Following the recent expose in Mother Jone's Magazine, Doctor Matthew Israel has been given the opportunity to defend himself and the psychiatric practices used at the Rotenburg School via a long and detailed letter published in Mother Jones itself. This is far too long to publish here, but suffice it to say the Doctor feels he was the victim of a smear job, dishonest journalism, etc.
Mother Jones has done him a great service in publishing his letter, but he has not gotten away scot free. They have responded to his letter by pointing out his own most damaging errors of fact, and standing their ground regarding continuous his moral lapses. You can see the Mother Jones editorial response below, as published online here
We applauded Mother Jones for the original expose, and continue in our own low opinion of the "Rotten-Berg" School of Electric Pain. We persist in our claim that the school should be labeled the Rotten-Berg School. Here are links to our own earlier reports on the story:
- Controversy resurfaces over use of electric shock treatment at Rotten-Berg school
- It really should be Rotten-Berg Center
- Dr. Matt Israel of the Rotenberg Center and his Electric Shock Program for Kids
- Shock treatment sought for autistic man
- Inspector general says school that uses shock therapy overcharged
- N.Y. report denounces school which punishes troubled and disabled students with electric shocks
- State investigates 7 at Canton, MA, school
EDITORS' RESPONSE TO MATTHEW ISRAEL REGARDING "SCHOOL OF SHOCK"
THE USE OF SKIN SHOCK
In support of JRC's use of skin shock, Israel and his defenders stress the violent and self-abusive behavior of some students, and argue that those students have not benefited from other forms of treatment. Israel writes: "It is well documented in scientific articles and in court findings that some special needs children and adolescents have behaviors that are so self-abusive, aggressive or destructive as to be life-threatening and self-maiming."
The facts:
The use of skin shock is not restricted to such "low functioning" students. A report of an investigation by the New York State Education Department states: "JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions [which include skin shock] to students with a broad range of disabilities, many without a clear history of self-injurious behaviors. JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive.".…
THE DEATH OF A STUDENT
Israel writes:
"Ms. Gonnerman discusses California student Danny Aswad's death as though it had something to do with JRC or me. It did not. JRC had ceased its operations in California a year or two prior to his death which was from natural causes."
The facts:
According to the 1982 complaint filed by the State of California, this student was in the care of Behavior Research Institute at the time of his death. The complaint states that the student died while in restraints that kept him flat on his stomach in bed, and had been restrained on numerous occasions over the preceding seven months, despite the fact that such restraint was "contraindicated" because he suffered from a circulatory disorder.
Dr. Israel helped found Behavior Research Institute in California, which was a branch of the entity by the same name that he founded in Rhode Island (later renamed as JRC). Dr. Israel was a consultant to Behavior Research Institute at or at least shortly before the time the student died. Dr. Israel has previously defended the Behavior Research Institute, saying that the death was not the result of treatment.
DR. IWATA'S VISIT
Israel writes:
"Her statement that Dr. Iwata has visited the Rotenberg Center is false."
The facts:
Dr. Iwata visited the Rotenberg Center to review its practices at the request of Massachusetts officials. A copy of the report he wrote in 1995 was obtained by Mother Jones. At the time, the Rotenberg Center was still located in Rhode Island, but it already employed the skin shock aversive treatment that it still uses today.
SOCIALIZING AND ISOLATION
Israel writes:
"Ms. Gonnerman incorrectly states that the only time that JRC students can socialize freely is in the Big Reward Store. This is not true. There are many other places where students can socialize with each other such as on the playground, on field trips, at their residences, etc."
The facts:
In an interview with Jennifer Gonnerman, Dr. Israel stated: "We need to marshal every possible reward you can find to reward desired behavior. So even opportunities for some of the high functioning students to socialize with other students or staff, instead of those being routinely provided, those actually have to be earned. Everything you want has to be earned."
The report by the New York State Education Department states: "During five observations involving a total of 59 students, there were no instances of students socializing with other students and only five instances observed of students socializing with staff. Social interactions between students reportedly occur in the Big Reward Store where students go to select a reward for keeping contracts. When questioned about friendships and social interactions among students, the students interviewed stated that they were unable to socialize in a natural way."
Israel writes:
"The title page contains the word 'Isolation.' Isolation is never used as a punishment at JRC."
The facts:
Again, Dr. Israel himself has confirmed that some students must earn the opportunity to socialize with other students or staff. A report of an investigation by the New York State Education Department says that students may be restrained on four-point restraint boards or in chairs "for extensive periods of time (e.g. hours or intermittently for days)." Students are sometimes confined to "conference rooms," which in some cases isolate them from everyone except a single staff member.
FOOD DEPRIVATION
Israel writes:
"The title page contains the phrase 'Food Deprivation.' Food deprivation is never used as a punishment at JRC."
The facts:
According to JRC, about 10 percent of the students are in a "Contingent Food Program" or a "Specialized Food Program." These programs require students to meet behavioral requirements in order to earn food. The New York State Education Department report says that students must "earn" meals by not displaying certain behaviors, and that if they do not they are "made to throw a predetermined caloric portion of their food into the garbage."
Students in the Contingent Food Program are given "make-up meals" at the end of each day, but according to JRC "make-up food is deliberately intended to be an unattractive option." Students in the Specialized Food Program do not receive "make-up food" unless they have eaten less than 26 percent of their normal daily caloric target. These programs are part of the court-approved treatment plans for the students, and students' weight is monitored. The program is altered or suspended if the student drops below a certain weight.
According to the New York State Education Department report, "The Contingent Food Program and Specialized Food Program may impose unnecessary risks affecting the normal growth and development and overall nutritional/health status of students subjected to this aversive behavior intervention."
USE OF OTHER THERAPIES BEFORE SHOCK TREATMENT
Israel writes:
"Before JRC uses aversives with any student, positive and educative procedures are tried for an average of 11 months to try to change serious problematic behaviors."
The facts:
The article does not assert that other treatments are not tried before aversives are used. However, according to the New York State Education Department report, "JRC may decide prior to a student's acceptance into the program that he/she requires aversive procedures based on historical and current behavioral information provided by parents, the CSE and other records/reports." In addition, in some cases, "the use of aversive procedures may be a condition of the student's acceptance and continued enrollment in the program." Letters from parents of students at JRC appear to support these findings.
SAFEGUARDS
Israel writes:
"There are many safeguards at JRC to make sure that the skin-shock procedure is used carefully, professionally and properly. They include prior parental consent, prior individualized court authorization (the judge appoints an attorney to represent the child's interests in this process), prior approval by a Human Rights Committee and a Peer Review Committee, clearance from a physician and a psychiatrist to insure that there are no medical contraindications, etc."
The facts:
The article discusses parental and court consent, and expressly reports that court approval is required in all cases. (Attorneys who have represented students in approval proceedings have told Mother Jones that court approval is routinely granted, sometimes over their objections.) The article doesn't suggest that other safeguards are not also employed in deciding to use or in monitoring the use of skin shock treatment.
However, some of the procedures are apparently required as the result of JRC's settlement with the State of Massachusetts, and according to the New York State Education Department report "the integrity of the behavioral programming at JRC is not sufficiently monitored by appropriate professionals at the school and in many cases the background and preparation of staff is not sufficient to oversee the intensive treatment of children with challenging emotional and behavioral problems."
FADING OUT SKIN SHOCK TREATMENT
Israel writes:
"As time goes on, many [students] are able to graduate completely from needing this ]skin shock] therapy."
The facts:
Data provided by Israel indicates that 43% of school-age students are receiving skin shocks, while only 3% percent have "graduated" or been "faded off" the shock devices. Among adult residents, 85% are attached to the shock device, while only 6% have been "faded off."
According to the New York State Education Department report, "JRC's policy states: ‘GED fading will not occur until the student has gone a minimum of one year with no major behaviors.' . . . The criterion of one year without a 'major disruptive behavior' is extremely long and is not determined based on the circumstances for each individual student. . . . Many NYS students remain on the GED for the entire time they attend the center."
No comments:
Post a Comment