The Justice

grasp of the facts. Certainly the members of our group considered this before we took action. We worried we were perhaps being na've and emotional, that we were jumping to conclusions. But extensive research revealed that Israel is very much in the minority in his opinion that severe pain is an effective-and morally justifiable-way to treat children. Those who work with the disabled for a living, who have dedicated their lives to helping them, who are experts in the field, almost universally deplore aversive tactics.

Israel likes to cite success stories and testimonials in making his case for the Center. The JRC Web site boasts plenty of letters from parents, gushing about how the Center saved their lives, yet two students died under Israel's watch: Vincent Milletich, a 22-year-old autistic resident of a JRC group home in Seehonk, Mass. in 1995 and Linda Cornelison, a 19-year-old mentally disabled, non-verbal resident in 1990.

The problem with the JRC's "successes," however, is two-fold.

First, even if administering electric shocks successfully improves children's behavior (and that in itself is an extremely shaky assertion), the behavior has only improved because of fear and pain. This sort of treatment, even when it's effective, will cause deep-rooted psychological trauma down the road because of its exclusive reliance on jolts of electricity instead of behavioral education.

Second, the Center asserts that in every case in which a Graduated Electronic Decelerator shock device is used, parental permission is given and the treat

ment is approved by a judge. The problem is



that neither the judge nor the parents are the ones being shocked. Just as parents cannot lawfully beat their child (even if they give permission), the idea that parental permission should determine whether a child is zapped has no moral or legal grounds.

There are further reasons to be alarmed about the Center, though. The GED device used to shock students was designed and built by Matthew Israel himself, and has had no real scientific testing or approval (although it is registered with the FDA, it has never been formally recognized as an effective medical device, and its potential dangers have never been investigated). Furthermore, the lack of trained psychologists at the JRC, the Center's refusal to administer medication and the extremely secretive, highly monitored environment of the facility are all causes for concern. The Mother Jones article gives even more reasons to worry, as does the New York State Department of Education's report.

The Center, of course, disputes all of the claims made in both of these publications, as well as every disturbing revelation-and there have been many-that has come out about the Center over the past decades.

But even if what Israel and the Center say is correct-and the evidence certainly suggests it isn't-the central issue is whether it is morally acceptable to inflict great pain on disabled children. And it isn't.



The writer is a member of the Class of 2011 and Brandeis Students United Against the Judge Rotenberg Center.

< prev Page 2 of 2

Article Tools