PowerPoint Presentation On Juge Rotenburg Educational Center ✓ Solved

Powerpoint Presentation On Juge Rotenburg Educational Center

Powerpoint presentation on Juge Rotenburg Educational Center and the GED. Must provide accurate information as well as references. Attached please find the BCBA ethics code sheet in which two of the slides must provide what ethics are being violated and how. Presentation must be about 5-7 slides. Answering the following question:

1. Provide some background/context for your violation.
2. What were the ethical violations? Can you connect them to specific code guidelines?
3. What could/should have been done differently?

Paper For Above Instructions

The Juge Rotenburg Educational Center (JREC) has been a focal point in discussions about educational practices and ethical standards in the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The center has garnered both attention and criticism for its controversial methods of behavioral intervention, specifically the use of aversive techniques. This presentation aims to explore the ethical implications of such practices. The focus will be on background context regarding ethical violations, the specific guidelines violated, and potential alternatives to the methods employed at JREC.

Background/Context

The Juge Rotenburg Educational Center, located in Massachusetts, serves students with severe behaviors related to autism and other developmental disorders. The center's approach has revolved around the use of aversive interventions, including electric shock devices designed to deter harmful behavior. While these interventions aim to promote safety and reduce problematic behavior, they have raised significant ethical concerns, prompting scrutiny from parents, professionals, and advocacy groups.

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a ban on the use of such devices, asserting that they posed an unreasonable risk of harm to patients. Despite this, the center continued its use. This controversial stance has made JREC a prime case study in examining the ethical limitations of ABA practices, particularly within the framework of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) ethical guidelines.

Ethical Violations

Two primary ethical violations can be identified in the practices used at JREC: the violation of the principle of non-maleficence and the principle of informed consent. According to the BACB's Ethical Guidelines, behavior analysts must avoid causing harm to clients and should ensure that clients provide informed consent for all interventions.

1. Principle of Non-maleficence: The BACB's guidelines emphasize that interventions should not cause harm. Research indicates that the use of electric shock as a form of behavior modification can lead to physical and psychological harm (Autism Self Advocacy Network, 2012). Cases of trauma and adverse effects reported by former students highlight the breach of this ethical principle.

2. Informed Consent: Informed consent requires that clients (or guardians) are fully aware of and understand the interventions being proposed, including risks and benefits. Reports suggest that many parents were not adequately informed about the nature and potential consequences of the aversive techniques employed, raising serious ethical concerns regarding consent (National Disability Rights Network, 2014).

Connection to Specific Code Guidelines

The violations at JREC are connected to specific BACB ethical guidelines. The ethical guideline for non-maleficence appears in Section 2.0 of the BACB's Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. This section clearly states that behavior analysts must avoid actions that could harm clients directly or indirectly. The employment of electric shock devices contradicts this guideline, as it intentionally inflicts discomfort or suffering in the name of behavior modification.

Furthermore, Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the BACB ethical code outline the requirements of obtaining informed consent and maintaining transparency regarding clients' treatment. The lack of comprehensive communication about the risks associated with aversive interventions signifies a failure to uphold these ethical standards. Ethical practice in behavior analysis mandates that clients are given complete information to make informed choices regarding their interventions (BACB, 2020).

What Could/Should Have Been Done Differently

Ethical alternatives to the practices employed at JREC should emphasize positive behavioral support rather than aversive techniques. Firstly, the adoption of positive reinforcement strategies can lead to more humane and effective behavior change without causing trauma. These strategies include reinforcement for desired behaviors, clear expectations, and proactive measures to prevent problem behaviors (Horner et al., 2010).

Additionally, professionals should adopt a collaborative approach involving parents and guardians in the decision-making process. Opportunities for informed consent should be enhanced by ensuring clear communication regarding behavioral interventions, their purposes, and any potential risks involved (Dunlap et al., 2000).

Training for staff and ongoing education regarding ethical practices in behavior analysis must be prioritized. Continuous professional development can facilitate understanding of ethical standards and better equip staff with tools for implementing successful interventions that align with the core principles of ABA (BACB, 2020).

Conclusion

The ethical violations observed at the Juge Rotenburg Educational Center serve as a critical reminder of the need for adherence to ethical standards in behavior analysis. By recognizing the harmful implications of aversive techniques and opting for evidence-based positive interventions, professionals can work towards more ethical outcomes for vulnerable populations. In fostering transparency, collaboration, and ongoing education, the field of ABA can evolve toward practices that genuinely promote the welfare of individuals with developmental disabilities.

References

• Autism Self Advocacy Network. (2012). Stop the shock: An analysis of the use of aversive interventions for individuals with disabilities.
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts.
• Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Glang, A. (2000). Positive behavior support in schools: A guide to getting started.
• Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 94-103.
• National Disability Rights Network. (2014). Out of the shadows: The treatment of individuals with disabilities in residential facilities.
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming individuals.
• National Institute of Mental Health. (2021). Autism spectrum disorder.
• Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. (2021). Advancing the science of autism spectrum disorders.
• United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
• Schwartz, I., & Thorne, B. (2006). Behavioral interventions in schools: Examples of practice.