Comment to the FDA: Proposal To Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices for Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior

The Alliance Against Seclusion & Restraint (AASR) aims to promote the safety and dignity of children by advocating for the reduction and elimination of punitive discipline and outdated behavioral management approaches. In alignment with our mission and advocacy efforts, we condemn the use of electric shock devices at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center.

The following are the comments that AASR submitted to the Food and Drug Administration in response to an official request for comments.

The Alliance Against Seclusion & Restraint strongly supports the proposed ban on electrical stimulation devices (ESDs), including the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED) used at The Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in Caton, Massachusetts. The JRC is the only facility in the United States that uses these harmful devices to deliver painful electrical shocks to the skin as an aversive method to control self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior.

In 2013, the United Nations Special Rapporteur declared the use of electric shock at JRC as a human rights violation under the UN Convention against Torture and other international standards, as well as a possible civil rights law violation [1]. In 2020, ESDs were reportedly used on an estimated 45-50 individuals [2]. The JRC serves individuals who have intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/D), mental health diagnoses, and/or social-emotional/behavioral problems. This is a population that needs physical and emotional safety, as evidenced by the latest research in trauma-informed and neuroscience-aligned practice [3]. However, ESDs are associated with physical harm and psychological trauma that can exacerbate the underlying causes of self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior [4].

Furthermore, while JRC has claimed to use ESDs as a last resort for self-injurious behavior or aggressive behavior, it has been reported that electrical shocks have been used in response to behaviors such as stimming (e.g., flapping hands or making noises and movements related to disability) and minor acts of noncompliance [5] [6].

Multiple former JRC residents have shared their negative experiences with ESDs. Andre McCollins was shocked 31 times for not removing his jacket when told to [7]. Rico Torres was shocked for behaviors such as swearing, screaming, or not waking up [7]. One student was shocked 77 times because a prank caller told staff to do so [8]. Another student detailed their experience of sustaining burns and long-term loss of sensation, as well as the malfunctioning and misuse of ESDs [9]. Jennifer Msumba described the pain of shocks as being scary and painful, stating that “I would ask God to make my heart stop because I don’t want to live when that was happening to me. I just wanted to die and make it stop.” [10]. A former JRC teacher has also spoken up about “carrying out some of the most terrible torturous crimes against helpless and nonverbal students.” [11]. It is clear from these accounts that the use of ESDs is a danger to the physical and mental well-being of JRC residents as well as an affront to their dignity and autonomy.

Those supporting JRC’s use of ESDs claim that electric shock is a necessary course of action when it comes to self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior. However, research has shown that the use of shock or other forms of punishment are not effective at creating lasting changes in behavior and can lead to adverse outcomes [12] [13] [14]. Disabled self-advocates and allies have written about possible causes of and helpful responses to self-injurious behavior [15] [16] [17]. These safe and respectful suggestions are congruent with the latest trauma-informed and neuroscience-informed research regarding behavior and learning. Oftentimes, self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior are unintentional, implicit nervous system responses rather than explicit choices [18] [19] [20] [21]. As such, it is essential to address self-injurious and aggressive behavior by examining the underlying causes and meeting the needs of the individual engaging in the behavior. Failing to do so could lead to an increase in behaviors, the exacerbation of underlying causes, and a negative impact on the brain’s ability to learn alternative responses [22].

The Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint implores the Food and Drug Administration to pass the ban on the use of electrical stimulation devices for the modification of self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior based on the physical and mental harm that ESDs cause, the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of ESD use, and the research-based alternatives to addressing self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior. Banning ESDs is a critical step towards upholding human rights and promoting ethical educational and therapeutic practices that allow individuals to thrive without fear of harm.

#StopTheShock

References

Author

Trisha Thompson

Trisha Thompson is an Autistic and ADHD early childhood education consultant and a parent of an Autistic child. Trisha has a Master of Science in Psychology and is currently working towards a certificate in Applied Educational Neuroscience. She is passionate about educating others on neurodiversity-affirming practice, which she believes is an integral part of anti-bias practice and trauma-informed practice.

View all posts