Page 5 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

27 Feb 2012, 7:45 am

1.im not that liberal and i can be willing to suport some corporal punishment,but electicuting people is indefensable.
2.when i was young i saw many kids who were so violent bed restraint,medication and body bags were justifiable restraints,but NEVER electricuting people.
3.if this was realy a therapy a way to not just protect people but change people than why is it not used everywhere


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 12:51 pm

aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why can't they just medicate enough to reduce symptoms enough to reduce violent behavior and add positive therapy to that? And I can't help but not be more glad than sad they won't have access to skin shock therapy or any other painful things that don't truly help with the underlying issues.


In the cases of some of these individuals, functional assessments have been done at other facilities, temporary restraints have been used, positive cognitive and behavioral intervention methods have been used, and every drug available has been tried to help them, to no avail.

This type of hopeless scenario is why electro-convulsive therapy is still used in rare cases in hospitals across the US; it is still a last resort method of treatment for severe mental illness when nothing else works. It is a much more severe method than skin-shock therapy, but for some there is simply no other alternative, but suffering and/or death.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is now being used in the place of electro-convulsive therapy, in some cases of intractable depression, and is also being studied for treatment of autism as well.

It is definitely a more positive solution than electro-convulsive therapy. Unfortunately it is not known to help with these severe cases of self-injurious behavior.

A nation wide legal ban on skin-shock therapy would certainly reduce the potential for abuse in the clinical setting, but it would also be the elimination of a controversial therapy that has been shown to prevent self injurious behavior, that can and does lead to permanent disability, and death.

Hopefully, further research will provide another answer for these individuals that display serious self-injurious behaviors, as TMS has provided for cases of intractable depression.

Most insurance companies still won't cover TMS, whereas medicare covers Electro-convulsive therapy.


Well first off they still use ECT for extreme cases of depression with the consent of the patient........so I don't know why your bringing that into this as it does not seem to be related to the topic at hand which is a facility using treatments that can damage the patients. Not using ECT on an extremely depressed person who cannot be helped by therapy, meds or any other therapies and consents to the treatment as a last resort.

Also of course hurting the patient when they do something that harms themselves due to the symptoms of their psychological condition might reduce it because you are basically training a mentally disabled to be afraid to express anything at all. So I am not arguing it wont reduce those behaviors..........My argument is using harmful methods of reducing the behaviors related to their symptoms is wrong and should not be allowed. And I am not changing my mind on that anytime soon.


_________________
We won't go back.


ProfumoAffair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 57

27 Feb 2012, 3:04 pm

aghogday wrote:
ProfumoAffair wrote:
I don't see why Aghogday insists on defending JRC if this is the case by constantly downplaying the numbers or exaggerating the extremeness of autism in reality by appealing to the extremes.


Again, I am not defending the abuses at the JRC, and have presented facts, that are sourced. My concern is for the welfare of the children and adults in the program, and their accessibility to care in the future, if the Center closes down.


[quote=ProfumoAffair]
aghogday wrote:
Only about 80 children in the country, have been determined to have behavioral problems bad enough to warrant this type of therapy. They are not all autistic children or young adults. I think you mentioned restraining them from biting their body parts off. This is obviously the first step anyone would do, if they found their children trying to bite their fingers off, etc. However it is not a permanent solution. The only way better solutions are going to be found is through further research.

Putting them out on the streets, is the worse possible solution. I certainly hope they will find ones better than that for the children and young adults in question.
I am sorry aghogday but I find your analysis to be wrong. Only 80 children or less are present in JRC at any one time. That doesn't mean that this is somehow a nationwide plan that selectively picks the 80 most self-injurous. No, it picks up those who it considers needs treatment, and the total number it would accept would likely be larger that eighty if given the chance.

The fact remains that numbers are completely pointless. The JRC has killed multiple people with its treatment. I know it well. It is a complete disgrace, killing the vulnerable in the name of progress.

There is no point trying to make a dramatic spin on this aghogday. It is unlikely that such children would be somehow thrown on to the streets. This is just plain black-and-white thinking. I don't doubt that they will probably be put in another institute where they can be helped.

Trying to defend this multiple manslaughter on grounds of research just sounds plain selfish Aghogday. Why do you insist on defending the institution via such subtle ways?[/quote]

Your attempt at presenting facts has been little more than spin. Why try and divert from that aghogday? I think the case was settled when Sweetleaf said there was no excuse for your constant attempts to defend the barbaric practice of electroshock therapy and of course the misery it has caused.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

27 Feb 2012, 4:53 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why can't they just medicate enough to reduce symptoms enough to reduce violent behavior and add positive therapy to that? And I can't help but not be more glad than sad they won't have access to skin shock therapy or any other painful things that don't truly help with the underlying issues.


In the cases of some of these individuals, functional assessments have been done at other facilities, temporary restraints have been used, positive cognitive and behavioral intervention methods have been used, and every drug available has been tried to help them, to no avail.

This type of hopeless scenario is why electro-convulsive therapy is still used in rare cases in hospitals across the US; it is still a last resort method of treatment for severe mental illness when nothing else works. It is a much more severe method than skin-shock therapy, but for some there is simply no other alternative, but suffering and/or death.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is now being used in the place of electro-convulsive therapy, in some cases of intractable depression, and is also being studied for treatment of autism as well.

It is definitely a more positive solution than electro-convulsive therapy. Unfortunately it is not known to help with these severe cases of self-injurious behavior.

A nation wide legal ban on skin-shock therapy would certainly reduce the potential for abuse in the clinical setting, but it would also be the elimination of a controversial therapy that has been shown to prevent self injurious behavior, that can and does lead to permanent disability, and death.

Hopefully, further research will provide another answer for these individuals that display serious self-injurious behaviors, as TMS has provided for cases of intractable depression.

Most insurance companies still won't cover TMS, whereas medicare covers Electro-convulsive therapy.


Well first off they still use ECT for extreme cases of depression with the consent of the patient........so I don't know why your bringing that into this as it does not seem to be related to the topic at hand which is a facility using treatments that can damage the patients. Not using ECT on an extremely depressed person who cannot be helped by therapy, meds or any other therapies and consents to the treatment as a last resort.

Also of course hurting the patient when they do something that harms themselves due to the symptoms of their psychological condition might reduce it because you are basically training a mentally disabled to be afraid to express anything at all. So I am not arguing it wont reduce those behaviors..........My argument is using harmful methods of reducing the behaviors related to their symptoms is wrong and should not be allowed. And I am not changing my mind on that anytime soon.


ECT is a type of electro shock therapy that has the potential for much greater harm when used properly than a system like the SIBIS sytem for skin-shock aversive treatment that is currently being used across the country, for head banging in the school systems, where approved.

The type of skin-shock treatment used now at the JREC, that has been evidenced as used in an abusive way, is a different type of system than the SIBIS, just like ECT is a different type of system of using electrical shock for therapy in depression.

My point is, that they have developed a safer alternative for ECT, that can be used on patients that have not responded to therapy for depression.

ECT does not cure any underlying problems associated with Depression anymore than SIBIS cures underlying causes for Severe Self-Injurious behavior that has not been reduced by any known method of treatment other than SIBIS. Both treatments eliminate symptoms through the use of Electrical shock; ECT is a much stronger method of shock.

Taking away SIBIS from these students, as a last resort, with self injurious behaviors, whom are using it as a life savings measure, across the country, would be no different than taking away ECT, from Individuals, as a last resort, with symptoms of severe depression, as a life savings measure, across the country.

My point is, that there is the potential that research may lead to effective alternatives to SIBIS for these children with self injurious behaviors, that have no other options, than this method of last resort treatment, at this point in time.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should believe in any specific form of treatment, I'm just providing the facts, as they exist, in regard to the problem.

However, no effort to provide an effective solution, is not an answer that is going to work for these children and adults, whom are using the current methods as an alternative to permanent disability or death, as a result of self injurious behaviors.

I don't like any of the shock methods, including ECT, but currently no one has a better solution for these individuals, except for TMS; that is why the controversial methods of shock therapy, including ECT and SIBIS, are still being used across the country



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

27 Feb 2012, 5:07 pm

ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf said there was no excuse for your constant attempts to defend the barbaric practice of electroshock therapy and of course the misery it has caused.


Will you please stop misquoting people as stating they said things they did not say, including me. I've already fully addressed your last comment two or three pages ago and I don't care to repeat the quote again. If you want to look at my answer, look at the one I already provided to your question. My opinion on this is clearly stated in my last post.

Sweetleaf asked questions, and I answered them based on available facts that I was able to find from reputable sources. And, I clearly stated several times, that I was not defending the abuses that have been evidenced at the JRC. The medical profession recommends the use of electroshock therapy, and the legal system justifies it, not me. I would like to see a kinder alternative to SIBIS through research, like TMS used in the place of ECT, for these individuals with self injurious behaviors, that currently do not respond to anyother type of treatment.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 5:15 pm

aghogday wrote:
ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf said there was no excuse for your constant attempts to defend the barbaric practice of electroshock therapy and of course the misery it has caused.


Will you please stop misquoting people as stating they said things they did not say, including me. I've already fully addressed your last comment two or three pages ago and I don't care to repeat the quote again. If you want to look at my answer, look at the one I already provided to your question. My opinion on this is clearly stated in my last post.

Sweetleaf asked questions, and I answered them based on available facts that I was able to find from reputable sources. And, I clearly stated several times, that I was not defending the abuses that have been evidenced at the JRC. The medical profession recommends the use of electroshock therapy, and the legal system justifies it, not me. I would like to see a kinder alternative to SIBIS through research, like TMS used in the place of ECT, for these individuals with self injurious behaviors, that currently do not respond to anyother type of treatment.


The fact of the matter is that is just wrong though I've taken psychology 101, 102 and Abnormal Psychology and everything from your reputable sources is completely backwards and contrary to everything I learned. From the assignments, reading, watching documentaries on psychology and two different psychology professors with PHDs in Psychology. So from my understanding and hopefully most peoples the Medical Profession certainly does NOT recommend the use of electric shocks as punishment for self harm behaviors of mentally disabled children.........ECT is currently only approved for cases of severe depression that don't respond to any other treatments with consent of the patient. ECT and shocking a mental disabled kid when they do something self harming are two completely different things.


_________________
We won't go back.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

27 Feb 2012, 6:16 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
1.im not that liberal and i can be willing to suport some corporal punishment,but electicuting people is indefensable.
2.when i was young i saw many kids who were so violent bed restraint,medication and body bags were justifiable restraints,but NEVER electricuting people.
3.if this was realy a therapy a way to not just protect people but change people than why is it not used everywhere


The SIBIS method, used at a point in time at the JRC, before they developed a different system, is still used across the country in school systems to prevent the self-injurious behavior of head banging, by students on a voluntary basis.

I provided evidence for that earlier in the thread. It is used in Michigan as well as other states.

The JRC went to a stronger method of skin-shock, because the pain stimulus provided by the SIBIS skin-shock method was not strong enough to avert the self-injurious behavior.

My point in the discussion, is, that if skin-shock therapy is outlawed across the country it will also outlaw the use of SIBIS in the school system where the students voluntarily use the procedure to control their head banging.

The question is, whether some people agree with the treatment as defensible, on a personal basis, should those students right to the use of a treatment of last resort, that works for them, be taken away, when they have not abused it, on a personal basis?

I don't like ECT either, but it has saved people's lives as a measure of last resort, also.

It was also a therapy that was abused in the past, that is now tightly controlled through the medical and legal systems.

Should those rights be taken away, also, because the therapy has been abused in the past, and some people don't like it?

The same organizations that are pushing to close the JRC down, want to see all skin-shock therapy outlawed across the country, to ensure that the JRC organization, or those like it cannot establish themselves in another state, if the Massachussetts bans skin-shock therapy, in an election.

So, is it fair that those students in Michigan would have their voluntary rights taken away to use SIBIS in the school system, if the organizations are successful in their efforts to completely outlaw skin-shocks nationwide?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 6:29 pm

aghogday wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
1.im not that liberal and i can be willing to suport some corporal punishment,but electicuting people is indefensable.
2.when i was young i saw many kids who were so violent bed restraint,medication and body bags were justifiable restraints,but NEVER electricuting people.
3.if this was realy a therapy a way to not just protect people but change people than why is it not used everywhere


The SIBIS method, used at a point in time at the JRC, before they developed a different system, is still used across the country in school systems to prevent the self-injurious behavior of head banging, by students on a voluntary basis.

I provided evidence for that earlier in the thread. It is used in Michigan as well as other states.

The JRC went to a stronger method of skin-shock, because the pain stimulus provided by the SIBIS skin-shock method was not strong enough to avert the self-injurious behavior.

My point in the discussion, is, that if skin-shock therapy is outlawed across the country it will also outlaw the use of SIBIS in the school system where the students voluntarily use the procedure to control their head banging.

The question is, whether some people agree with the treatment as defensible, on a personal basis, should those students right to the use of a treatment of last resort, that works for them, be taken away, when they have not abused it, on a personal basis?

Under what conditions is their consent obtained? I would argue if a mentally disabled child really wants their therapist to give them a painful shock every time they bang their head they should have that right...I just fail to see how it is theraputic and I fear in many cases the child might not actually understand what it is they are consenting to.

Do they stop the procedure if the child starts experiencing distress or do they keep it going regardless?


I don't like ECT either, but it has saved people's lives as a measure of last resort, also.

It was also a therapy that was abused in the past, that is now tightly controlled through the medical and legal systems.

Should those rights be taken away, also, because the therapy has been abused in the past, and some people don't like it?

The same organizations that are pushing to close the JRC down, want to see all skin-shock therapy outlawed across the country, to ensure that the JRC organization, or those like it cannot establish themselves in another state, if the Massachussetts bans skin-shock therapy, in an election.

So, is it fair that those students in Michigan would have their voluntary rights taken away to use SIBIS in the school system, if the organizations are successful in their efforts to completely outlaw skin-shocks nationwide?



ECT should not even be in this discussion as ECT involves small amount electricity being passed through the brain to stimulate certain areas of the brain to help patients with extreme depression feel better when every other method has failed and the patient consents. Sedation of course is included now days so you don't have to have three mental hospital nurses holding the patient down so they don't break their bones due to convulsions. That is hardly the same thing as giving a shock every time a behavior that they are trying to stop happens. So like I said two totally different things. I never said I had a problem with ECT, I would not want it done to me but that's me not everyone else.

My concern is children being hurt against their will in the name of improvement, which is what based on all the information in this thread is what it seemed like was occuring at JRC.


_________________
We won't go back.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

27 Feb 2012, 8:34 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
aghogday wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
1.im not that liberal and i can be willing to suport some corporal punishment,but electicuting people is indefensable.
2.when i was young i saw many kids who were so violent bed restraint,medication and body bags were justifiable restraints,but NEVER electricuting people.
3.if this was realy a therapy a way to not just protect people but change people than why is it not used everywhere


The SIBIS method, used at a point in time at the JRC, before they developed a different system, is still used across the country in school systems to prevent the self-injurious behavior of head banging, by students on a voluntary basis.

I provided evidence for that earlier in the thread. It is used in Michigan as well as other states.

The JRC went to a stronger method of skin-shock, because the pain stimulus provided by the SIBIS skin-shock method was not strong enough to avert the self-injurious behavior.

My point in the discussion, is, that if skin-shock therapy is outlawed across the country it will also outlaw the use of SIBIS in the school system where the students voluntarily use the procedure to control their head banging.

The question is, whether some people agree with the treatment as defensible, on a personal basis, should those students right to the use of a treatment of last resort, that works for them, be taken away, when they have not abused it, on a personal basis?

Under what conditions is their consent obtained? I would argue if a mentally disabled child really wants their therapist to give them a painful shock every time they bang their head they should have that right...I just fail to see how it is theraputic and I fear in many cases the child might not actually understand what it is they are consenting to.

Do they stop the procedure if the child starts experiencing distress or do they keep it going regardless?


I don't like ECT either, but it has saved people's lives as a measure of last resort, also.

It was also a therapy that was abused in the past, that is now tightly controlled through the medical and legal systems.

Should those rights be taken away, also, because the therapy has been abused in the past, and some people don't like it?

The same organizations that are pushing to close the JRC down, want to see all skin-shock therapy outlawed across the country, to ensure that the JRC organization, or those like it cannot establish themselves in another state, if the Massachussetts bans skin-shock therapy, in an election.

So, is it fair that those students in Michigan would have their voluntary rights taken away to use SIBIS in the school system, if the organizations are successful in their efforts to completely outlaw skin-shocks nationwide?



ECT should not even be in this discussion as ECT involves small amount electricity being passed through the brain to stimulate certain areas of the brain to help patients with extreme depression feel better when every other method has failed and the patient consents. Sedation of course is included now days so you don't have to have three mental hospital nurses holding the patient down so they don't break their bones due to convulsions. That is hardly the same thing as giving a shock every time a behavior that they are trying to stop happens. So like I said two totally different things. I never said I had a problem with ECT, I would not want it done to me but that's me not everyone else.

My concern is children being hurt against their will in the name of improvement, which is what based on all the information in this thread is what it seemed like was occuring at JRC.


The SIBIS system is used on a voluntary basis in states where it is legal. As detailed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Injurious_Behavior_Inhibiting_System

Quote:
1.The participant must be fully aware as to what he or she is consenting and the implications it may incur.
2.The participant must be competent and capable of making decisions regarding his or her health.
3.The participant must voluntarily consent to the treatment method without coercion or intimidation.



The students can stop the therapy whenever they want to. But if they are attempting to harm themselves other methods will be used to stop the behavior whether it is restraint or drugs. The SIBIS method gives the students a choice, that they would not have, if the SIBIS method were not available.

I am sorry if I was not expressing my point clearly, but I can see from your response that you understand this specific issue, and would not want to take the rights from the student to use the procedure, as long as it was within their control to stop it, which it is.

I was using ECT as an analogy of a similiar therapy, that is controversial, that some people believe is inhumane and should be outlawed.

While it is not the same exact therapy the issue is the same in regard to the usage of skin-shock therapy, as applied legally and appropriately in other areas of the country through the SIBIS method.

We can all agree that the abuses of the therapy at the JRC requires restrictive action, however the actions against the JRC supported by organizations, includes outlawing the appropriate and recommended use of SIBIS everywhere else.

I wanted to see if people here believed that those other individuals should lose rights to their treatments because of the abuses at the JRC.

And, while the videos at the JRC were destroyed to hide abuses there, under the law, parents have the right to access the videos, and choose to terminate the skin-shock therapy on their children, if they no longer feel that it is helping their children.

I had no idea of the other contigencies involved for individuals across the country, until I researched the issue.

Most opinions have made it sound like the JRC was the only place that the skin-shock therapy is used, and don't explore the other side of the story. In every controversial issue there is another side of the story that should be objectively explored.

Otherwise, some people can lose their rights and potentially their life as a result of legal actions, while others are protected from harm.



Woofer123
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

18 Mar 2012, 12:56 am

If I was in charge I would torture the little nazis who were in charge of JRC and responsible in the most grisly manners I could conceive of. I would the same to all those police nowadays who intimidate and kill/injure autistic kids.