Court Hearing on JRC - October 26!

Content/TW: Fairly descriptive discussion of torture and abuse of people with disabilities using electric shock in an institution.

There is a court hearing about the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) scheduled to begin on Monday, October 26 in the Bristol County Probate & Family Court in Taunton, Massachusetts. Arguments are expected to continue for around a month. If you are able to attend part or all of the hearing, which is open to the public, please do so! We need advocates in the courtroom! 

(This post is an explanation of why this is important, what the hearing is actually about, and for the uninitiated, what the JRC is. It starts with some background about the JRC, then gives the legal context.)

Photo: Disability and youth rights advocates protesting aversive electric shock "treatment" outside the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in Silver Spring, Maryland in January 2013. Hand-drawn signs have slogans "No compromise on torture," "people not experiments," "Ban the GED" with a list of minor infractions shocks are used to punish, "stop the shocks," "disability rights are human rights," and "torture not treatment." From left to right: Diane Engster, Lydia Brown, Shain M. Neumeier, Kathleen N. O'Neal, and Patrick T. Ayers. Photo by Taylor C. Hall, T.C. Hall Media.

Background

The Judge Rotenberg Center was originally founded as the Behavior Research Institute. It didn't start shocking people (as it is now infamous for doing) until 1988, but since its beginning in 1971, founder Matthew Israel instituted a regime of pain to coerce behavioral modification for the children, youth, and adults with intellectual, developmental, and psych disabilities committed to his "care." Food deprivation. Prolonged restraint. Seclusion -- which is ultimately a form of solitary confinement in the name of "treatment." Forced inhalation of ammonia. Sensory assault with the notorious white noise-blasting helmet. Slaps. Pinches designed to maximize pain by digging nails into muscle. Since 1971, six people receiving "treatment" at BRI/JRC have died in their care -- Robert Cooper (d. 1980), Danny Aswad (d. 1981), Vincent Milletich (d. 1985), Silverio Gonzalez (d. 1998), Linda Cornelison (d. 1990), and Abigail Gibson (d. 1997).

Brandon Sanchez was the first resident to be subjected to electric shock. The device was called the SIBIS -- self-injurious behavior inhibiting system. Although staff at BRI/JRC have long known that darkened, cool, low-stimulation environments help Brandon Sanchez self-regulate and decompress, they began to treat his extreme self-harm by shocking him under the belief that association of unwanted behavior with painful stimuli would decrease the unwanted behavior. (In other words, it's like applying dog training tactics to humans, or at least humans deemed sub-human.) On one day, he received over 5,000 shocks from the SIBIS in a single day. After that, Matthew Israel asked the SIBIS manufacturer to build a stronger device. They refused.

Matthew Israel invented his own device, the graduated electronic decelerator (GED), which emitted a stronger current and shock than the SIBIS. The GED works by strapping electrodes on a person's arms, torso, and legs, which are activated when someone presses a button on a remote control. Over the past couple decades, the GED has gone through several iterations, each more powerful and painful than before. The present model in use, the GED-4, is designed to be more powerful and painful than a police taser.

Theoretically, the "therapy" is used to reduce or eliminate dangerous or aggressive behavior -- like someone picking at their eyes and causing a vision disability, or someone banging their head against a wall and causing a brain injury, or someone physically attacking other people. In reality, the aversive electric shocks are given for behavior ranging from closing eyes while walking in the hallway to trying to hold a staff person's hand, or from getting out of seat without permission to using swear words, or simply for non-compliance.

In April 2012, a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the family of Andre McCollins went to trial before a jury, where video footage of the shocks was played in public for the first time (photosensitive epilepsy warning -- video flickers / also graphic footage of torture at this link). Ten years before, in 2002, Andre McCollins, a black autistic teenager with other cognitive and psych disabilities, had been shocked 31 times in 7 hours while restrained face-down in four-point restraints. The long shock session stemmed from a brief verbal interaction with a staff person who told him to take off his jacket, and he dared to say, "No." The shocks are as much for "non-compliance" as they are for anything else.

Since 1971, dedicated advocates including titans like Nancy Weiss, Fredda Brown, and Polyxane S. Cobb have fought to close the JRC and end their abusive practices. Survivors like Jennifer Msumba and Ian Cook testified in front of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Disability rights organizations across the country have repeatedly condemned the JRC, along with the current and immediately former U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture. But legislation has never made it through the Massachusetts State House. Congress has never passed any measure that would ban aversives and dangerous restraints and seclusion. The U.S. Department of Justice civil rights investigation has produced no fruitful results. The FDA has never issued a decision after hosting a public hearing about the possibility of banning electric shock aversives.

And Massachusetts' regulatory agencies (Department of Developmental Services -- formerly Department of Mental Retardation, Office of Children and Families, etc.) have been almost totally unable to do anything about the JRC because of the Massachusetts courts.

(This explanation continues below the pictures.)

Further reading:

• Jennifer Msumba, a black autistic woman who survived seven years at the JRC, blogs about her experiences.
• Video of my testimony before the Massachusetts legislature about bill that would ban electric shock aversives.
• Opinion piece I wrote in the Washington Post about the JRC's shock "treatment."

Photo [top]: Judge Rotenberg Center employee Joe Andrade adjusting the strap with shock electrodes on  Andrew Goldberg's ankle. (Andrew Goldberg was named as a resident with developmental disabilities in the Concord Monitor.) Photo by Charles Krupa, 2014.

Photo [bottom]: A Judge Rotenberg Center employee supervising a young student, who looks afraid, at a computer station. The employee's belt has at least four GED remote control activators hanging from it, each with a student's picture. Photo by Larry Sultan, 2007. 

Legal Context

In 1986, the Massachusetts Office of Children and Families tried to yank BRI's license to operate while issuing emergency orders essentially telling BRI to get its act together. In response, BRI sued the state government, accusing it of acting in bad faith and abusing its power to regulate by targeting just this one institution, and thereby violating the "rights" of students and parents for them to receive "treatment" at the BRI.

The case settled with a consent decree in 1987, which means that the court where the lawsuit was filed (Bristol County Probate and Family Court, as mentioned above) still has control of the case (as opposed to it being considered totally closed at the base court level). The consent decree was supposed to last for one year. It allowed BRI to keep operating as usual, but with one change -- if BRI wanted to subject anyone to invasive aversive treatments, it had to go to court and ask a judge to allow them to add the aversive treatments to the person's individual treatment plan. These special hearings are called "substituted judgment" proceedings, where the judge makes a decision about treatment based on what they think a disabled person would decide if they were "competent." (It's an incredibly ableist legal construct, but that's a topic for a whole other post.) In theory, those substituted judgment proceedings are supposed to be adversarial, meaning that the outcome could go either way -- maybe shock is added to the treatment plan, maybe not. In reality, since the institution of the consent decree, the judges in Bristol County Probate and Family Court have basically rubber stamped every BRI/JRC request to add electric shock to someone's treatment plan.

The consent decree was indefinitely extended, instead of ending in one year, and is still in force.

(BRI changed its name to Judge Rotenberg Center to honor the judge who oversaw the consent decree, once he died and it no longer looked totally weird to name the place after him.)

In the mid-1990's, the Department of Mental Retardation (now Department of Developmental Services) denied JRC's request for certification to use certain aversives, including the electric shock. So JRC went to court, and DMR was held in contempt. The commissioner was forced to resign. DMR was placed into "receivership," with an outside person appointed by the court to take over everything DMR did involving the JRC -- for ten years (1996 - 2006).

On 14 February 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General's office filed a motion to vacate the 1987 consent decree -- if granted, the motion means that everything in the consent decree now becomes null and void, and the Bristol County Probate and Family Court will no longer have control of the case. The court also has the option of allowing the motion in part, but not in whole. Overall, this means that there is decent possibility that JRC could lose the protection it has enjoyed for almost three decades from the courts.

The hearing scheduled to begin on October 26 is an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The state attorneys will present evidence in support of their motion to vacate, probably by arguing that the consent decree is irrelevant both a) in regard to how the state's agencies regulate JRC, and b) what treatments are considered acceptable for people with intellectual, developmental, and psych disabilities. JRC's attorneys will of course argue the opposite. (Ugh, them.)

So if you live anywhere near Taunton or can get there, consider going to the hearing!

The End of Torture at the Judge Rotenberg Center?

Breaking News! 

On Thursday 14 February 2013 (Valentine's Day!), Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick filed a motion to vacate (render null) the 1987 settlement agreement that has permitted the Judge Rotenberg Center to use aversives, including the notorious electric shock GED devices. This could mean the end of aversives at the JRC.

Read the press release from Senator Brian A. Joyce here!
From the press release:

“The governor has always been an ally when it comes to protecting these severely disabled children from the JRC’s barbaric practices,” said Joyce. “This comes on the heels of the FDA’s meeting with the JRC over their use of GED shock devices that have not even been approved for use but are strapped to disabled children right now administering painful skin shocks for simple misbehaviors. It is time for this order to be vacated and to close this dark chapter in how we allow disabled people to be treated in our state.”

In 1987, a settlement was reached between the JRC and the Commonwealth allowing the continued use of aversives. The court order was supposed to be vacated in 1988, but was extended indefinitely because the JRC was not yet licensed a year after the order’s issuance. At the time, the GED skin shock devices were not yet in use and aversive therapy consisted of water sprays, taste aversives, muscle squeezes, spanks, pinches and restrained time outs. The JRC continually defends its actions based on this court order, and claims that it denies the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) the right to regulate or prohibit the use of the painful skin shocks and other aversives.

Because the JRC has been defending its practices based on the 1987 settlement, the vacatur of that court order might mean that the JRC no longer has access to that defense, which could result in a permanent end to the use of aversives as "therapy." 

You can also read the actual court documents here --

• The motion (PDF)
• The memo in support of the motion (PDF)

These PDF files should be text-accessible; if not, let me know in the comments and I can rectify that.

What they do to us is intolerable!

TASH New England's Better Supports, Better Lifestyles in Today’s Challenging World Conference on Friday 11 May 2012 at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. From left to right: Emily Titon, Gregory Miller, and me.

The Friday morning session was called "What They Do to Us is Intolerable! A Discussion About Restraints, Seclusion Time Outs, and Aversives," and it was organized by Emily Titon, an amazing Autistic woman who in addition to serving on the boards of TASH national and TASH New England and the Rhode Island Advocates in Action, has also co-founded the Rhode Island chapter of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

(I was informed that I was co-presenting that this session after Emily had already told the conference organizer.)

I hadn't expected to be discussing the history of the Judge Rotenberg Center and its use of electric shock, food deprivation, prolonged restraint, and fear as forms of "treatment" while standing less than six feet away from the former JRC employee who has written a 250,000+ signature strong petition demanding an end to the electric shock "treatment." Gregory Miller is a man with the courage to speak against egregious violations of human rights even in the face of a lawsuit brought against him by the JRC's powerful army of lawyers and backed by the JRC's money.

At $250,000 each year per student, the JRC's revenue allows the institution to fund lobbyists, lawyers, parents, and staff to flood public legislative and regulatory hearings with brainwashed testimony built on a castle of lies and half-truths. That same fat pocketbook also gives the JRC the musclepower to effectively silence any would-be whistleblowers and prevent the truth about their methods from reaching the public.

But the walls protecting the JRC are slowly crumbling. While Massachusetts has repeatedly failed to pass legislation banning the use of electric shocks, we've begun to take small steps forward -- toward the ultimate and permanent closure of the institution.

New York, the state that provides the vast majority of the JRC's residents, passed legislation banning the use of electric shock on any residents from New York, though people from New York still comprise the majority of the JRC's students.

Matthew Israel, the JRC's founder, was forced to resign last year in a plea bargain after he faced perjury charges and charges of intentionally destroying evidence in a 2007 incident that resulted in the repeated shocking of two students who hadn't even engaged in dangerous or self-injurious behavior.

The Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services enacted into law regulations that ban the use of aversives, including electric shock, on any students admitted after September 2011, though the regulations do allow for the use of electric shock where it was included in court-approved behavior plans created before September 2011.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture decried the JRC's practices as torture after receiving a report from Disability Rights International.

The U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights division opened an investigation into the JRC in December 2010, though the investigation has produced little tangible.

And the Massachusetts Senate has repeatedly passed a ban on aversives, although this ban has never passed through the Massachusetts House.

Let's also not forget that first California, and then Rhode Island, prohibited the use of aversive interventions favored by Matthew Israel, in whose care at least six students have died as a direct or indirect result of the aversive intervention program, resulting in the JRC's final relocation to Massachusetts where the facility still stands today.

Last month, in a civil trial against the Judge Rotenberg Center, a judge unsealed graphic video footage of then-eighteen Andre McCollins receiving thirty-one electric shocks after refusing to remove his jacket. Footage of that video has received hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube.

Shortly afterward, Greg Miller, the former JRC employee who joined Emily and I at the TASH New England conference a week ago, wrote a petition demanding the end of electric shock aversives, which has received over 250,000 signatures to date. The JRC has decided to sue him in an attempt to silence him. They've accused him of defamation and making false statements, as well as being a disgruntled employee who was fired, when in fact, Greg resigned and has documentation of his resignation. Greg has made several media appearances in the last two weeks in the hopes of galvanizing the public further to action against the JRC.

Today, Massachusetts State Senator Brian Joyce, who actually represents the district where the JRC is located, filed two anti-aversives amendments to the budget that will be debated starting this coming Wednesday. The first of the amendments would solidify the DDS regulations promulgated last year by codifying them and giving further protection against potential suit. The second amendment is a complete ban on aversives, which the Senate has previously passed on multiple occasions. Massachusetts residents have until Wednesday or so to urge their State Senators to co-sponsor or support the anti-aversives amendments before they go to the floor for debate.

Also in this past week or so is the announcement of legislation jointly filed by New York Senator Martin Golden and Assemblywoman Joan Millman (S6294A-2011 and A9084A-2011) that would cut all state or public funding to any school, institution, or program that uses any form of aversives. Electric shock is specifically named because the legislation is in fact targeted at the JRC. As the majority of the JRC's residents are from New York, passing those bills could permanently damage the JRC's primary source of revenue, and possibly lead to the institution's closure because of inability to support itself financially.

In the wake of Andre's trial against the JRC and Greg's petition, several disability rights activists and community stakeholders have formed the group Occupy JRC, and are planning a 2 June 2012 rally in Canton near the JRC itself, at which Greg Miller will be one of the speakers along with disability rights advocates Senator Brian Joyce, Kat Whitehead (Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth), Dan Fisher (National Empowerment Center), Ari Ne'eman (Autistic Self Advocacy Network), Laurie Ahern (Disability Rights International), Daniel Hazen (Voices of the Heart), and Joseph Sitinbull (Helping Others to Promote Equality).

Yet while cautiously hopeful that the JRC is in fact under threat of imminent closure due to the increased publicity around its use of torture, and mounting campaigns from both government and grassroots opposition to its practices, it is imperative to remember that thousands of people with disabilities continue to languish in institutional facilities and nursing homes across the nation where abuse and neglect come in many forms.

Cuts to funding for public service providers have resulted in unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to full integration and meaningful community inclusion, meaningless day-habilitation programs, denial of necessary medical attention, and deplorable conditions inside institutions and group homes. Schools routinely subject students with disabilities to all forms of restraint and seclusion as mechanisms for "dealing with" students whose behaviors and learning styles diverge too much from the norm to be acceptable.

Our society has built a culture of complete lack of empathy for those who diverge from norms or typicalities, with the bricks of dehumanization and othering laying the foundation for a world in which these types of abuse are perpetuated.

End the torture. Make this go viral.

Trigger Warning:
Torture and abuse on video.

--

For decades, the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts has been torturing and abusing people with disabilities in the name of treatment. Residents are subject to electric shocks, food deprivation, prolonged restraint and seclusion, and forced witness of these same tactics used against other residents.

This video of Andre McCollins, then-eighteen, who has behavioral and mental health issues, has been sealed by the courts for the last eight years. Yesterday, it played in open court during his trial against the Judge Rotenberg Center.

Make this go viral.

Download the video to your hard drives; upload it elsewhere; share the links.

The public must see what the Judge Rotenberg Center is doing. Their experts claimed that the public would not understand the content of this video without "proper context." There is no context that justifies the use of torture against anybody ever. The public has not merely a right but a responsibility to watch this video and share it everywhere.



The majority of the Judge Rotenberg Center's residents come from New York, which has banned the use of electric shock on its residents. Massachusetts passed regulations last year that prevent the use of the electric shocks on any new admitted resident. But the Judge Rotenberg Center has survived decades of attempted legislative efforts to ban the shocks completely, and it is still fighting every small step taken to end its practices of torture and abuse.

This is not electrostatic therapy that has been scientifically proven to help with symptoms of depression, bipolar disorder, and related disorders.

This is not a "treatment" with any long term efficacy. Some of the residents at the JRC have been there for over ten years, and they still have the same behavioral problems as when they entered.

This is not "the only treatment that works." The JRC likes to make this claim, and it is wrong. There are programs at other institutions across the country that serve the same population with the same challenging behaviors -- self-injurious and destructive -- that do not use torture and abuse and that do have proven long-term efficacy in reducing and eliminating dangerous behavior.

This is torture and abuse.

Public outcry is often the impetus for change. If millions of people demand the closure of the JRC, can their millions of dollars in lawyers and lobbyists stand up to public outrage?

Make this go viral.

Level III Aversives and the Judge Rotenberg Center

Today, I testified at the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services statutorily mandated hearing on proposed amendments to regulations regarding minimum standards for the treatment of people with developmental disabilities, including intellectual/cognitive disabilities. The marathon hearing was held at the McCormack Building in downtown Boston, beside the State House, and went all the way from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon. Commissioner Elin Howe of the DDS presided over the hearing, and seemed to be very pleased to see me; Commissioner Howe is one of the members of the Autism Commission, and I have attended almost all of their meetings. (I believe she has also attended some of the Adult Services Subcommittee meetings.)

When I arrived, there were already over twenty people present, if not much closer to thirty, and the numbers grew by the minute, with more and more people crowding into the room I usually associate with the Autism Commission meetings. Outside the conference room, Commissioner Howe greeted me and asked me whether I intended to testify. "I've been thinking about it all week, but I haven't prepared anything," I said.

"That's fine," said Commissioner Howe, directing me to a table between the two entrances to the room, "but you can sign in over there, and you can always change your mind later."

"Okay, thanks," I said, and headed to the table, where I gave the ladies my name. I noticed that there were already several names listed on the sheets, although I didn't know at the time that out of the well over eighty people who attended, maybe around forty, perhaps a bit closer to fifty, would give oral testimony.

After signing in on the sheet, I went inside and took a seat to the right side of the room, between one of the CART accessible communication providers and one of the sign language interpreters. I sat quietly, eating my croissant from the Dunkin Donuts near the State House, careful not to let crumbs all over my suit or the floor.

When Commissioner Howe gave her opening remarks, she introduced the purpose of the hearing and described the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would ban the use of Level III aversives, which include pinching, hitting, deprivation of food, and electric shocks. (Nevertheless, it does not prohibit the use of these aversive interventions for students who will have had an existing court-approved intervention plan including Level III aversives by 1 September 2011.) This was the second of two hearings. (The first was on Wednesday, and had been held in Worcester.)

Immediately following her remarks, she announced that attendees who had indicated they wished to testify would be called in order listed on the sign-in sheets. The first person to give testimony was Henry Clark, a lawyer representing the parents association of the Judge Rotenberg Center, a residential and day institution for the developmentally disabled and behaviorally challenged in Canton, Massachusetts. The JRC, in fact, is at the heart of the matter. The JRC has been open since at least 1977, where it was originally called the Behavior Research Institute until a 1986 ruling by a Judge Rotenberg allowing the use of electrical shock as a therapy. Afterward, it was renamed in honor of this judge.

For well over twenty years, individual legislators in the Massachusetts Legislature have tried to pass bills to completely ban aversive shock therapy; however, each time, they are met with the millions of dollars the JRC has in lawyers and lobbying power, and, the sweeping majority of legislators knowing little about psychology or developmentally disabled people, the affected "expertise" of the employees and staff of the JRC. Intimidated by the endless train of JRC staff and the parents of JRC students, the legislature has repeatedly failed to pass these bills. More recently, the JRC has gained a powerful ally in Representative Jeffrey Sánchez, whose nephew is an Autistic young man in his twenties with severe maladaptive behavioral challenges as well as severe spatial agrosia (inability to recognize his own body's location in space and its proximity to other objects and people.) Sánchez is an ardent, absolute supporter of the JRC who refuses to hear anyone who even partially deviates from his opinion that nothing should be done to restrict or regulate further the use of aversives.

Starting with Senator Brian Joyce's bills filed in the 2009-2010 legislative session that would compromise on the issue of aversives (establishing stricter external oversight and regulations of the use of the type of aversive shock therapy that the JRC uses, as well as its alleged deprivation of food [up to three-quarters of daily nutrition] and forcing inmates to engage in the behaviors for which they are then punished), it seemed that such a compromise might actually make progress in the legislature. It did in fact progress beyond any previous proposed ban before dying in the House Ways and Means Committee, arguably the most powerful of any of the legislative committees. (Any bill requiring appropriation of funds must be reported favorably by House Ways and Means.)

Senator Joyce's bills were re-filed in the current (2011-2012) legislative session as Senate Bills 49, 50, and 51, along with Senator Tom Sannicandro's proposed complete ban on these types of aversives as House Bill 77. These bills are scheduled for a hearing at the State House on this coming Tuesday, and based on the propagandizing evident at today's regulatory hearing, the JRC will appear in full force, shepherding dozens of staff members before the Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities to do what they've always been successful in doing -- intimidate the legislature into complying with their agenda. Again.

Mr. Clark's testimony would mirror the testimony of the close to thirty-something (if not more) JRC administrators and other employees who appeared today, and the two or three parents of JRC inmates. He and his cohorts (some of whom rather amusingly read prepared remarks referencing the four pieces of proposed legislation, which were not the topic of today's hearing [two entirely different parts of government]) made several arguments, all of which can be refuted by facts and evidence:

Firstly, the JRC supporters argued that level III aversives, such as their GED skin-shock device, can be "a life-saving intervention" in the cases of individuals with maladaptive behavioral problems like severe head-banging, skin-picking, hitting or punching themselves, biting others, spitting at others, or attacking others. Perhaps in a true emergency, when used solely as a temporary measure, in the most severe cases of self-injurious or destructive behavior that threatens imminent, life-threatening harm to self or others, such aversives like electric shocks may have some level of efficacy. If so, why should these people be opposed to allowing such interventions, under the strictest possible supervision and regulation?

The Department of Developmental Services is statutorily charged with upholding professional standards and establishing policies to protect some of the most vulnerable, at-risk people in the Commonwealth -- people with intellectual/cognitive or developmental disabilities. In that capacity, it must protect the rights of disabled people, including the rights against inhumane, cruel, or abusive treatment, and the right to as much self-direction in any intervention or support planning as is possible. If the DDS is also supposed to ensure that its population is receiving appropriate and necessary services and supports, it has a moral and legal responsibility to ensure the wellbeing and dignity of these people is protected as well as a responsibility to create regulations applicable both to state agencies and private providers, like the JRC, to this end. The purpose of doing that is to promote improving the quality of life for disabled people -- by including them inasmuch as possible in the process, and by preventing potential opportunities for exploitation, abuse, neglect, or well-intentioned harm.

The proposed regulations by the DDS allow individuals who currently receive court-approved level III aversives to continue to receive that treatment. In that respect, the JRC will not be prevented from applying the GED to the inmates whom are already subjected to it. It does, however, prospectively ban any future approval of level III aversives. You would think that this would allow the JRC to provide for alternative means of behavioral intervention and support and to seek alternative remedies; however, the JRC's cronies make another fallacious argument in response to this speculation.

The JRC's second wrong argument is that because positive behavioral interventions failed with these individuals, the only possibly effective alternative to level III aversives is heavy dosages of psychotropic medications that will result in disabled individuals being in "a catatonic state," as one of its staff members described in oral testimony today. This is not true. Despite the JRC's efforts to paint opponents of level III aversives as promoters of overmedication, many people who ardently -- and rightfully -- oppose the use of these kinds of aversives do not support the arbitrary and ineffective prescription of psychiatric medications to any or all developmentally or intellectually/cognitively disabled people. For some people, medications may be effective in the long-term and in the short-term; for others, such medications may be effective and necessary as a temporary short-term measure; and for still others, these medications may be unnecessary and should be not prescribed.

There are other institutions that care for individuals with the most severe, self-injurious or destructive behaviors without using chemical restraints or shock aversive therapy, and whose residents have good outcomes. The JRC does not provide transitional planning for its inmates to prepare for leaving the JRC and returning to the community. Instead, it advocates that its inmates belong at the JRC and must be given shock aversive therapy for the rest of their lives. There is a silent threat that if the JRC is ever forced to close its doors, its inmates will be returned to their parents' doorsteps without any behavioral supports and without other options.

This is entirely unfounded and untrue.

We know that aversives, consistent with the theory of Pavlovian conditioning, address only the actual maladaptive behaviors. They do not address the root causes of why these individuals engage in these harmful behaviors. Take a weed, for instance. If you pull a weed's leaves, the roots remain. The weed may appear to be gone for awhile, but check back in a few days or weeks, and voila! It's back. If you don't take the time to search for the roots and remove them, you will not kill the weed. Likewise, if you do not address the causes of maladaptive behavior -- sensory overload, inability to communicate, etcetera. -- you do not address the real problem. It's the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Aversives cannot do that. Aversives cannot remove offending sensory stimuli, and aversives cannot provide people with a means of expressive communication, be that verbalizing speech or otherwise. All aversives can do is induce fear and pain in a person who may or may not be able to communicate that terror.

We also know from psychology that an aversive, once removed, will cease to have its effect. Given sufficient time, the mental association of the aversive with the undesirable behavior will fade, and the frequency of the undesirable behavior will actually return. This alone should be enough to refute the arguments in favor of the efficacy of aversive therapy. As a long term measure, it has no effect and remains a band-aid over a bullet wound at best. At best.

Thirdly, Mr. Clark argued that were the DDS to implement these new amendments to its regulations regarding aversives, the DDS would deprive the families of disabled people of their civil rights. Yes, that's right. Clark said "civil rights." Excuse me, but are we back in the 1950s again, or perhaps earlier, the 1880s, where disabled people only exist as extensions of their families, and where their parents or siblings alone have the right to speak for them, putting words in their mouths about their wants and needs? Oh that's right. As another JRC employee testified today, "Adopting these regulations would be a step backward into the Dark Ages." Wrong again. If the DDS does not implement these regulations, it will be a civil rights violation. It will be a violation of the civil rights of every disabled person in Massachusetts.

According to Clark, whenever the JRC or an individual's parents wish to include level III aversives in a behavioral intervention plan, an adversarial hearing is held in which a judge makes the determination whether or not to permit level III aversives. Aside from the obvious accusations of ties between the court that makes those decisions and the JRC itself, Clark argues that the civil rights violation would be violating the rights of the parents to decide for their children. Actually, our courts have upheld the rights of parents to make decisions for their children without state intervention except when there is a compelling interest on the part of the State to act in the interest of the child's benefit, such as in cases of abuse. More recently, in 2009, Minnesota Judge John Rodenberg (whose name, ironically, is etymologically related to that of Judge Rotenberg for whom the JRC is named) ruled that thirteen year old Daniel Hauser's parents could not choose to deny their son necessary chemotherapy in favor of alternative treatments; Daniel was provided with child protective services.

Whenever a child's rights are in danger, and in particular, whenever a disabled child's rights are in danger (or a disabled adult's rights!), our government does have a moral and legal obligation to prevent the infringement of that individual's rights. All people have certain rights, including the right to be free from fear of inhumane or cruel treatment. You would think that our most vulnerable citizens would be protected by the government, if anyone. But instead, what has happened over the last few decades is an appalling example of bowing obsequiously to the special interests of the JRC (and the JRC alone -- as it is the only institution in the entire country that uses electric shock aversives.) If the government does not intervene to protect these essential rights, they allow for the rights of any disabled person to be trumped by the agendas of others. Disabled people have civil rights too, and those rights must be not merely recognized and paid lip service, but must also be upheld and protected.

I made these points during my brief testimony, emphasizing the egregious civil rights violations against disabled people by the continued use of shock aversives and other level III aversives, in direct contradiction (or perhaps subversion of) to Clark's argument.

That was around eleven in the morning. I was one of the first ten people to give testimony.

By the time two in the afternoon rolled around, the vast majority of people giving testimony were staff from the JRC. I couldn't help but wonder at one point who was watching the JRC's inmates if their entire staff were at this hearing. I was told by another attendee that Wednesday's hearing had consisted of three-fourths of JRC staff testifying. It seemed like a similar ratio today, maybe a little closer to two-thirds than three-fourths. A few self-advocates spoke, as did a few parents of disabled children who have had such self-injurious and destructive behaviors, but who sought alternative interventions to aversives that were ultimately successful. Stephen Schwartz, a lawyer representing some parents and former inmates of the JRC, also gave testimony in support of the proposed amendments to the regulations. He noted later that he had, early in his career, mistakenly recommended that a young man be sent to the JRC and receive shock aversives; however, Mr. Schwartz also shared that one parent whom he represents wanted the child removed from the JRC, and the JRC sought an injunction preventing the parent from doing so. So much for the civil rights of parents in making decisions, Mr. Clark.

One of the clinicians for the JRC almost broke down during her testimony. "We are called monsters," she said, speaking of herself and other JRC clinicians. "We go places and there are people screaming at us, swearing at us. They throw things at us. We go to conferences and we are called monsters." Well, however wrong it is for JRC opponents to scream and swear at the JRC's staff (and it certainly is wrong for anyone to do that to anyone else, no matter what they believe or do), if you are willing, under the guise of doing good, and when there is scientific and empirical evidence that supports the use of non-painful interventions to reduce and eliminate self-injurious and destructive behaviors, to subject disabled people to ELECTRICAL SHOCKS, you are a monster.