do we have enough people to influence media coverage?

Post Reply New Topic

I've been on a JRC research binge fueled by outrage, and my outrage is being fueled by a general lack of outrage. Why isn't the alleged torture of American citizens being covered in the mainstream media?

I've been getting started on an angry (but civil) letter writing campaign. I want to see this story covered in the NY Times and every other important news media organization--I'm a citizen and feel strongly that my country shouldn't support torture of children with taxpayer money. How many letters before they cover the story? With so many over-educated, underemployed aspies around, you'd think we'd be able to put this controversy into the public eye. If it doesn't get coverage, the chance of it getting brushed under the carpet grows. What do you all think?

For anyone unfamiliar with the story, here's a link to the report and an intro: http://www.mdri.org/

April 29, 2010 - Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) has found children and adults with disabilities tortured and abused at a “special needs” residential facility in Massachusetts and has filed an “urgent appeal” with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture to demand the United States government end the torture immediately.
----- MDRI’s latest report, Torture not Treatment: Electric Shock and Long-Term Restraint in the United States on Children and Adults with Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC), documents the use of electric shocks on the legs, arms, torsos and soles of feet of people with disabilities – for weeks, months and sometimes years.

About the US Department of Justice investigation that was initiated at the request of 30 disability rights organizations:
http://www.educationnews.org/ednews_today/59610.html

I hear you. I'm just so depressed, I don't know how to be outraged any more.

I just don't understand how people have let this go on for so long. What's with these parents? There seems to be a societal problem with viewpoints toward disabilities that propells these types of institutions. I say that the more we educate the public that we need acceptance and accommodations instead of rehabilitation (like criminals), the less these things will happen.

It sounds to me like the JRC has a lot of powerful, wealthy people on their side. The only way to overcome the pressures of powerful, wealthy people seems to be media awareness. They get away with it because people let them.

I don't understand all the political details (and I gather there are a lot), but apparently JRC has connections with people in high places in the state legislature. There was something that would've done something, that was either voted down or blocked (in the state legislature) by one representative -- who had a child at JRC.

Also, JRC has apparently ruined the careers of some people. There was someone who was head of an organization connected to MR (I think), who challenged JRC, and through political maneuvering Mathew Israel (who runs JRC) had that person removed from their job (I think it was a state run/funded organization). So JRC is dangerous; they fight back, and don't care about "fair." (big surprise, huh?)

I wish I could remember the details more clearly (or any dang links). It was info that was on the web, though. If I can find/remember I'll try to post them.

Oh also, they're good with the media. They have their comebacks lined up and ready, and various parents willing to write letters to defend them.

One example is something like, "This child required surgery because he head banged until he split his skull open. In the hospital, he got loose and banged it, ripping out his sutures. Now he doesn't head bang anymore. If it weren't for JRC he would be dead." The point being these arguments can take time and effort to deconstruct:

1) Not all the kids at JRC, not even a majority, have self-injury that bad (or at all). Many are there for completely different (and questionable) reasons.

2) That dramatic example makes things like the electrical shock devices not seem so bad ("well, if it's the only thing that works, and it's life-or-death...").

3) People forget to ask whether anything else was tried.

And so on.

Here's an example, of Dr. Israel himself replying on someone's blog in the comments. It's a rebuttal to the UN humans rights abuse charge. If you write an op-ed or something this is one of the kinds of responses you're up against. It's kind of amazing that he's even paying attention to Joe Blow's blog, and bothers to respond. I'm mentioning this to be discouraging, but to show that they are "pro's" and probably partly explains why they haven't been taken down after so many years. Israel makes much of his of his being an "expert/doctor," and cites things making his stance seem very "scientific" (like eugenics was/is "scientific").

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.c ... gated.html

Over here ECT is used rarely, in very controlled circumstances, as an absolute last ditch, and in such a comforting environment that its almost cosy. Disturbing to think that the US government is happy to allow such brutality to continue unopposed, in a fashion not far removed from witch-burning. Will they not be rolling over the "compound" in tanks any time soon, like they do with the religious cults who may or may not be abusing children? Or does that only happen when firearms, booze or cigarettes involved?

Here's a good article about the history of trying to get JRC shut down (for 20 years):

http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/08 ... srael-down

Oh also, JRC doesn't use ECT: with ECT people are put to sleep then shocked to induce a seizure. At JRC they use a "GED" ("graduated electrical decellerator") device to deliver shock to the arm, leg, torso, for the purpose of causing pain. This is "aversive therapy."

You could, of course, try to figure out why a child is behaving in such a manner. You could then attempt to tackle the root cause. Like, do they have sensory issues? Are they in so much emotional pain that they need to do something, and physical pain is the only thing that will help? Do they have CIPA? Is it a compulsion?

The difference between the JRC and most medical procedures is choice. I can choose whether to go to the dentist or let my teeth rot. It may not be much of a choice, but I can choose, and I can choose the time of my visit as well. I may be constrained by my schedule into choosing from a limited number of times, but I have some choice. And if I communicate to my dentist that I'm in too much pain, he stops. No, you can not compare the JRC's methods to that. (Well, you can, if you're comparing it to the many highly sadistic, ineffective "therapies" intended to make the doctor rich. Otherwise, however, it's not even in the same ballpark.)

That's a really good reason to listen to them.



The problems with this quote are these: (1) you use incorrect grammar; (2) there is nothing wrong with parents being the ones to raise their own children, so that shouldn't even be on this list as a terrible boogeyman alternative to your nice behaviorist heaven; and (3) you assume that all of these behaviors are the problem, rather than a symptom of the problem.



Incompetence? Bribes? Laziness? Misinformation? Prejudice against the disabled?



I assume because they're desperate, misinformed, sleep-deprived (hence, mentally fuzzy) or maybe not so loving after all. Or they're too busy. I can think of plenty of completely understandable reasons why a good person would do a terrible thing. As a writer, I spend a lot of time thinking of such reasons. I can immediately concoct a scenario in which I can do nothing but sympathize with such a parent, even though the act is wrong.

Not just wrong.

Evil.

And further, I take issue with the idea that any benefit seen from the use of aversives is actually a benefit you want. Don't you want your child to grow up to be independent and discerning? To resist peer pressure?

So naturally, you break down their resistance, forcing them to do whatever they're told, immediately.

bolding by me

Usually there is nothing wrong with parents being the ones to raise their own children but there are exceptions. This is one of the exceptions. Becoming a parent does not automatically mean that a parent is equipped to deal with lterally everything a child may do nor does it mean that their home is the safest place for a child to be- especially once the child becomes an adult. Do you think your mom would be able to stop a man in his 20's who was intent on injuring himself? I doubt it. She simply wouldn't be strong enough. Good thing that man isn't your brother and it hasn't been mandated that she must. Remember that they are talking about people (adults, in the examples) whose behaviour is so out of control and dangerous that ordinary residential institutions can't cope with it. If trained professionals with locked wards can't cope with it, why do you think parents can just because they had a child 20 years ago? In this case, "can't cope with it" doesn't mean they are a little stressed out. It means somebody gets hurt- probably everybody involved gets hurt; the (adult) child who hurts himself badly and the parents who get hurt as they try and fail to intervene.

There has to be a better way than these ruinous and cruel aversives or the things in that list. (Although to be fair to option #1-positive interventions, it really is a good thing, its only downside being that it won't reach 40-50% of the people who need help. And to be fair to option #3, warehousing sounds a lot better than torturous electric shocks). One thing not on that list is hard-to-remove protective gear which many places use: hard-to-remove mittens which prevent eye gouging and face mutilation, helmets (this is standard), arm guards, padded surfaces of the living area. Those aren't mentioned in the list and I don't know why not. There are many, many residential treatment homes and institutions all over the U.S. that handle self-injuring people and they do it without these aversives so it must be possible. But believe me, turning it back to the parents because the trained professionals can't handle it just means there will be a tragedy in the near future when the parents are unable to prevent the dangerous behaviours.

The absolute best possible thing(as you said) is to try to figure out the root of the behaviour and address that. This comes under option #1, positive treatment. Maybe the person who self-bites needs rubber chewys, maybe the person who tries to tear his ears off needs noise-cancelling headphones and so on. As they say, this approach works with 50-60% of the people. I should hope that this approach was already tried at length and failed. I should hope. But Dr. Israel seems absolutely hell-bent on sticking to shocks so maybe they don't bother with rubber chewys, noise cancelling headphones, or any other benign intervention that tries to ease the need. It's hard to tell.

In any case, it seems we're all agreed that this must not be allowed and yet he continues to use shocks despite a constant legal battle to get him to stop. But I stand by my disagreement that parents are able to handle such extreme behaviours just by virtue of being parents.

Thanks for all of your responses.

I e-mailed a shrink who blogs and recently published a book critical of psychiatry's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe the best way to draw attention to the JRC is to sic their own kind on them. It certainly makes their profession look bad, so it would be in their own best interest to exert some sort of peer pressure, Psychiatry has been wrong before--take "drapetomania," the mental illness that made black slaves run away, and the inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM until 1973. We can blackmail them with history!

I can only surmise that the apathy is a result of people's ignorance and fear of "the other"--they eat up the JRC's woo because they can't feel any empathy for us, same as with any other abused minority group in history.

Fortunately, history is on our side. I wonder how long before they figure it out?

Nightline Takes On Center

This center is going to be explored on ABC's Nightline tonight!