASPS   │  PARENTS' CORNER  │  MISSION   SITE MAP   LINKS & RESOURCES
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

              AUTISM  │ LITIGATION  │  LEGISLATION  JUVENILE JUSTICE  MENTAL HEALTH LIGHTER SIDE   EN FRANCAIS  COMMENTS  │ LIST SERVE  │  BLOGS  
 

 

Regents places ban on skin shocks for troubled students


September 12, 2006
 

ALBANY _ The state Board of Regents voted today to temporarily continue a ban on schools using electric skin shocks and other controversial methods of controlling the behavior of troubled students.

The regents, who set educational policy for the state, implemented an emergency policy in June to prohibit certain methods of deterring or punishing poor behavior, unless a waiver for a specific child was obtained.

The practices, known as "aversive behavioral interventions," include skin shocks, noxious sprays, sleep deprivation and withholding meals. They largely have been unregulated by the state Education Department.

Regents had anticipated making the policy permanent this month, but the Education Department needs more time to vet oral and written comments from about 400 people during recent public hearings and make revisions to the regulations, said Rebecca Cort of the department.

Regent Anthony Bottar of North Syracuse, co-chairman of the regents committee addressing the issue, said he wanted to head off any discussion on the substance of the issue until the October meeting, when regents may be voting to make the emergency regulations permanent.

Bottar said that, contrary to what some people believe, the regents have studied the comments made during the three hearings this summer.

"I'd like to dispel, on behalf of the co-chair (Merryl Tisch of New York City) and I, the notion of a segment of those affected that we have not listened," he said.

Parents of students at an out-of-state residential program have sued the agency because they want their children to continue receiving skin shocks as part of their treatment. The two-second shocks used by the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Mass., are the only method that has worked to control their children, they say.

They won a temporary injunction in federal court last week, meaning treatment could resume for the plaintiffs' children as the lawsuit continues.

The regents began a review of aversives after receiving complaints about the use of skin shocks at the Rotenberg Center and about "aversive behavioral interventions" used in some in-state preschool programs for disabled children.

New York sends more than 150 special-education students to the Rotenberg Center at a cost of about $50 million annually.

The center treats children with severe behavioral disorders. Dangerous behaviors for students include trying to gouge their eyes out and vomiting to the point of starvation.

Under the regents' policy, parents have to consent in writing to the therapy, and an independent panel of experts recommends whether a waiver should be approved.

The emergency regulations took effect in late June. A vote on adopting the policy permanently will come up in October or December, depending on the changes made, Cort said. If it is in December, the regents will have to adopt another emergency extension in October, she said.

"We know there are some changes that need to be made, based on comments and our research," she said.

Linda Doherty of West Islip, Long Island, who was not at Tuesday's meeting, said skin shocks are the only thing that have worked for her 20-year-old son, Marc Doherty. He is autistic and non-verbal.

"In my son's case, it's the first time since he's 4 years old he's totally off medication," she said, adding that he was on a dozen prescriptions at one point and lapsed into a coma.

Doherty said her son has made more gains at the Rotenberg Center than at all his other placements combined. "I don't know why it works, but it works," she said of the skin shocks.

The policy, as written, is not acceptable because it excludes children who are not physically harming themselves or being aggressive toward others, Dr. Matthew Israel, the Rotenberg Center's executive director, said this week. Students who destroy property, are not in compliance with the program's rules or who cause major disruptive incidents cannot be treated with skin shocks, even though the therapy helps them greatly, he said.

Without treatment this summer, before the temporary injunction, 80 percent of New York's students whose skin-shock treatment had been stopped had regressed, Israel said.

Doherty said her son was among them.

Aversive behavioral therapies are used only when children don't respond to positive reinforcement programs, Israel said. About 50 percent of students at the Rotenberg Center receive skin shocks, based on court orders. The average number of shocks given is one per week, he said.

The center is the only institution attended by New York children that gives skin shocks.

 

 

DISCLAIMER, WARNINGS, AND NOTICE TO READERS: This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website (the "Service"). None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with this website in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in these web pages. All information provided using this website is only intended to be general summary information to the public.

FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

REFERRALS: CAICA is not a referral agency. CAICA does not refer to or promote facilities or transport companies for children or teens. CAICA warns parents that the parent pay / parent choice programs ie. Residential Treatment Centers, Therapeutic Boarding Schools, Behavior Modification Programs, Christian Programs, Positive Peer Culture Programs, etc., are not regulated by the Federal Government and that it is a "Buyer Beware" industry. CAICA provides the following for parents: Message to Parents, Help for Distraught and Desperate Parents, and Questions to Ask and Warning Signs.

© 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008