ABA problems? [Archive] - Autismtalk.net

CeleRate

07-15-2004, 08:53 PM

[QUOTE=Lucas]And while you're at it, explain why ethical issues with behavioural interventions are ignored so much that an outsider has to raise them.[QUOTE]

Well, as you know, Lucas, I have addressed these allegations elsewhere, and honestly, I cannot understand how they have come about. There are extensive systems that have been developed to ensure the ethical treatment of all individuals. Since they are a matter of public record and can be easily found (even on the internet), I do not understand how you can deny that they exist. Again, here is a sample from the many pages of ethical standards that have been codified. You're welcome to look at the rest of them at bacb.com. If you believe that they are lacking, then what would you suggest as an improvement?

TASK 1-1: Obtain consent within applicable legal and ethical standards
A. There are three elements defining consent: capacity, information, and voluntariness.
1. Capacity requires that the person (including guardians) giving consent has reached the age of majority (usually 18 years) and is competent to make such decisions.
2. Information requires that the person giving consent be informed that he or she has the right to refuse to give consent without penalty, that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without penalty, of the exact nature of the procedure(s) involved, the expected benefits of the procedure(s), the potential risks of the procedure(s), and risks/benefits of alternative approaches.
3. Voluntariness requires that there be no coercion or duress in obtaining consent.
B. When there is no-one from whom consent can be obtained, the following guidelines should be followed:
1. The consumer’s behavior must be judged to present imminent danger to self or others and that, within reasonable certainty, harm will result if services are not provided,
2. There must be a reasonable probability that the proposed behavior analysis services will produce beneficial effects for the consumer without concomitant harmful effects and
3. Procedural safeguards should be in place to protect the rights of consumer and service provider

A couple questions for you, Lucas.

1. If there is a systemic problem, as you seem to imply, which regulatory board or boards is/are addressing it?

2. If there is another model that you feel does a better job, what is it?

KMEL

07-16-2004, 02:02 AM

hi
i'm just wondering if anyone has ever had any problems or negative experiences with an ABA programme.
if so i'd be interested in hearing about them, i can be contacted by e-mail here:
garethnelsonuk@hotmail.com

How Should We Individualize Interventions for Children with Autism?

http://www.uctv.tv/library-health.asp?series=show&seriesID=M.I.N.D_Institute_Summer_Series_on_Neurod evelopmental_Disorders

Ann Mastergeorge and Sally Rogers on concerns around the use of ABA and other therapies for autistic children.

Ann Mastergeorge seems to be dealing with ethical issues in her talk and names the issues "The good, the bad and the ugly"

It's serious.

Lucas

07-16-2004, 05:45 AM

I would like to know how long these guidelines have been in place.

1. I can't seem to walk more than five yards without coming across a case where the guidelines you listed are habitually ignored. Even Lovaas has gone against them. How are they enforced?(not at all by the look of things)

2. There's nothing in the guidelines that I would change, however, they rely on the practitioner to use their own judgement and most practitioners have never talked to a high-functioning adult in their lives. They will judge an Autistic child by NT standards; every behaviour Lovaas observed he thought should be got rid of, everyone else has followed his lead.

From what I hear from parents, practitioners and Autistics that have had to endure it, the wishes of the community are infringing on the rights of the individual. In Canada, three high court cases have ruled that the rights of the child superseded the parents right to make decisions, so they could not argue that they had every right to ABA. Cases in all Canadian courts now state that cannot argue on the rights of the parent; they have to prove that ABA is as claimed 'Medically Neccessary'(don't you think there is an ethical issue with using that term when it is simply not true?).

But away from court they can do whatever they want. All the court can do is prevent state funds going to ABA, the actual advice the court gives doesn't sink in.

Those guidelines are fine, but they don't address the fact that ABA is mostly not used to teach skills- it's used to modify behaviour and make the individual fit in with society.

StrictNon-Confo

07-16-2004, 05:54 AM

I will take a stab at what I suspect Lucas is trying to get to, and that's how things are "defined" and who gets to make those decisions. I'm so glad these points are numbered to make it easier to reference. :P

Point A.1. is a bone of contention for those most directly affected, and the effects may not manifest themselves fully to the "client" (I refer to the guardian/decision makers, which the "patient" generally is NOT! :wave: ) as the authorities/"service providers" cannot truly guarantee that the client has a full comprehension of what's involved and promised in the "Treatment" beforehand and possibly afterhand, because they will never experience it firsthand, and will only get offhand explanations from the "experts" that have their product to sell. The net result is that the victim er...patient will possibly suffer from the incomplete understanding of the one making the decisions, regardless of the best intentions of the decision maker. Anyone stating that a decision maker can make this decision with full comprehension of the ramifications to the patient without having gone through the "treatment" themselves is seriously deluded.

Point A.2. is related to Point A.1. in terms of the "client" not being able to fully comprehend the ramifications without having experienced the "Treatment" themselves; I will remind anyone thinking, "Oh, that doesn't look so horrible!" that it varies from person to person as to what is torture in some cases. The client may not be able to detect that things are going in an undesirable direction until the damage is already done, because not everything shows up immediately. I would also point out that the "service providers" may have them over a barrel, in that the local governmental unit/school system may be forcing them to submit the "patients" to the "Treatment" or they will be in trouble with the system, and possibly have their guardianship removed forcibly. If you think this is madeup, think again! The State of Michigan required that my older sister get "evaluated" or some such crap, at a county institution as a kid, and she came out with absolutely no benefit from it at all, and in fact was damaged as a result of this environment; my parents didn't want to do it, but they didn't really have a choice in the matter. You might say, "take it to court!" but that requires resources many parents simply don't have, regardless of whether or not a lawyer is provided free of charge. You simply can't fight a court case without losing a lot of personal time that you need to earn a living. Thus, only someone who has completed the same "Treatment" and has the same neurology can be truly competent to judge accurately. The "experts" often don't know all the risks/benefits with 100% accuracy, and even if they do, there's always the probability that they won't be revealed, and further they won't always be fully understood by the client.

Point A.3. is addressed above in many cases, where the guardian may not have much actual choice: they are blackmailed by the system.

Point B.1. is also a point of contention, as what constitutes "harm" can be construed to "Oh, they won't maintain proper eye contact, so they obviously won't be able to learn" or "Oh, they'll insult others by not maintaining proper eye contact, or by distracting others by their stims" or some other crap like that. In other words, defining "harm" is a slippery slope in many cases, since a lot of the "treatment" programs aim to remove the nature of the individual, where the nature is something considered unnatural by the rest of the population, when in fact that nature causes no real harm except to the sensibilities of outside observers.

Now, along the lines of "harm" may be behaviors that do cause physical injury to the patient or others in a real tangible sense. This is where it can get murky very quickly, indeed! A "treatment" may end up causing emotional harm to the "patient" by beating it into their heads relentlessly that they are sick and wrong to behave in a self-injurious manner, and to scar them in such a way that they have a very self-injurious (emotionally) result if they ever find themselves engaging in the behavior, causing a major self-esteem issue, without actually bothering to decipher the cause of why they do it, and instead applying a bandaid patch to the wounds (the self-injurious behaviors) instead. I am not stating that it's ok to allow the "patient" to continue behaving in a way that physically harms others at all; find the cause of it, if at all possible, and address that first. In the long run, any behavior that the "patient" does that harms others physically will invariably cause themselves harm.

Point B.2. falls under the description of "patient is their lab rat that the guardian pays them money to use, and the patient pays their soul and life to be used" because it is entirely an experiment, if you parse the semantics carefully: the "experts" don't know with 100% certainty what will be truly beneficial to the patient.

Point B.3. is something that really pisses me off! :wave: I carefully note that the "patient" isn't included in that equation by the wording. Again, it seems the "patient" may have about as much in terms of rights as the lab rat mentioned above. The difference is that this lab rat is a sentient being with feelings and emotions and an intellect with self-awareness (I don't know how self-aware rats are: that's a different topic entirely!) and probably a longer-term memory than anyone would think they'd have: I personally can date a memory back to my first birthday, and it is with full detail. My older sister is also able to remember things that far back, in full detail. She can tell you what you were eating, wearing, etc. from before the age she could clearly communicate with others. I suggest you take this as a friendly bit of advice: consider carefully what you subject your charges with in terms of "treatment" and think of what they will assess it as 20 years later, because it's very likely they will never forget, and also quite likely they will be able to clearly express things at that later date. They also are likely to have a far greater comprehension that they were treated in a different manner from everyone else, and singled out accordingly, and not treated as nicely as those considered "normal" and will be VERY resentful. Time is something often only measured on a calendar for those on the spectrum: what happened 30 years earlier may be as vivid (or moreso!) than what has happened 5 minutes ago.

<SNIP>
TASK 1-1: Obtain consent within applicable legal and ethical standards
A. There are three elements defining consent: capacity, information, and voluntariness.
1. Capacity requires that the person (including guardians) giving consent has reached the age of majority (usually 18 years) and is competent to make such decisions.
2. Information requires that the person giving consent be informed that he or she has the right to refuse to give consent without penalty, that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without penalty, of the exact nature of the procedure(s) involved, the expected benefits of the procedure(s), the potential risks of the procedure(s), and risks/benefits of alternative approaches.
3. Voluntariness requires that there be no coercion or duress in obtaining consent.
B. When there is no-one from whom consent can be obtained, the following guidelines should be followed:
1. The consumer’s behavior must be judged to present imminent danger to self or others and that, within reasonable certainty, harm will result if services are not provided,
2. There must be a reasonable probability that the proposed behavior analysis services will produce beneficial effects for the consumer without concomitant harmful effects and
3. Procedural safeguards should be in place to protect the rights of consumer and service provider

<SNIP>

No electrons were harmed in the making of this post! :D

CeleRate

07-16-2004, 08:12 AM

2. There's nothing in the guidelines that I would change, however, they rely on the practitioner to use their own judgement...

Isn't this the case in most fields? Aren't there medical doctors who commit malpractice and either suffer monetary fines or loss of a license? The same is true in ABA. The "real" practitioners, if they commit egregious acts, will lose their professional status or suffer harsher penalties. This is not the case with many other treatment approaches. In ABA, there are systems in place to guide ethical practice; they aren't ignored. This is what I have been arguing all along. There are groups (we have had this discussion elsewhere) who attempt to frame the issue as a systemic one in which ethics are ignored. I disagree with this contention and have pointed to the codified systems that exist.

CeleRate

07-16-2004, 08:29 AM

From what I hear from parents, practitioners and Autistics that have had to endure it, the wishes of the community are infringing on the rights of the individual.

I'm glad that you mentioned this. This is another area addressed by ABA. Also at bacb.com is the following:

"Weigh the rights of the individual against the needs of the community while aggressively challenging contingencies that directly and unnecessarily restrict the former."

Those guidelines are fine, but they don't address the fact that ABA is mostly not used to teach skills- it's used to modify behaviour and make the individual fit in with society.

Lucas, IBI programs guided by ABA are mostly about teaching. If you only looked at Lovaas' curriculum, you would see that it is mostly about increasing skills. Much of the criticism however has been in the confusion between the curricula and the methodology -- where people have come to believe that one is the other. Here are some other ethical guidelines used in ABA. Again I encourage you and others to visit the site, review the guidelines, and get involved to make improvements:

TASK 1-3: Select targets for change, and intermediate and ultimate outcomes within applicable ethical standards.

A. Outcomes should be selected by each consumer and/or his or her representatives in consultation with others selected by them.

B. Targets for change that primarily benefit the consumer, are functional for the consumer, lead to increased socially valued competencies, and are likely to be maintained should be encouraged.

C. Opportunities to strengthen natural family and community life experiences and relationships should be facilitated and supported. Participation in the fabric of the community should be a prime objective.

D. Children should live within a family.

E. Advocacy and social supports should be established through family and friends.

F. Persons should live, work and recreate where and with whom they choose.

Lucas

07-16-2004, 05:40 PM

I'm having trouble believing that the ethical guidelines in place for IBI is nothing more than token rhetoric when Lovaas has not apoligised for the use of electric shock on Autistics or 'feminine boys that were at risk of developing Homosexuality'. If a lot of these things you list actually happened where Autistics are concerned, I'd be fairly happy with the ethics- but that is not the case; all I see is Lovaas and people like Lovaas doing the same thing to Autistics that was done to feminine boys.

From what I am seeing, there are people in the ABA industry working to have as many ethical considerations removed from the practice as possible(arguing that to apply ethical standards in an area of informed consent is in itself unethical).

Lovaas tortured children and has lost no status and incurred no penalties for it. When I see him prosecuted I'll believe you.

CeleRate

07-16-2004, 08:06 PM

Lucas:

Even if what you said is true, why would you disparage an entire field based on what you allege one individual did? At the least it is unfair to the many fine people working in the field who advocate just as strongly as you do for the rights of people with autism. Also, where was it ever shown that Lovaas "tortured" children? If you don't have evidence that this is true, then isn't that libel?

David Andrews

07-17-2004, 05:56 AM

*Lovaas, O. I., Schaeffer, B., and Simmons, J. Q. (1965). Building
social behavior in autistic children by use of electric shock.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 99-109*

in

*Perspectives in behavior modification with deviant children. Edited
by O. Ivar Lovaas and Bradley D. Bucher. --
Published Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, [1974]*

-------------------

Psychological or physical pain is perhaps as characteristic in human
relationships as is pleasure. The extensive presence of pain in
everyday life may suggest that it is necessary for the establishment
and maintenance of normal human interactions. Despite the
pervasiveness of pain in daily functioning, and its possible necessity
for maintaining some behaviors, psychology and related professions
have shied away from and often condemned, the use of pain for
therapeutic purposes. We agree with Solomon (1964) that such
objections to the use of pain have a moral rather than scientific
basis. Recent research, as reviewed by Solomon, indicated that hte
scientific premises offered by psychologists for the rejection of
punishment are not tenable. Rather, punishment can be a very useful
tool for effecting behavior change.

There are three ways pain can be used therapeutically. first,
it can
be used directly as punishment, i.e., it can be presented contingent
upon certain undesirable behaviors, so as to suppress them. This is
perhaps the
most obvious use of pain. Second, pain can be removed or withheld con-
tingent upon certain behaviors. That is, certain behaviors can be estab-
lished and maintained because they terminate pain, or avoid it altogether.
Escape and avoidance learning exemplify this. The third way in which pain
can be used is the least well known, and perhaps the most intriguing. Any
stimulus which is associated with or discriminative of pain reduction ac-
quires positive reinforcing (rewarding) properties (Bijou and Baer, 1961),
i.e., an organism will work to "obtain" those stimuli which have been
associated with pain reduction. The action of such stimuli is analogous to
that of stimuli whose positive reinforcing properties derive from primary
positive reinforcers....

Apparatus. The research was conducted in a 12 X 12-foot experi-
mental room with an adjoining observation room connected by one-way
minors and sound equipment. The floor of the experimental room was
covered by one-half inch wide metal tapes with adhesive backing (Scotch
Tape). They were laid one-half inch apart so that when the child stepped
on the floor he would be in contact with at least two strips, thereby
closing
the circuit and receiving an electric shock. A six-volt battery was
wired to
the strips of tape via a Harvard Inductorium. The shock was set at a level
at which each of three Es standing barefoot on the floor agreed that
it was
definitely painful and frightening.
...

First Shock Sessions. The two pre-experimental sessions were fol-
lowed by three shock sessions distributed over three consecutive days
during which Ss were trained, in an escape-avoidance paradigm, to
avoid shock by responding to E's verbal command according to the
pre-established criterion. In the escape phase of the training,
consisting of fifty trials, the two Es faced each other, about three
feet apart, with S standing (held, if necessary) between them so that
he faced one of the Es, who would lean forward, stretch his arms out,
and say "come here." At the same time shock was turned on and
remained on until S moved in the direction of this E,

This session was conducted in the same room as the previous control ses-
sions. However, immediately preceding the session Ss received five shock-
escape trials, similar to those of Study 1.
The shock was delivered from a
Lee-Lectronic Trainer
The S wore the eight-ounce receiver (about the
size of a cigarette pack) strapped on his back with a belt. Shock was de-
livered at "medium" level over two electrodes strapped to S's
buttock.<-----

In order to minimize the effects of a particular observer's recording
bias, two observers alternated in recording Ss' behavior. Each observer
recorded at least one shock session. The sessions lasted for six minutes
each. Every five seconds E would face S, hold him by the waist with out-
stretched arms, bow his head toward S, and state "hug me" or "kiss me."
The E would alternate his requests ("hug me," "kiss me") every
minute.<-------
Theobserver recorded (1) embrace (S placing his arms around E's neck),
(2) hug and kiss (S hugging E cheek to cheek or kissing him on the
mouth), (3) active physical withdrawal by S from E when held by the
waist, and (4) E's requests.

...
Procedure for Establishing and Testing "No" as a Secondary Negative
Reinforcer. During the first shock sessions, shock had been delivered con-
tingent upon self-stimulatory and/or tantrum behaviors. Simultaneous with
tlie onset of shock Es would sav "no," thereby pairing the word "no" and
shock. The test for any suppressing power which the word "no" had ac-
quired during these pairings was carried out in the following manner.
Prior to the shock sessions, Ss were trained to press a lever (wired
to a cumulative recorder) for M & M candy on a fixed ratio 20
schedule. The sessions listed for ten minutes daily. A stable rate of
lever-pressing was achieved in the twelfth session, at which Es tested
the word "no" for suppressing effects on the lever-pressing rate. The
E delivered the "no" contingent.

----

(arrows added)

David's comment:

Skinner noted (had the reference but don't know where it is now) the ineffectiveness of punishment as a shaper of behaviour: punishment may reduce the incidence of the behaviour in the presence of the punisher, but cannot guarantee to reduce such behaviours in the absence of the punisher (e.g., Stones, S; 1966, Introduction to Educational Psychology)... Punishment by pain is certainly no better, and could be worse. But note Lovaas' notion agreement with Solomon "... such objections to the use of pain have a moral rather than scientific basis..." - meaning that, if one takes a scientific approach, then it does not matter what distress is cause to the subjects of the experiment? If so, then that is indeed an unethical use of pain, even by the standards of the 1960s.

Maybe, CeleRate, I could come to your work-place to educate you and your colleagues on new practices in autism teaching, and use pain-based punishments to reinforce the behaviours consistent with the desired outcome of my training course.

If you object to that, then you have a problem with the method. If you have a problem with the method, then you can hardly help but agree that it is unethical. Because I would be perfectly within my rights (as a scientist) to use it in teaching you.

My question to you, CeleRate (and this is actually a very serious one) is this: is such behaviour on the part of any experimenter or therapist (a) acceptable to you, and (b) justified by its results?

David Andrews

07-17-2004, 06:03 AM

"Es had expected considerable expression of fear by Ss when they were
shocked. Such fearful behavior was present only in the beginning of
training. On the other hand, once Ss had been trained to avoid shock,
they often smiled and laughed, and gave other signs of happiness or
comfort.
For example, they would "mold" or "cup" to E's body as small infants
do with parents. Such behaviors were unobserved prior to these
experiments.
Perhaps avoidance of pain generated contentment.

In their day-to-day living, extremely regressed schizophrenic children
such as these Ss rarely show signs of fear or anxiety. The staff who
dealt with these children in their usual environments expressed
concern about the children's lack of worry or anxiety . There are
probably several reasons
why children such as these fail to demonstrate anxiety. It is possible
that their social and emotional development has been so curtailed and
limited that they are unaffected by the fear-eliciting situations
acting upon a normal child. For example, they do not appear to be
afraid of intellectual or
social inadequacies, nor are they known to experience nightmares.
Furthermore, by the age of three or four, like normal children, these
children appear less bothered by physiological stimuli, and unlike
the small infant, are rather free of physiological discomforts.
Finally, when these children are brought to treatment, for example in
a residential setting, there is much effort made to make their
existence maximally comfortable.

If it is the case, as most writers on psychological treatment have
stated, that the person's experience of discomfort is a basic
condition for
improvement, then perhaps the failure of severely retarded schizophrenic
children to improve in treatment can be attributed partly to their
failure to fulfill this hypothesized basic condition of anxiety or
fear. This was one of
the considerations which formed the basis for the present studies on
electric shock. It is important to note that the choice of electric
shock was made after several alternatives for the inducement of pain
or fear were tested and found wanting. For example, in the early work
with these children we employed loud noise. Even at noise levels well
above 100 decibels
we found that the children remained unperturbed particularly after the
first two or three presentations."

On this part, I have a doubt as to whether Lovaas was serious: "Perhaps avoidance of pain generated contentment". No.

And what about the noise approach. Perhaps I could use really loud noises (say, from a rape alarm, maybe) in your fact CeleRate - or those of your colleagues - in order to reinforce the desired responses to my teaching. Would you be happy with that?

Or would you feel that, by my use of very highly pain/discomfort-intensive "aversives", I was actually torturing you?

What proof do you need to know whether Lovaas DID or did not torture the children in his studies? Or are you going to rigidly insist on my providing "data" on this one?

Lucas

07-17-2004, 06:22 AM

David Andrews

07-17-2004, 07:08 AM

Lovaas is the model for an ABA practitioner; many that come are following in his foot-steps. I even read comments from one idiot that said "This would be psychologically devastating to normal children, but don't worry; it isn't to Autistics".

Lucas, you are joking, yes? (Sad this is, of course, that I know you're not)

Who said that????
And yes, despite much that is said that attempts to distance Lovaas from what is currently seen as ABA, Lovaas was the model practitioner; I understand that the Wisconsin FEAT people are linked with the UCLA lot in that the WEAP connects them (although I cannot say that I know how... yet!).

Highlights that thing about avoiding guilt for inhumane actions towards someone by reducing them to being sub-human, doesn't it?!

CeleRate

07-17-2004, 10:35 AM

Maybe, CeleRate, I could come to your work-place to educate you and your colleagues on new practices in autism teaching, and use pain-based punishments to reinforce the behaviours consistent with the desired outcome of my training course.

David:

Do you really believe that the practices of 1965 have not changed? Across the disciplines in psychology they were doing things that we now consider unethical and do not do. Don't you remember the Stanley Milgram experiments of social psychology during that era? We should remember that individuals with special needs were routinely institutionalized and treated horribly. Similar cases still exist; but nothing like what it was.

My question to you, CeleRate (and this is actually a very serious one) is this: is such behaviour on the part of any experimenter or therapist (a) acceptable to you, and (b) justified by its results?

David, do you know that in all my years of working with the special needs population that I have never even seen the techniques and devices you mentioned, and that some claim are used routinely; nor have most of my colleagues. Do you know why that is? It's because treatments have evolved. Practices that were once considered appropriate have been replaced by different sets of practices that meet new standards. The ethical guidelines posted at bacb.com are what behavior analysts follow. Take a look and tell me what you would do differently.

CeleRate

07-17-2004, 11:14 AM

Lovaas is the model for an ABA practitioner; many that come are following in his foot-steps.

I would imagine that Lovaas would be flattered by this, but you should know that there are ABA practitioners who have never worked with a child with autism. They are in the medical field, aeronautics, weight loss, smoking cessation, child rearing, organizational behavior management, etc. It would be difficult to imitate Lovaas' work in many of these other areas. Also, there are many practitioners who approach education skills somewhat differently; either with different teaching technologies, or with a different scope and sequence of educational curricula. What is imitated most often are some of the ways to increase learning opportunities for students. Lovaas took the operant model and applied it to a group of individuals who were assumed to be uneducable. He proved that these uneducable students could learn and some of them were highly intelligent. It went a long way in bestowing dignity on a population that up until that point had been dismissed by most of society.

KMEL

07-18-2004, 03:36 AM

Lucas:
... Also, where was it ever shown that Lovaas "tortured" children? If you don't have evidence that this is true, then isn't that libel?

I have posted two times in this thread. I saw one of them here, but now it's gone...

trying again.

Isn't that libel? You asked Lucas.

I say it aint.

What do you say now?

Even if the behaviorists who are helping bowlers to improve their games, dont' know about Lovaas, all of the thousands of teachers and therapists around the world who have any dealings with autistics know about him. He is their patron saint.

He just got some kind of big fat recognition at the ABA convention in Boston this year. I wanted to be there myself, rats.

I was going to shake his hand with one of those hand-shake buzzer gag things.

It is my understanding that he doesn't want the names of these twins to be divulged.

There was that messy follow up study with the Feminine boy project, seems he doesn't want a replay of that.

David Andrews

07-18-2004, 05:43 AM

David, do you know that in all my years of working with the special needs population that I have never even seen the techniques and devices you mentioned, and that some claim are used routinely; nor have most of my colleagues. Do you know why that is? It's because treatments have evolved. Practices that were once considered appropriate have been replaced by different sets of practices that meet new standards. The ethical guidelines posted at bacb.com are what behavior analysts follow. Take a look and tell me what you would do differently.

I saw the points you refer to, and I also saw other people's responses to them. However, in many places, the practice IS informed by that piece of work, and unfortunately I am one of the people to whom some folks direct scathing comments about it. Being a psychologist. And so on. Problems is, they know that Lovaas was a psychologist. So, you know... guilt by association, and all that.

But my point on the Lovaas thing is that in no way was that study an ethical study. And in no way can I consider that Lovaas DIDN'T torture those kids, since electroshock techniques being used to reinforce conformity IS considered torture (apparently the Chinese were using it for years with dissidents in order to reinforce conformity... except that it worked in the presence of the punisher, and when the dissident was not where the punisher was, the effect of it on behaviour went extinct).

And since Lovaas has obviously tortured kids, in the above study as well as possibly in the study that really made him famous (and publically dismissed the "moral" basis of not using pain as a therapeutic tool), the research was flawed, purely on ethical grounds. Not only that, Skinner (as I pointed out) was opposed to the use of punishment, purely on the ground that it doesn't work as an effective method of changing behaviour. So why was Lovaas justifying it? Bad theory too, I would say.

Don't get me wrong. I know that there are some aspects of behaviourism that are very useful indeed, particularly as descriptors of events and their settings, but sometimes the ethical aspect gets left out. The main problem with ABA and autism... well, when my head stops spinning, I'll tell you.

But Michelle's already tried to tell that....

Lucas

07-18-2004, 07:32 AM

He proved that these uneducable students could learn and some of them were highly intelligent. It went a long way in bestowing dignity on a population that up until that point had been dismissed by most of society.

It didn't stop some people being very dismissive of Michelle Dawson and her ability. This whole issue of intelligence has been used as a marketing gimmick for behavioural interventions; Kit Weintrub(I think this was in that message to you, David) liked to bend the truth and put the fact that most Autistics are quite high-functioning solely down to interventions. The truth is that they have always been mostly high-functioning: only 14% can be considered mentally retarded and 84% have fluent speech by the age of nine(Source: University of Michigan in a study on the effectiveness of intervention), this fact has been suppressed for decades and now that it is convenient for the Autism industry to reveal it, they are doing so to 'prove' the effectiveness of their expensive and mostly unneccessary interventions. Autistic-adults have been trying to tell everyone for years about the high level of ability among the Autistic population but it has been drowned out by the likes of CAN, FEAT, ASAT and lots of other acronyms.

People seem to be very selective in what they will hear too: Simon Baron-Cohen was at the front of Autism study until about five years ago when he suggested that there may not be anything wrong with being Autistic. He's still doing the same things at Cambridge, but you don't see a lot of his work these days unless you dig(Autism Societies were how I used to find information, through their links, but it's grown nausiating; what they print now).

All Lovaas has done is shown parents this false image that Autism can be cured by reducing it to no more than a set of behaviours and then removing them. I read small snippets from cases where the parent declares that their child is no longer Autistic on on practically every ABA site I come across. I don't feel dignified.

CeleRate

07-18-2004, 09:19 AM

Isn't that libel? You asked Lucas.

I say it aint.

What do you say now?

If you have evidence that he tortured children, did you report it to the proper authorities?

CeleRate

07-18-2004, 10:30 AM

This whole issue of intelligence has been used as a marketing gimmick for behavioural interventions....

Lucas,

There is another way to look at the issue. People learn to negotiate in a society through a variety of means. Some of the things people are exposed to help them to negotiate in their community and others do not. When people are observed negotiating various societal tasks they are given a label of "intelligence." What has been demonstrated is that there is more than one way to present information to someone with the result of being able to better manage a situation. So, rather than "blame" a person for failing to manage a situation and calling them "unintelligent" and giving up on the person, one could take "responsibility" for the communication failure and present the information differently. If the difference results in the person learning to negotiate better, then it would show that the person was capable of learning and the fault was in the communication. This takes the "blame" off the person who was having difficulty. ABA is a scientific and objective approach to validating that some communications are helpful and others are not. Using the process can lead to more efficient and effective results for the individual receiving the services.

All Lovaas has done is shown parents this false image that Autism can be cured by reducing it to no more than a set of behaviours and then removing them. I read small snippets from cases where the parent declares that their child is no longer Autistic on on practically every ABA site I come across. I don't feel dignified.

I think that what Lovaas, as well as many others, have done, is to demonstrate that some children can learn to negotiate effectively enough that the natural support systems of the society will provide what the person needs to be successful in life. I also think that this goes a long way in bestowing dignity on a person.

Lucas

07-18-2004, 11:51 AM

I'm in Britain, I'm not in a position to do so. Even if I was, the anti-adversives law doesn't work retroactively and Lovaas is free from prosecution, even from those he inflicted this punishment on.

Lovaas is seen as a saint and has vast legal resources(as do many in the anti-Autism lobby), to bring something against him would require the myths about Autism to be dissolved and people like him aren't going to let that happen.

Lovaas has admitted to the effect of torturing children, but because Autistics do not have the same rights as others in society, it doesn't count as torture because those children were Autistic.

Proper authorities? That either means the legal system that refuses to accept Autistics have rights or a behaviourist organisation, it doesn't look too good.

David Andrews

07-18-2004, 02:46 PM

If you have evidence that he tortured children, did you report it to the proper authorities?

Given that the activities were published in a book, edited by Lovaas, why did he not give himself up.

What he did, re: shocks, was torture. The Geneva Convention forbids it.

He was using it.

David Andrews

07-18-2004, 02:56 PM

David,
Don't you remember the Stanley Milgram experiments of social psychology during that era? We should remember that individuals with special needs were routinely institutionalized and treated horribly.

And Milgram has what to do with this, directly? However, the Milgram study did not involve electro-shock treatment; rather it involved the appearance of it. And many if not most the people who participated in that study - even those who carried on past the levels predicted by many psychiatrists and psychologists as part of the study - reported feeling very distressed at having "followed orders" to that degree.

This study, however inadvertantly, shows WHY we have a "moral objection" to the use of pain as a tool for behaviour change: we are not "made" for doing that to each other.... it distresses us as humans to cause that amount of pain to somebody. Because we are human, and we have an idea of suffering. Even autistics, commonly regarded NOT to have any empathic abilities, can relate to that one.

Where was Lovaas' empathy? Because I find nothing in his work that suggests he has had any. I have read the bits of the study I posted here, and I have his "landmark study" on my computer and am reading it slowly (dyslexic). And as yet I have found nothing that shows any empathy for the children he was dealing with. In fact, he has been quoted as saying outright that "autistic children have no right to behave as they do" (best-memory-quote). That demonstrates a total lack of empathy, don't you think?

Where's the path from THAT to dignity?

Lucas

07-18-2004, 02:56 PM

Unfortunately, Autistics don't have POW status.

David Andrews

07-18-2004, 02:59 PM

Unfortunately, Autistics don't have POW status.

No, Lucas, indeed we don't.

Nice governments we have, eh? But since the Geneva Convention specifies electroshock as a form of torture, so... Lucas, you don't have to report to authorites, and so on :P but you are right, the kids were (by definition) tortured.

CeleRate

07-18-2004, 09:33 PM

Abuse is not tolerated. If it was found, then Lovaas would be no more. Now, I still ask, if ABA has ignored ethics, then what are all those guidelines at the source I listed?

What is the better model?

Here's your chance to let us all know what we should be doing differently...

CeleRate

07-18-2004, 09:37 PM

And Milgram has what to do with this, directly?

I indicated what it had to do with this: "Across the disciplines in psychology they were doing things that we now consider unethical and do not do." Are you denying this?

David Andrews

07-18-2004, 11:08 PM

I indicated what it had to do with this: "Across the disciplines in psychology they were doing things that we now consider unethical and do not do." Are you denying this?

Actually, I don't deny that, but are you owning up to that which was done by Lovaas?

Not a huge red herring, but slightly reeked of it; if Lovaas DID actually do what he claimed to have done in the study I quoted from, and if that kind of practice is deemed by the Geneva Convention to be torture, then it was torture. Do you deny that?

I have - I agree - some misgivings (to say the least) about what has happened in psychological history. But if you are execting me to admit that it was wrong for Milgram to conduct that study (or, even, for Zimbardo to do his), am I to be satisfied by not having a similar admittance from you regarding Lovaas' behaviour?

Don't expect me to give you what you refuse steadfastly to give me: an admission that Lovaas was wrong in what HE did, in exchange for my agreement that Milgram was also unethical.

Because if Milgram was unethical in his study, then Lovaas definitely was unethical in his. And I still see no admission from you that this was so.

Lucas

07-19-2004, 07:13 AM

Here's your chance to let us all know what we should be doing differently...

You can start by actually enforcing those guidelines; the way some people carry on, you would think they were optional.

They also only address the issue of consent(and it can hardly be called 'informed consent'), not what actually goes on in discreet trials. Even though adversive like smacks are no longer used, stress positions are. I've read that a child was made to hold their hands above their head for an extended period of time, some Autistic children have under-developed muscles, the pain would be almost immediate.

The problem is that ABA requires the practitioner to have an understanding of the child that most simply can't be bothered to have. The ignorance of many in the IBI lobby still overwhelms me, try reading some of the responses to Misbehaviour of Beaviourists(I think it's Mulick that makes an attempt to cast doubt on the validity of Michelle Dawson's DX by implying that journalism and Autism are incompatible and Lovaas even told her on the phone that she must be a 'spontaneous recovery').

CeleRate

07-19-2004, 08:08 AM

You can start by actually enforcing those guidelines; the way some people carry on, you would think they were optional.

The board does oversee this and some practitioners have had their certification revoked. These are the facts.

They also only address the issue of consent(and it can hardly be called 'informed consent'), not what actually goes on in discreet trials. Even though adversive like smacks are no longer used, stress positions are. I've read that a child was made to hold their hands above their head for an extended period of time,

Many issues beyond consent are addressed. There are pages of guidelines. Please look again. If you do not find them, let me know, I will help you. Also, stress positions or any other specific aversives are not ABA practice. However, people do all sorts of nutsy things, so I wouldn't doubt that someone, somewhere tried doing that. The record should be straight as to what is and is not ABA. Individual practitioners are not ABA. Techniques are not ABA; some are not even informed by ABA practice. ABA is the scientific process.

Lucas

07-19-2004, 12:09 PM

And that forces us onto the dubious nature of this 'science' which excludes itself from the possibility of being proven wrong; 'if it's proven wrong- then it's not behaviourism' is the mantra being chanted.

The board does oversee this and some practitioners have had their certification revoked. These are the facts.

Which you have conveniently glossed over: revoking certification doesn't stop practice and these are token actions to save face, not to enforce accountability. This is shown by the fact that the prevalence of anti-Autism views are widespread among behaviourists. Your arguements are sound-bytes worded carefully to avoid open accusations of Strawman Fallacy whilst Narcissistically depending on it, not open and straightforward debate. This in itself should be treated as an ethical issue.

I'm still reading through the guidelines on that website, I'll give my dissection of it in full later in the week(it's a lot of bull to sift through).

David Andrews

07-19-2004, 03:38 PM

And that forces us onto the dubious nature of this 'science' which excludes itself from the possibility of being proven wrong;

This puts it almost in the same position as psychoanalysis, doesn't it? Given Popper's idea that it is not that which can be proven that makes science, but that which can be falsified.

I mean, I do take on board CeleRate's point that ABA isn't the techniques, it IS the process behind the techniques. But, as with all other methods of inquiry in scientific endeavour, there are advantages and disadvantages to this particular process of inquiry.

David Andrews

07-19-2004, 04:20 PM

revoking certification doesn't stop practice and these are token actions to save face, not to enforce accountability.

And here... more of a process of "CORFing"... (cutting off from reflected failure) and thereby allowing a downward social comparison to be made; not really a good way of controlling quality.

Having said that, because of the way in which groupthink can become set up in organisations (BPS is one in which it was set up on the dyslexia issue), I'm not sure I believe in absolute regulatory powers for such organisations. If someone dares to veer from the official party line (as happened with the Vienna Circle amongst the psychoanalysts), it is likely that advances in thinking about a particular area of science may be stiffled by the rigidity of the attitudes of the regulating body for that science, and then we end up with situations where a person is sanctioned against NOT because of professional misconduct, but because they don't hold the party view on some issue(s), and are either rejected outright by the organisation or put in such an untenable position that their "voluntary" withdrawal takes place. Whatever my feelings on the BACB (and, for that matter, the BPS too), I would hate to see that sort of situation.

I'm like Frank Klein on this: ABA is a useful way of promoting skill acquisition. But my thinking on things where techniques based on it are used (and promoted for use) as a "medically necessary" and "scientifically validated" "treatment for autism" is such that it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

And I can see a difference between Lovaas' thinking on this and CeleRate's thinking. Where CeleRate agreed that "stimming" (if it is useful for the autistic person) should not be pushed into extinction (I'm paraphrasing here), Lovaas explicitly said that "autistic children have absolutely no right to behave like they do", thereby making clear what HIS intentions were regarding what would happen with this population. If CeleRate's philosophy on this is based on the acquisition and maintenance of useful, adaptive skills (and, as yet, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary on this), then, yes, that is how I would like to see ABA promoted, but in the context of a more comprehensive "package" of assistive technologies.

If, however, ABA-based techniques are being "sold" as a "treatment" for autism, and sold as "scientifically validated" and pushed forward as being "medically necessary" (as the FEAT/ASAT axis do with it), then there are numerous studies (not all directly linked to the issue of autism and ABA itself, I admit) which suggest that the selling points mentioned are in fact false statements. And THAT is (as far as I can tell) the issue on which Michelle Dawson has been campaigning.

Behaviouristic/educational "treatment" studies (in the New York State Dept of Health review) had a low compliance rate (regarding how they complied with the criteria for good quality research) - 8%, wheras the drug "treatment" studies had a compliance rate of 12% or so. Drug based treatments seem to have a more certain scientific validation than the behavioural/educational treatments, and yet the FEAT/ASAT axis is saying things blatantly contrary to this. And even the drug based treatments are not entirely "scientifically validated", as many in psychiatry will say.

As for "medically necessary", the study by Rutter (I forget the dates; I am working here without my notes) on the language development of autistic children lead to conclusions directly in conflict with the information put forward by the FEAT/ASAT axis, and the clinical experience of many psychiatrists and psychologists everywhere adds to this conflict in relation to other aspects of social and communicational development. This negates the idea that ABA-based treatment is "medically necessary", demonstrating that statment, too, to be false.

To promote any "treatment" with false/otherwise inappropriate claims IS, by definition, unethical; and the terms "scientifically validated" and "medically necessary" have been used in the promotion of ABA-based therapies, and these claims cannot be reliably shown to be true (and are therefore inappropriate claims about the therapy). I don't really think that the argument is against the BACB as much as the FEAT/ASAT axis who are the ones doing the promotional work; I don't see the BACB endorsing that view (in fact, I have seen BACB certified BCs trying to replicate as closely as possible the Lovaas study, and they have found the claims that Lovaas himself made to be wanting... and said so!).

Hopefully, I have explained reasonably the ethics issue, and some of the scientific issues, involved in the whole "Misbehaviour of Behaviourists" matter; and hopefully (in this piece) I have done it without resorting to fallacious arguments or facetious remarks, and have kept to the matters in hand.

It's how I see the matter, and people can (as is their right) disagree with me... provided that they can provide supporting evidence, as I have tried to do here - but without turning this into an academic thesis (if people want THAT sort of thing from me, they can bloody-well PAY me for it, and register me for a PhD in the subject) :p

(c) David N. Andrews

CeleRate

07-19-2004, 05:08 PM

And that forces us onto the dubious nature of this 'science' which excludes itself from the possibility of being proven wrong; 'if it's proven wrong- then it's not behaviourism' is the mantra being chanted.

What do you mean by "excludes itself from the possibility of being proven wrong"

Which you have conveniently glossed over: revoking certification doesn't stop practice and these are token actions to save face, not to enforce accountability.

I don't get your "glossed over" comment. I also don't understand why you would think that losing one's professional status is something trivial. Furthermore, it would not preclude other penalties.

This is shown by the fact that the prevalence of anti-Autism views are widespread among behaviourists. Your arguements are sound-bytes worded carefully to avoid open accusations of Strawman Fallacy whilst Narcissistically depending on it, not open and straightforward debate. This in itself should be treated as an ethical issue.

I don't know what to say, Lucas. I present you with facts. You respond with opinion and conjecture. Speaking of mantras, you so desperately want to believe that ABA is bad that you and your group repeat over and over "behaviourism is bad" to the point that you disregard all the contrary facts. "Behaviourism is bad" and "Lovaas commits torture" are your soundbites and your platform. It appears to be nothing more than deceptive spin with a political agenda.

I'm still reading through the guidelines on that website, I'll give my dissection of it in full later in the week(it's a lot of bull to sift through).

Lucas, you wrote earlier, "There's nothing in the guidelines that I would change..." now you're reading the guidelines and are going to suggest changes? Which is it?

CeleRate

07-19-2004, 05:15 PM

I mean, I do take on board CeleRate's point that ABA isn't the techniques, it IS the process behind the techniques.

However, the arguments against ABA have been working from the premise that it IS the techniques. It is a false premise from which to start a conversation. It also does not lead to anything constructive. If advocates wish to improve treatments for consumers, then I would think that identifying the techniques that need to be changed, presenting the facts that informed the decision, and making recommendations would be the way to go. Don't you agree?

But, as with all other methods of inquiry in scientific endeavour, there are advantages and disadvantages to this particular process of inquiry.

I agree.

CeleRate

07-19-2004, 05:28 PM

If, however, ABA-based techniques are being "sold" as a "treatment" for autism, and sold as "scientifically validated" and pushed forward as being "medically necessary" (as the FEAT/ASAT axis do with it), then there are numerous studies (not all directly linked to the issue of autism and ABA itself, I admit) which suggest that the selling points mentioned are in fact false statements..

David, I honestly am not following policy issues related to how folks are trying to deliver services. "Medically necessary" sounds like a policy issue to me rather than a philosophical one. I also agree that ABA should not be "sold" as a "treatment." I speak out, as well, when I see this being done.

(in fact, I have seen BACB certified BCs trying to replicate as closely as possible the Lovaas study, and they have found the claims that Lovaas himself made to be wanting... and said so!).

This may not be the whole story, however. I do not believe that enough in the way of staff training and treatment integrity was disclosed.

Hopefully, I have explained reasonably the ethics issue, and some of the scientific issues, involved in the whole "Misbehaviour of Behaviourists" matter; and hopefully (in this piece) I have done it without resorting to fallacious arguments or facetious remarks, and have kept to the matters in hand.

Nicely done, David :santa:

David Andrews

07-19-2004, 05:29 PM

However, the arguments against ABA have been working from the premise that it IS the techniques. It is a false premise from which to start a conversation. It also does not lead to anything constructive. If advocates wish to improve treatments for consumers, then I would think that identifying the techniques that need to be changed, presenting the facts that informed the decision, and making recommendations would be the way to go. Don't you agree?

As I have read it, it's not actually the techniques that are being questioned. It's the issues of "scientifically validated", "medically necessary" and "treatment for autism".... that are being contested in Michelle's article, and I think it's right to question the usages of these terms when the evidence is not that clear.... and this is a good premise from which to start a discussion. Just talking "techniques" is, as you say, a false premise. But that wasn't - as far as I could see - the premise from which Michelle was starting the debate.

But, yes, I agree with you on the issue of techniques and improving them... makes perfect sense to me. It's certainly what I would do in my practice, whatever theory was informing my practice. I dare say that you would do the same, yes?

David Andrews

07-19-2004, 05:32 PM

David, I honestly am not following policy issues related to how folks are trying to deliver services. "Medically necessary" sounds like a policy issue to me rather than a philosophical one. I also agree that ABA should not be "sold" as a "treatment." I speak out, as well, when I see this being done.

Now there we are.... we don't have much of a battle really... (why is there no icon for "phew"?!) ... Yes, that issue is definitely policy, but it does come in as part of the philosophy of the FEAT/ASAT axis, as far as I have read these things... and, being recently divorced and completely lacking a sex life, I have more time to fill with other activities..... such as reading things like that! ;)

I need a life!

Nicely done, David :santa:

Thank, CeleRate--- I do appreciate your comment there. Honestly.

David Andrews

07-19-2004, 05:37 PM

This may not be the whole story, however. I do not believe that enough in the way of staff training and treatment integrity was disclosed.

You mean in the practical work upon which the study was based? I think you could be right. What's needed, as if we didn't know, is the most transparent research we can get.

Unfortunately, if an experiment does not go the way it is anticipated that it will go, the paper gets written and file under "water"....

Wrong sort of transparency, in my view.

And I am not singling behaviourism out here.... other paradigms' researchers have done the same thing.

I have a practical report to finish off at this point, and I need to have a shower before I go on to that work...

Dunno about you, but I feel better on a basis like this than on the other basis. Your thoughts?

CeleRate

07-19-2004, 06:36 PM

Thank, CeleRate--- I do appreciate your comment there. Honestly.

David, as important as these issues are, I think we can both agree, that in the context of all the fighting going on in today's world, we can keep the great ABA/autism debates from becoming WWIII. You are welcome to begin singing versus of "We are the world" or "Kumbaya" :santa:

David Andrews

07-19-2004, 08:09 PM

David, as important as these issues are, I think we can both agree, that in the context of all the fighting going on in today's world, we can keep the great ABA/autism debates from becoming WWIII. You are welcome to begin singing versus of "We are the world" or "Kumbaya" :santa:

Not sure about those particular songs ;)

But I do think it would be better to keep the 3rd World War from happening.... I have just spent a couple of hours with a few bottles of Lapin Kulta beer (the nice ones, not the pish that people get in the usual pubs!) and a book by David Shaffer, and a pen and notepad.... since the divorce I seem to be even more into my study work than anything.

Hey, that's me opening up to you, and I am not used to this.

Walls up, for now.... on account of I have to eat! :P

Meantime, I'll leave you (whether you actually hear it or not) with Billy Connolly!

Lucas

07-20-2004, 07:57 AM

What I said earlier was about the guidelines that you posted(the part where I said they only address the issue of consent was a big clue), what I have said now is about the guidelines on that website(as I said). Sorry it seemed so confusing, but resorting to Ad Hominem Tu Quoquo doesn't make you look good. I decided to investigate the whole document because of a legal-loophole; the behaviourist is bound to responsibility for the client/consumer, but in Autism-ABA and much of the Autism industry the client/consumer isn't the Autistic: it's their parents.

"What do you mean by "excludes itself from the possibility of being proven wrong"

I mean that when ever behaviourists are forced to admit that something is unethical, their defense is that it's not 'proper' behaviourism. Haven't you noticed that you're doing it?

"I don't get your "glossed over" comment. I also don't understand why you would think that losing one's professional status is something trivial. Furthermore, it would not preclude other penalties.
"

This is another Strawman; they don't lose 'professional status' they lose something that wasn't strictly neccessary anyway and just because it doesn't eliminate the possibility of other penalties doesn't mean a thing- what if they don't get any?

" don't know what to say, Lucas. I present you with facts. You respond with opinion and conjecture. Speaking of mantras, you so desperately want to believe that ABA is bad that you and your group repeat over and over "behaviourism is bad" to the point that you disregard all the contrary facts. "Behaviourism is bad" and "Lovaas commits torture" are your soundbites and your platform. It appears to be nothing more than deceptive spin with a political agenda.
"

Tu Quoquo, the difference is that I point out the holes in what you say and you carry on as if they are not there(apparently you think that just because there are guidelines, people follow them and no abuse is commited). This is personal for me, not political; I'm an Autistic person or didn't you remember? There is an ethical issue with ABA being promoted as 'medically neccessary' that will have huge ramifications for me; there are patterns in my family tree of eccentricity and any children I have are more likely than not to be Autistic. To deny a child here in Britain treatment which is termed as 'medically neccessary' constitutes child-abuse and I could have my future children taken away from me for refusing ABA for them. That's not even a hypothetical scenario; that's the law in this country and that's the propaganda of Autism-ABA that I find threatening. Saying that Lovaas commited torture isn't a sound-byte either; because it's actually true and he's admitted to it, you seem keen to avoid the issue though.

All I want to know and all that you have not answered is:

1. How long have those guidelines been in place?

2. How are they enforced pre-emptively(as medical profession guidelines are)?

3. In light of what he has said himself in a book he wrote, is it widely known by behaviour analysts that he tortured children(femine boys and Autistics)?

4. The use of adversives IS ABA practice; this is demonstrated by the fact that a law had to be passed to stop it in California. What has been done by the Autism-ABA lobby to stamp out this culture(because history has shown that laws only do so much)?

5. Do you think Autistic children have 'no right to behave as they do' as Lovaas thinks?

6. Why is Lovaas still so respected by his peers when he has done dispicable things and not apoligised for them?

7. Why is the trend in the Autism-ABA industry towards Autistics as having no value if they remain Autistic(they were very keen to stop Michelle Dawson intervening in the Auton court case, even though she wasn't supporting either side)?

If the trend in my questions and argument isn't clear yet: I have a bit of a pickle mainly with Lovaas. If the ABA lobby was to distance itself from him and cut of his head(figuratively speaking) I would have a much higher opinion of them.

CeleRate

07-20-2004, 08:50 AM

What I said earlier was about the guidelines that you posted(the part where I said they only address the issue of consent was a big clue), what I have said now is about the guidelines on that website(as I said). Sorry it seemed so confusing, but resorting to Ad Hominem Tu Quoquo doesn't make you look good.

Thank you, Lucas. Now everyone is thoroughly confused.

I decided to investigate the whole document because of a legal-loophole; the behaviourist is bound to responsibility for the client/consumer, but in Autism-ABA and much of the Autism industry the client/consumer isn't the Autistic: it's their parents.

...as is the case for any minor. Until one reaches the age of majority (usually 18), one's parents make choices.

I mean that when ever behaviourists are forced to admit that something is unethical, their defense is that it's not 'proper' behaviourism. Haven't you noticed that you're doing it?

NOPE

This is another Strawman; they don't lose 'professional status' they lose something that wasn't strictly neccessary anyway and just because it doesn't eliminate the possibility of other penalties doesn't mean a thing- what if they don't get any?

Obtaining board certification is a professional status that folks in the field want to have. It has been the direction the field has been headed.

Tu Quoquo, the difference is that I point out the holes in what you say and you carry on as if they are not there(apparently you think that just because there are guidelines, people follow them and no abuse is commited).

I do not believe that I said anything so naive. I believe that what I have presented is that the field has not ignored ethics; which was the assertion being advanced.

This is personal for me, not political;

Whatever the persuasion...believing something so strongly doesn't necessarily make it so.

There is an ethical issue with ABA being promoted as 'medically neccessary' that will have huge ramifications for me; there are patterns in my family tree of eccentricity and any children I have are more likely than not to be Autistic. To deny a child here in Britain treatment which is termed as 'medically neccessary' constitutes child-abuse and I could have my future children taken away from me for refusing ABA for them. That's not even a hypothetical scenario; that's the law in this country and that's the propaganda of Autism-ABA that I find threatening.

As I stated before, I have not been following policy issues, so I am not informed enough to comment on them. If you believe that there are adverse effects of such a policy, then I support your right to make them known.

All I want to know and all that you have not answered is:

1. How long have those guidelines been in place?

The national certification process has been in effect for something like 5 or 6 years; so at least that long. The national certification process was based on the process in Florida. Their certification has been in effect since the early 80's, I believe (I'd have to double check).

2. How are they enforced pre-emptively(as medical profession guidelines are)?

I believe that complaints are sent to the board for review.

3. In light of what he has said himself in a book he wrote, is it widely known by behaviour analysts that he tortured children(femine boys and Autistics)?

I don't have any information on this.

4. The use of adversives IS ABA practice; this is demonstrated by the fact that a law had to be passed to stop it in California. What has been done by the Autism-ABA lobby to stamp out this culture(because history has shown that laws only do so much)?

I always get a tickle out of people telling me what my profession involves. Sorry Lucas, but it doesn't even make sense to say that aversives are ABA practice. Tell me, for the doctors learning to perform mammographies through ABA, did a practitioner say, "Find lump," and if the doctor failed, the practioner then said, "I'm sorry doctor, now I have to shock you." Even for people with autism, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that's ever seen what you're talking about. And if it's such a "practice" in the field, why would that be?

5. Do you think Autistic children have 'no right to behave as they do' as Lovaas thinks?

I do not believe that, and I do not know what Lovaas thinks. Do you?

6. Why is Lovaas still so respected by his peers when he has done dispicable things and not apoligised for them?

Maybe the "facts" you present are incomplete.

7. Why is the trend in the Autism-ABA industry towards Autistics as having no value if they remain Autistic...?

This is a false argument. The person is valued; some of the behaviors are not.

If the trend in my questions and argument isn't clear yet: I have a bit of a pickle mainly with Lovaas. If the ABA lobby was to distance itself from him and cut of his head(figuratively speaking) I would have a much higher opinion of them.

I guess I'll have to remove my Lovaas shrine now <sarcasm>

David Andrews

07-20-2004, 12:34 PM

I do not believe that, and I do not know what Lovaas thinks. Do you?

There was something somewhere ... an article in which Lovaas' thinking on the matter of autistic kids was very well expressed. I gave a best-memory quote of it earlier in this thread.

His work does not impress me.

His ideas are problematic for me, I'm afraid. He didn't listen to Skinner that well, and he may well have ignored Bandura. I like Bandura, because he was aware of the socio-cultural aspects of behaviour (although he remained a behaviourist.... he'd be "my kind" of behaviourist!).

David Andrews

07-20-2004, 12:41 PM

7. Why is the trend in the Autism-ABA industry towards Autistics as having no value if they remain Autistic(they were very keen to stop Michelle Dawson intervening in the Auton court case, even though she wasn't supporting either side)?

This may well, as CeleRate has pointed out, a policy decision on the part of the FEAT/ASAT axis. If this is the case, then they are the ones dressing policy up as philosophy. And I think that they would therefore be the ones we should be arguing that point with.

David Andrews

07-20-2004, 12:55 PM

As I stated before, I have not been following policy issues, so I am not informed enough to comment on them. If you believe that there are adverse effects of such a policy, then I support your right to make them known.

I am also concerned that there are adverse effects of such a policy, especially when it gets disguised as a philosophy, as seems to be the case.

But that beef cannot be had with you; like I say, that's for debate with the FEAT/ASAT axis. You can't be expected to answer for that one. Nor should you be.

David Andrews

07-20-2004, 01:37 PM

There is an ethical issue with ABA being promoted as 'medically neccessary' that will have huge ramifications for me; there are patterns in my family tree of eccentricity and any children I have are more likely than not to be Autistic. To deny a child here in Britain treatment which is termed as 'medically neccessary' constitutes child-abuse and I could have my future children taken away from me for refusing ABA for them. That's not even a hypothetical scenario; that's the law in this country and that's the propaganda of Autism-ABA that I find threatening. Saying that Lovaas commited torture isn't a sound-byte either; because it's actually true and he's admitted to it, you seem keen to avoid the issue though.

Bloody hell, Lucas.... when did that happen? Again, that's a policy decision, and to be honest it worries me too.

I already have a child, and if I were in the UK with her, deciding against ABA would be seen as abuse on that basis. For her, ABA has never been an appropriate method of working, and I suspect that - given the details - CeleRate would agree with me on that. Tuula has developed speech in Finnish and in English, and the English came much later, and is not yet at the level of a native speaker of the same age. She does, however, make progress at an encouraging rate. Any way of trying to do something that would be seen as ABA/VB by most people (breaking the task of speaking English down into smaller chunks, and so on, to make it easier and rewarding success) has not worked with her. She decided on her own progress in English and when she would speak it on more than a "one word of English for Daddy" basis.

If you want to piss Pisswit Blair off (as I hope you do!) you could point out to him that:

- autism is not a medical problem, so whatever can be described as a treatment cannot possibly be "medically necessary";

- autism is psychological, in the sense that it is behaviour that (in the diagnostic criteria sense) most likely indicates discomfort (because of the way in which person variables and environment variables impinge upon each other to give rise to that behaviour... one up the bum for Lovaas :p ) defines the syndrome: a point with has not been thoroughly researched but merits investigation;

- I have mentioned elsewhere about the extent to which behavioural and educational "treatments" are "scientifically validated": they are not (but many do show some promise, a point which cannot be overlooked);

- I have also mentioned elsewhere on this forum that drug-based "treatments" are more "scientifically validated" than beh/edu type "treatments": 12% compliance with established criteria for reasonable quality research studies gives a higher rating of "scientific validation" at least in some ways (thereby negating the notion held by the FEAT/ASAT axis that ABA is the only scientifically validated "treatment" for autism);

- only Lovaas' study showed what Lovaas defined as "recovery" of children from autism to that great an extent, and other studies which - for ethical reasons regarding the use of aversives - did not replicate exactly Lovaas' work do not find such extensive results: Mudford, a BCBA, did a near-replication and found (as did Mulick in his near-replication) that the results claimed by Lovaas did not gain empirical support in that study, although he did suggest that ABA might be useful in this population;

- personal viewpoint here: ABA-based techniques can indeed very useful, even in work with autistic people... I studied a lot with the Open University in the UK (60 CATS in Mathematics and 30 CATS in Physics)... and the texts - which are acclaimed throughout the world - are a somewhat more well-developed version of Skinner's programmed learning paradigm... but these techniques are only useful when the child is in a position to be able to make sense of them and what the aims are;

You could even tell Blair to get the f*ck out of office and let somebody do the job who would be better at it, like... ooh, I dunno.... Stalin. Oh, he's dead, isn't he? ;)

Lucas

07-20-2004, 03:27 PM

I get the gist of it- ignore behaviourism as a whole for now and concentrate on the few most evil people in the world at the moment: Lovaas, the FEAT/ASAT axis and Tony Blair.

Celerate,
as is the case for any minor. Until one reaches the age of majority (usually 18), one's parents make choices.

No it is not; for every service I was offered before my DX my opinion on the matter was always sought. Once I had the label my mother became the Autism's victim and she had power of life or death over me and has ruined my life since. In the Autism industry the consumer is the parent, not the Autistic, but the Autistic gets the consequences of what the parent is goated into. This is used as a legal-loophole because practitioners of all fields have a duty to what is termed the client/consumer(which is the parent), not the patient(which is the Autistic).

I believe that complaints are sent to the board for review.

Which raises an ethical issue because parents believe so blindly that what they are doing is right and the Autistics themselves can't complain; they are taught not to.

I don't have any information on this.

Seems to be the token answer, maybe your facts are incomplete.

Maybe the "facts" you present are incomplete.

My word, you're reading my thoughts. I don't suppose you can tell me in what situation the use of electric shock is humane and neccessary?

This is a false argument. The person is valued; some of the behaviors are not.

No it isn't a false arguement, though this may have more to do with FEAT/ASAT than it does with behaviour analysts as a whole, Autism is seperated from the person by definition so they can justify eliminating Autism. There is also not enough attention going into the function of Autistic behaviours and stims in particular.

I guess I'll have to remove my Lovaas shrine now <sarcasm>

You have a tendency towards Appeal to Ridicule. Are you making up for the fact that you have not admitted he tortured Autistics(because maybe there is a humane reason why he took an interest in looking at their terrified faces)?

CeleRate

07-20-2004, 09:28 PM

Once I had the label my mother became the Autism's victim and she had power of life or death over me and has ruined my life since.

Funny...I felt the same way about my mother.

David Andrews

07-20-2004, 10:01 PM

Funny...I felt the same way about my mother.

If you meant that, I'd be interested to know why.

Private message if you wanna tell.

David Andrews

07-20-2004, 11:33 PM

I get the gist of it- ignore behaviourism as a whole for now and concentrate on the few most evil people in the world at the moment: Lovaas, the FEAT/ASAT axis and Tony Blair.

Behaviourism isn't exactly the culprit. Those who misuse it are. Big difference, which I'm sure you realise. Same with psychoanalysis, really....

But about Lovaas, yes; about Blair, yes, and about the FEAT/ASAT axis... damn f*cking right I mean yes!

Just as CeleRate cannot expect me to answer for Milgram and Zimbardo and Burt and Yerkes and Terman and Merrill and.... see what I mean? Well, we can't expect CeleRate to answer for the nasties made by Lovaas and Watson and so on. Neither Lovaas nor Watson ever apologized for their messes, but Skinner virtually recanted. certainly on the ethics of helping people with what we now call learning disabilities.... in 1973!!!!! Lovaas, take heed!

Lucas

07-21-2004, 06:41 AM

I get what you mean, I'll get rid of Blair first; he'll be the easiest to go. I've seen every repeat of Yes, Minister this summer.

David Andrews

07-21-2004, 11:29 AM

I get what you mean, I'll get rid of Blair first; he'll be the easiest to go. I've seen every repeat of Yes, Minister this summer.

Yeh :D

If u do that, I'll make you honorary visiting professor of breakdancing at the university of rockall ;)

Annabelle

08-12-2004, 04:56 AM

Hello all that have done bits on this post...

Quick question I hope, our child N is nearly two and will be diagnosed soon...he is very delayed in all skills. I do not want to change his ASD personality (I love his quirky side to be honest, it makes him so special) but I would like to make him have self-help skills so that he can be independent when he is older. I do not mind if he is not academic, does not speak etc, as long as he can make a meal, wash himself, get on a bus etc etc...

We were thinking a form of therapy may help us teach him some of the motor skills he needs, to have self-help skills. Lucas/Strict - what would you have preferred as a child? How have you learnt what you have today?
Annabelle

Lucas

08-14-2004, 01:31 PM

what would you have preferred as a child? How have you learnt what you have today?

Now, there was one behaviourist(Jim Crawford) on another messageboard that told everyone why ABA works and I realised that this man knew what he was talking about. I couldn't find anything questionable about his ability. He said that ABA works because a child is placed in a rule-based enviroment that doesn't change or deviate. This is the exact enviroment an Autistic needs to learn in and they will do so *implicitly*, this means they will often resist external inteference with their inquisitive nature unless it is not intrusive. So the success of ABA depends entirely on the quality of the practitioner, when I hear a practitioner talking nonsense like "We need to teach Autistics how to 'learn to learn' " I say to myself "they should not be let anywhere near a child".

Quite ironically, I may not have become high-functioning if my mother was a better mother; she was quite neglectful and left me to my own devices. This could explain why some Aspies 'impose' rules and routines on themselves, because no one else did it for them when they were younger; they have an implicit understanding of what makes them comfortable and secure enough to develop, though they can't explain why.

Jim Crawford told us that he grew up in a military family where his father was a staunch diciplinarian, but he obviously didn't exercise a lot of dicipline because his children found him likable enough to be a role-model. His father curbed his mother's 'overly-emotive' behaviour that frightened him, there were clearly no double-standards. Jim's family may not be a model for how all families should be(though very conservative people would disagree), but the underpinning of that family life, a strong rule-based enviroment, is where an Autistic will thrive.

I've said before that I learned most of my basic skills from video games because they can't do anything but follow the rules they were given, same for everything.