Preamble
Children with challenging behavior might pose a danger to themselves or to others. You might have been informed about the challenge of aggressive behavior and the resulting injuries such as lacerations on the students and broken fingers of the teachers as well as the problem of student elopement. There is a proposal to use electric shock devices as an aversion and behavior control technique. This technique is used in other schools in different states. This technique has also gained interest from both side of the argument divide. In advising on the use of the electric shock device an aversion technique and a behavior control procedure, and in preparation for your response to the school, I shall perform a risk benefit analysis as well as employ the ethical principles from the code of ethics ratified by the Association of Behavior Analysts.
Likelihood for Success
The risk-benefit analysis of the use of electric shock devices in controlling the challenging behavior considers four factors as recommended by Bailey & Burch (2016). The four factors include the probability that the treatment procedure will succeed in controlling behavior. The experiment performed by Linscheid, Iwata, Ricketts, Williams & Griffin, J. (1990) showed that the use of electric shock devices was relatively successful in controlling the behavior. For instance, the baseline data collected by Linscheid et al., (1990) showed that Diane, the subject of the experiment, exhibited self-injurious behavior 142 times in the seven months leading to the experiment.
The follow up data after the termination of the experiment showed that Diane exhibited the self-injurious behavior on 61 episodes. These episodes were exhibited when the subject had removed the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system. The prevalence of the restraint use before the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system was 20.3 episodes every month. After the initiation of the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system, the prevalence of restraint use reduced significantly to 3.3 episodes every month.
Distress to the Subject
The other element to be considered is the distress that the use of the electric shock devices in controlling the self-injurious behavior causes the subject. Linscheid et al., (1990) reported that the use of electric shock device to control the self injurious behavior is intrusive. Even though the electric shock is transmitted to from the electric shock device to the subject in a fraction of a second, the sensation is still disconcerting. It is this argument that fuels the concern by Linscheid et al., (1990) that there is a potential for misuse. This is the case when the teachers are dealing with a student who is particularly troublesome.
In an effort to curb his behavior, teachers may overuse the electric shock device which will in turn cause discomfort to the student. This is also the case when the application of the electric shock device is done for extended periods because the student does not show signs of improvement. In this respect, Linscheid et al., (1990) warns that the electric shock device is not a replacement for other treatment approaches such as behavior assessment and treatment. Despite the effectiveness of the procedure in the experiment he performed as well as the absence of significant side effects, the scholars still warn that the use of this device should be a last resolve when all other approaches and techniques had failed to produce the desired effect.
Distress Caused by the Self-Injurious Behavior
The other factor to consider is the distress that the self injurious behavior causes to the subject. In the experiment performed by Linscheid et al., (1990), the self injurious behavior of one of the subjects was banging their head on objects such as desks. This behavior presents many risks for the student. Besides the physical lacerations that might occur, this behavior could also lead to concussions and other head injuries. In the information sheet given by the headmaster, the rational for the request to use the electric shock device was to control aggressive behaviors among the students that led to injuries such as the broken fingers of teachers and lacerations, and also student elopement.
Ethical Perspectives
References
BACB Board. (2014). Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. Retrieved from http://bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/160321-compliance-code- english.pdf
Bailey, J. and Burch, M. (2006). Ethics for behavior analysts. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Bailey, J. and Burch, M. (2011). Ethics for behavior analysts: 2nd expanded edition. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Bailey, J. and Burch, M. (2013). Ethics for behavior analysts. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Bailey, J. And Burch, M. (2016). Ethics for Behavior Analysts. London. Routledge.
Linscheid, T., Iwata, B., Ricketts, R., Williams, D., and Griffin, J. (1990). Clinical evaluation of the self-injurious behavior Inhibiting system (SIBIS). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 23:53-78.
