As a long-time advocate for disability rights, and as the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint’s representative to the Stop the Shock Coalition, I am deeply troubled that Massachusetts continues to permit the use of the graduated electronic decelerator on disabled students in the name of “behavior control.” The attached letter shares our concerns with Massachusetts lawmakers and urges them to recognize the GED for what it is: a device that inflicts pain and trauma on some of the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable children, rather than providing meaningful support.
Dear Chairpersons and Esteemed Committee Members,
My name is Courtney Litzinger. I am a project manager with the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint (AASR) and a member of the Stop The Shock Coalition. AASR is a national nonprofit and a community of over 35,000 parents, caregivers, self-advocates, teachers, school administrators, paraprofessionals, attorneys, psychologists, therapists, social workers, and others working together to influence change in supporting children whose behaviors are often misunderstood. Our mission is to inform changes in policy and practice to reduce and eliminate the use of exclusionary punitive discipline and outdated behavioral management approaches, and end the school-to-prison pipeline. We are writing to you today to strongly urge your support for House Bill H.245, An Act regarding the use of aversive therapy, and to oppose House Bill H.240, which would license the use of graduated electronic decelerators (GEDs).
Under the current law, there remains a painful and deeply troubling loophole that allows programs to inflict physical pain, including electric shocks, on people with disabilities in the name of behavior management. H.245 would close that loophole by explicitly prohibiting any program funded, licensed, or approved by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from administering procedures that cause obvious physical pain, such as hitting, pinching, or shocks, for behavioral change.
We strongly believe that using pain and punishment is neither therapeutic nor ethical. Aversive practices dehumanize people with disabilities, strip them of autonomy, and treat them as behavior problems rather than as human beings.
On the other hand, House Bill H.240, which would license the use of GED devices, is deeply problematic. Rather than restricting or banning shock devices, it would legitimize this torture. The bill proposes training and certifying people to use these devices, but it does not prevent their use. Certifying that an individual can press the button to deliver the shock to a disabled student does not prevent abuse. It does nothing to protect the students from this torture.
This approach is fundamentally flawed. Graduated electronic decelerators deliver painful electrical stimulus to a person’s skin with the goal of behavior modification. Even with licensing, these devices cannot be used safely, humanely, or without causing trauma. These devices have been widely condemned by disability-rights advocates, mental health professionals, and survivors. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network has highlighted that the shocks cause physical injuries (like burns), and more critically, serious psychological harm, including anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and long-term fear.
The use of these devices at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Canton has drawn international condemnation. Reports describe GED devices delivering excruciating shock delivered by staff using remote controls to trigger them, sometimes repeatedly, and many have called this practice torture. There are no other places in the world where this form of torture is permitted. The only ones advocating its continued use are those who use it.
The only information that is in support of the use of shocking disabled students is produced by those with a vested interest in the Judge Rotenberg Center. No outside studies have been conducted that support the effectiveness of this device. It has only been tested by the place that created it and continues to profit from its use. The GED delivers a 90-milliamp shock, which is only 10 mA below the lethal threshold. The shock lasts for 2 seconds. A standard cattle prod delivers only 10 mA and lasts for a fraction of a second; we are treating livestock more humanely than the Judge Rotenberg Center treats disabled students.
The residents at the JRC have no way to tell anyone that they are being tortured. No one at the JRC protects these vulnerable students. Many of the students on these GEDs are non-speaking students. Behavior is communication, and by shocking them when they try to communicate, we are taking away their only way to tell us when something is wrong. Imagine being shocked anytime you attempted to advocate for a need.
Survivors have provided testimony of the abuse that goes on at the JRC with the GED. Despite numerous people giving personal testimony about the abuse that is happening to residents at the JRC, the center is allowed to remain open and continue the torture. Students who are on the GED live in a constant state of fear that they will be shocked. Living your life in a continual state of distress is not healthy and can cause long-term health issues.
The potential dangers are not theoretical. Survivors and advocacy organizations have consistently reported severe trauma, emotional harm, physical harm, and feelings of dehumanization. The effects of the trauma felt by survivors are lifelong. The people who are shocked have very limited capacity to refuse or resist, and they are subjected to punishment under institutional control. Licensing such a device legitimizes this control rather than protecting vulnerable people from harm.
Importantly, banning GED devices under H.245 does not mean leaving individuals without support. Many other places in the country support students with disabilities, and they do not have to resort to these horrific torture methods. There are other trauma-informed, safe, positive ways to approach behavior that respect dignity, build skills, and reduce distress without inflicting pain. No other place needs to resort to the use of torture on its students. If everywhere else can do it, why can’t the Judge Rotenberg Center?
In closing, we urge you to pass H.245 to ban the use of aversive therapy, and to reject H.240, which would license a device designed to inflict pain as behavior modification. Doing so is not only the right moral and ethical choice, but it is a powerful affirmation of the rights and humanity of people with disabilities in Massachusetts. These students have been tortured for long enough, and they deserve to have it stopped. Many of them have been subjected to torture at the JRC for over a decade. By continuing to allow the GED and other aversives, it sends a message that Massachusetts views those with disabilities as not being worth the same freedoms and rights as those without disabilities.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of our community.
Respectfully,
Courtney Litzinger
Project Manager
Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint
