School of Shock

When are they (the school and parents)going to open their eyes and stop hurting our children? Why hasn't this facility been shut down? This is barbaric!

I am utterly horrified. I have worked with people with developmental disabilities and I understand the difficulty, however, I think that resorting to torture is wholly and completely unacceptable. If these "treatments" worked, they wouldn't have to be escalated constantly, and the students would change their behavior. Scientifically, the definition of punishment is an aversive that when applied reduces the occurence of a behavior. If the behavior is continuing, the punishment is ineffective.
Currently, I train dogs, and many dog trainers feel that the use of electric shock is inhumane in nearly every instance. I certainly can't condone the use on human beings.

Cinder Wilkinson-Kenner

electric shocks, if it taught lab rats then it must work for humans right? Someone just happened to miss that tiny little detail thatlab rats also infected with cancer and HIV, experimented on and mutilated. but thats incosequential right?

I find it distressing that children with RAD (as the two foster kids mentioned) can be subjected to this. That is the very last treatment a RAD child should receive.

I've seen nothing here that excuses using horrible practices such as those described to change behavior.

In 40 years of advocacy, and educating myself in behavioral approaches, I have seen children just as needy as above-mentioned Caroline and Janine respond to rational, loving non-aversive strategies that were successful in allowing them to live their lives with joy.

I believe that when we decide that "those people need to be tortured for their own growth and benefit" we do unspeakable harm to them, and to ourselves. We diminish the value of human life.

The answer to your question: Once.

Shades of Stanley Milgram! Next, it will be the creative and geniuses who never do anything "right" and are always getting into trouble in school, no?

[deleted]ing Terrible!!! Sounds like America, what will wake the people of this nation to get into action and eliminate this kind of sadistic medical treatment?!

Horrifying! I just can't uderstand why there no law suit against this cruel institution!?

I can't believe that the NY and Massachusets legislature, along with the parents of these kids sign for these shocks each and every time. How would they feel if (every time they did something wrong) they were shocked?

this story is teribble. i have a son who has mild to moderate mental retardation and i would never dream of toruring him for misbehavior there r more effective ways to treat children with these problems.we must stop this cruel and unsual punishment of children.

I worked at BRI back in 1994 when it had 68 students. I won't say exactly what I did because it would identify me quite closely as the staff was small then. I was in and out of the classrooms and observed the staff and clients. We did not call them "kids" because most were adult age.

I saw newly arrived clients in strait jackets and helmet throwing themselves around the room into walls, and beating their heads. One women, if I recall correctly, was blind because she had scratched out her own eye. More than a few clients would eat anything, even inedible objects incompatible with life. So many of the clients had scars from self-injury. Horrific facial scars were common. ALL the clients were profoundly disturbed and/or autistic and/or severely mentally disabled. All had been violent or severely self-injurious.

It was terrifying.

And despite that, BRI was no hall of horrors. It was a graceful former school, with high ceilings and beautiful woodwork. The clients were in good spirits. They smiled and some--the ones who could--interacted with each other and the staff. Hugs were readily given. The staff was friendly to me and to each other, despite the rigors of their daily labor. We did not socialize much, but that is because all our attention was on the clients. it had to be.

Classroom staff were required to note every reward (yes, there were frequent rewards) and every adversive. Unlike your disgruntled former employees, we understood that this was both to monitor behavior modification and to prevent abuse. This was not a bunch of yahoo's shocking the feebs for fun. We were professionals. The behavior modification was conducted in a professional manner.

During my time at BRI, I saw the shock used a few times times, never outside guidelines and always with compassion. Like most of the staff, I had been appalled at first. As part of my orientation, I was allowed to feel the electric shock they used--most staff took advantage of that opportunity. It felt exactly like what they described, a bee sting, except that it faded instantly after the requisite two seconds. I didn't feel any further pain. It was no worse than snapping a rubber band against your wrist--something I had done in college to stop biting my nails. I asked questions about the efficacy, the legality, and the protocol for using the shock during my new employee training. All my questions were answered.

Everyone--the whole staff and parents--understood that this shock was a terrible thing, but what it prevented was FAR worse. We had clients who had beaten themselves to pulps, scratched themselves bloody until they needed skin grafts. Those same clients were functioning relatively normally, learning what they could learn, but able to interact with parents and staff without the severely violent and self-injurious behavior.

They were learning. Far from being the stultifying rote computer tasks, our students were using computers at the cutting edge of what was understood about severe autism. The idea was that severely autistic people have an impossible time interacting with other humans. Using computers gave clients the chance to learn without having the human interactions that was both distressing and overwhelming to them. The computer programs were successful for exactly what Jennifer Gonnerman decries: because there was no human interaction. Gonnerman has a basic disconnect--a lack of research, perhaps--into what drives the learning experience of the severely autistic. Otherwise, she would have known better than to make the criticisms she made.

I also met some of the parents. Parents were frequent visitors at BRI. They were particularly cognizant of the what and why of their children's treatment and the necessity for it. One parent told me how her son had been thrown out of every institution there was who served kids like him, all 11, how BRI was their last chance. How BRI had given her son back to her because it stopped a litany of horrific violent and self-abusive behaviors. Another set of parents picked up their cheerleader pretty daughter to take her to lunch and to have her hair done commented that now they COULD, she was no longer self injuring.

And I think I knew Brandon. I remember the day he graduated from high school (and left BRI, if I recall correctly). He was a short guy and thin, dark hair. He had the most horrible scars on every visible portion of his body, the kind you get from third degree burns and skin grafts. And I remember him saying that if it wasn't for BRI, he never could have graduated from high school, or even stood talking to the small group of people he was addressing in the main hall. It was a very emotional moment for this young man... and he wasn't itching himself bloody.

He was the most capable of the high functioning clients. I knew other high functioning clients... the one who would run away all the time often into dangerous situations. The one who would drink any kind of alcohol (including isopropyl alcohol) which had put him in the hospital more than once. They lied, telling amazingly, creative stories that were completely false and easily proven false. Despite their obvious intelligence, and impressive story telling ability, these were severely disturbed individuals.

I had to ask myself, was BRI so much worse than prison or the street? Because that's where these high functioning clients would be otherwise, being victimized by people far worse, far less professional and far less compassionate than the staff at BRI. The low functioning clients were a less difficult case. Their alternative was to slowly beat, scratch, and tantrum themselves to death. They had no lives before BRI and the pain of self-injury was incomparable. The shock was bad, but the alternative was far, far worse.

If the shock was inhumane, it was far more inhumane to allow to happen what would have happened in the absence of the shock. This was the end of the road for most of these clients. There was simply nowhere else to go. I had to conclude, appalling and heart-wrenching though it was, that the shock worked when nothing else did. And it gave those clients their lives back.

That was my experience at BRI.

I worked there during (or slightly after, I forget the exact timing) the Connie Chung debacle. The staff understood very clearly that Chung had entered the school with a set idea in mind, nothing was going to change her mind, and she was going to do what we all referred to as a "hatchet-job." That she did. In the ensuing pullout of students by "horrified" parents, my job was eliminated and I was laid off.

Nowadays, I am a journalist, and I understand the wrongness of what Connie Chung did all too well. She was not unbiased. She went in with the idea to prove a point--one that had no basis in reality--and when she could not prove that point, she edited the tapes to make it look like she was correct all along. She deserved to be shown up. What she did was of the greatest malfeasance. It went against everything that a journalist is supposed to do and be.

I do not know what is currently happening at the Rotenberg Center, but I do know a hatchet job when I see one. I have always respected Mother Jones' investigative reporting. Mother Jones was one of few magazines that I actually trust in this age of political spin and Rovian lies. I am profoundly disturbed to read such a one-sided article--a hatchet job--in your pages. Apparently, though parents were interviewed, their stories were disregarded through the lens of "we know better." Only disgruntled former employees were interviewed. Would it have been so hard to find someone like me who didn't have an ax to grind? Would showing the other side of the story have been so detrimental to the underlying bias that it couldn't help but show and be debunked?

It appalls me that Mother Jones did a less journalistically competent job than Law and Order in covering the Rotenburg Center. At least Law and Order showed the complexities of the treatment, the impossibility of the parents plight at the very end when the now desperate mother asks Jack McCoy if HE will care for her severely autistic son.

Shame on you, Mother Jones.

I am going to try reposting. Editors: if this works, can you please remove the version without the line breaks and the subsequent note about it?

Thx.

I worked at BRI back in 1994 when it had 68 students. I won't say exactly what I did because it would identify me quite closely as the staff was small then. I was in and out of the classrooms and observed the staff and clients. We did not call them "kids" because most were adult age.

I saw newly arrived clients in strait jackets and helmet throwing themselves around the room into walls, and beating their heads. One women, if I recall correctly, was blind because she had scratched out her own eye. More than a few clients would eat anything, even inedible objects incompatible with life. So many of the clients had scars from self-injury. Horrific facial scars were common. ALL the clients were profoundly disturbed and/or autistic and/or severely mentally disabled. All had been violent or severely self-injurious.

It was terrifying.

And despite that, BRI was no hall of horrors. It was a graceful former school, with high ceilings and beautiful woodwork. The clients were in good spirits. They smiled and some--the ones who could--interacted with each other and the staff. Hugs were readily given. The staff was friendly to me and to each other, despite the rigors of their daily labor. We did not socialize much, but that is because all our attention was on the clients. it had to be.

Classroom staff were required to note every reward (yes, there were frequent rewards) and every adversive. Unlike your disgruntled former employees, we understood that this was both to monitor behavior modification and to prevent abuse. This was not a bunch of yahoo's shocking the feebs for fun. We were professionals. The behavior modification was conducted in a professional manner.

During my time at BRI, I saw the shock used a few times times, never outside guidelines and always with compassion. Like most of the staff, I had been appalled at first. As part of my orientation, I was allowed to feel the electric shock they used--most staff took advantage of that opportunity. It felt exactly like what they described, a bee sting, except that it faded instantly after the requisite two seconds. I didn't feel any further pain. It was no worse than snapping a rubber band against your wrist--something I had done in college to stop biting my nails. I asked questions about the efficacy, the legality, and the protocol for using the shock during my new employee training. All my questions were answered.

Everyone--the whole staff and parents--understood that this shock was a terrible thing, but what it prevented was FAR worse. We had clients who had beaten themselves to pulps, scratched themselves bloody until they needed skin grafts. Those same clients were functioning relatively normally, learning what they could learn, but able to interact with parents and staff without the severely violent and self-injurious behavior.

They were learning. Far from being the stultifying rote computer tasks, our students were using computers at the cutting edge of what was understood about severe autism. The idea was that severely autistic people have an impossible time interacting with other humans. Using computers gave clients the chance to learn without having the human interactions that was both distressing and overwhelming to them. The computer programs were successful for exactly what Jennifer Gonnerman decries: because there was no human interaction. Gonnerman has a basic disconnect--a lack of research, perhaps--into what drives the learning experience of the severely autistic. Otherwise, she would have known better than to make the criticisms she made.

I also met some of the parents. Parents were frequent visitors at BRI. They were particularly cognizant of the what and why of their children's treatment and the necessity for it. One parent told me how her son had been thrown out of every institution there was who served kids like him, all 11, how BRI was their last chance. How BRI had given her son back to her because it stopped a litany of horrific violent and self-abusive behaviors. Another set of parents picked up their cheerleader pretty daughter to take her to lunch and to have her hair done commented that now they COULD, she was no longer self injuring.

And I think I knew Brandon. I remember the day he graduated from high school (and left BRI, if I recall correctly). He was a short guy and thin, dark hair. He had the most horrible scars on every visible portion of his body, the kind you get from third degree burns and skin grafts. And I remember him saying that if it wasn't for BRI, he never could have graduated from high school, or even stood talking to the small group of people he was addressing in the main hall. It was a very emotional moment for this young man... and he wasn't itching himself bloody.

He was the most capable of the high functioning clients. I knew other high functioning clients... the one who would run away all the time often into dangerous situations. The one who would drink any kind of alcohol (including isopropyl alcohol) which had put him in the hospital more than once. They lied, telling amazingly, creative stories that were completely false and easily proven false. Despite their obvious intelligence, and impressive story telling ability, these were severely disturbed individuals.

I had to ask myself, was BRI so much worse than prison or the street? Because that's where these high functioning clients would be otherwise, being victimized by people far worse, far less professional and far less compassionate than the staff at BRI. The low functioning clients were a less difficult case. Their alternative was to slowly beat, scratch, and tantrum themselves to death. They had no lives before BRI and the pain of self-injury was incomparable. The shock was bad, but the alternative was far, far worse.

If the shock was inhumane, it was far more inhumane to allow to happen what would have happened in the absence of the shock. This was the end of the road for most of these clients. There was simply nowhere else to go. I had to conclude, appalling and heart-wrenching though it was, that the shock worked when nothing else did. And it gave those clients their lives back.

That was my experience at BRI.

I worked there during (or slightly after, I forget the exact timing) the Connie Chung debacle. The staff understood very clearly that Chung had entered the school with a set idea in mind, nothing was going to change her mind, and she was going to do what we all referred to as a "hatchet-job." That she did. In the ensuing pullout of students by "horrified" parents, my job was eliminated and I was laid off.

Nowadays, I am a journalist, and I understand the wrongness of what Connie Chung did all too well. She was not unbiased. She went in with the idea to prove a point--one that had no basis in reality--and when she could not prove that point, she edited the tapes to make it look like she was correct all along. She deserved to be shown up. What she did was of the greatest malfeasance. It went against everything that a journalist is supposed to do and be.

I do not know what is currently happening at the Rotenberg Center, but I do know a hatchet job when I see one. I have always respected Mother Jones' investigative reporting. Mother Jones was one of few magazines that I actually trust in this age of political spin and Rovian lies. I am profoundly disturbed to read such a one-sided article--a hatchet job--in your pages. Apparently, though parents were interviewed, their stories were disregarded through the lens of "we know better." Only disgruntled former employees were interviewed. Would it have been so hard to find someone like me who didn't have an ax to grind? Would showing the other side of the story have been so detrimental to the underlying bias that it couldn't help but show and be debunked?

It appalls me that Mother Jones did a less journalistically competent job than Law and Order in covering the Rotenburg Center. At least Law and Order showed the complexities of the treatment, the impossibility of the parents plight at the very end when the now desperate mother asks Jack McCoy if HE will care for her severely autistic son.

Shame on you, Mother Jones.

I represent the Long Island mother who brought a claim against the facility which claim is currently pending. This story doesn't even come close to describing the horrors at this place. Staff is trained for two weeks before being given the GED to shock kids. There have been reports of students (males) being shocked in their testicles because the device was not put on correctly. Many of the students are shocked for simply saying "No" to a staff directive and even high functioning children are being shocked for reasons not related to their safety or the safety of others. Mass. has been unable to pass legislation because the uncle of one of the students who has been burned and tortured thinks its good for his nephew. He is ignorant of what is really happening to the child as I have spoken to many staff mambers before I commenced my lawsuit and they advised how this kid is abused. Chil;dren un away and burns are found on their bodies from the shock that is supposed to help. Psychologists havwe been found to be uncertified and when I last checked the number of certiied teachers was one. Reports as far back as 1977 find kids just sitting at their computers doing nothing but tapping the screen and food is often times used as a reward or punishment. Parents are told their children will be given a tiny two second shock that will be inconsequential but both the lower level shock and the GED 4 are extremely painful. Neither device has apparently been approved for this type of use by the FDA and it is interesting to know that the device is manufactured by Dr. Israel. Shocking!!!!! If the public allows this to continue another child will die at the hands of this torture center. The public must make enough noise to influence federal legislatures to act since they all know of this. The reporter who wrote this story did an excellant job of portraying the problem but the public must now react.....Any volunteers????

If I owned a device like this and used it on my own children it would be considered child abuse and rightfully so. This is disgusting and anyone who has spent anytime working with developmentally disabled people knows it doesn't work to abuse them. This guy is a sicko and the parents that support him are desparate sad people.

proof that we live in a society where different isnt different. its wrong. to think that we were born into a world where humans are able to control other humans... shock them, monitor them in high tech facilities.... existence sucks right now.